Respect for Marriage Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the impact ObamaCare is having on the people of my State, the State of New Hampshire. It has been over 1 month since the health care exchanges opened, and in that short time we have already seen so many problems with ObamaCare. Frankly, it is a mess.

The failure of healthcare.gov is a travesty that has revealed deeply troubling incompetence in terms of implementing a Web site that people can use and have access to and is secure and protects their private information. Frankly, we are in a position where the Web site is merely the canary in the coal mine. The flaws in this law are much deeper than the Web site.

Even former supporters of ObamaCare are telling me it is not working. I am hearing from my constituents about this, and frankly I feel very badly for them because so much of what is happening to them is as a result of how the law was drafted years ago.

For example, I heard from Maryanne in Lisbon, NH. She said:

We hope this would be a solution. But instead it will be

more of a financial drain.

The American people are the ones who are paying the price right now. They are getting cancellation notices, seeing their premiums go up, and losing their doctors.

Workers are suffering. Many of them have seen their hours cut to 29 hours because of an arbitrary mandate defining full-time workers as those who work 30 hours a week. Others are fearful they will lose their employer-sponsored coverage altogether. Business owners remain reluctant to expand--worried they will trigger the looming penalties from ObamaCare.

Most tragically, we now know that the law was sold to the American people under false pretenses. The President said: ``If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.''

In fact, yesterday we checked the Web site and that claim is still on there. I am hearing every day from New Hampshire residents who are telling me they are seeing their health insurance policies canceled. In fact, in the newspaper this morning there was a headline in New Hampshire that announced that about 22,000 individuals will see coverage canceled at the end of the year.

Granite Staters have been writing to me. I wish to share their concerns with the entire country because I know this is not just happening to people in New Hampshire, but these are the real people who are being affected by ObamaCare.

Lynn in Greenland wrote:

The President was wrong. I can't keep my coverage if I like

it and I can't keep my preferred hospital and his plans are

the ones that are subpar . . . it's bringing me to tears on a

daily basis. Please help.

Edward in Marlow is self-employed. I feel so badly when I receive letters such as this. He has a rare disease and a high-deductible plan. He wrote:

I received a notice from Anthem last week that they will be

canceling this policy. Is this what President Obama meant

when he said no one who currently has their own policy and

likes it will lose it. . . . I am devastated that I will now

have to go out and secure another policy somewhere which

could cost me significantly more.

Jennifer in Canaan wrote:

I received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross stating that my

current health insurance plan was being discontinued because

it did not conform to the law under the Affordable Care Act.

In other words, the plan I was promised I could keep was made

illegal by Washington politicians.

Michael in Atkinson said:

Kelly, we have been told this would expand options. The

fact is we are now being told what we can and what we cannot

do and where we can go. To say that I am upset would not

begin to describe how I feel.

Richard in Alton Bay said:

I am a small business owner in New Hampshire and have been

with my health insurance provider for over 10 years. I was

recently informed that the policy I have had for all of these

years (and I like quite a bit) will be canceled due to the

provisions in Obamacare. When I contacted the company, they

said they are planning to transition me into a plan that

costs more and offers substantially less benefits and

protection than my original plan. . . . I am outraged at

this. . . .

Jamie in Littleton wrote:

Today we received a letter from Anthem Blue Cross stating

my husband's individual health care plan, which he's had for

15 years, will be changing to conform to ACA laws and will no

longer be in effect come September 1, 2014.

Louis in Sunapee wrote:

What just happened? I received a cancellation notice from

my insurance company . . . and the coverage I am eligible for

is MORE expensive? Help me!

President Obama has made the promise that ``if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.''

For those who are seeing their plans canceled, we know that is simply not the case. There is another issue that New Hampshire is facing, and that is a matter of choice in keeping not only the doctor you want to keep but also going to the hospital you want to go to. In New Hampshire, there is only one insurer who is going to participate on the exchanges at this point, and to keep costs down, the insurer has decided to limit its network, so 10 of our 26 acute care hospitals are not part of the exchange and are excluded.

For example, the capital of New Hampshire is Concord. One of the hospitals that has been excluded is Concord Hospital. I worked in Concord for years. Concord Hospital is going to be excluded. All the people in that area

who rely on that hospital and had their children and treatments there will now be excluded if they are on the exchanges. This is a real impact on people's lives, and I feel very badly for my constituents.

A doctor in Peterborough said he was once a supporter of ObamaCare. He described the consequences simply. In a letter to me he said his patients have one of three terrible options now, and that is because the hospital in his area has been excluded from the exchange.

First, they can switch doctors and drive a considerable distance to a hospital that Anthem does include in the exchange; two, they can purchase insurance outside of the exchange at considerably higher rates than they could this year; or, three, they can stick with their current doctor, risk having no insurance and pay the government a penalty for being uninsured.

With the hospital he is associated with excluded from the exchange, he said, it is the ``Less Affordable Care Act'' for his patients. This doctor gave me a troubling practical effect of what his hospital being left out would mean for his patients.

He used this example:

Consider the pregnant woman who has delivered all of her

current children at our hospital. She is now expecting in

February. She must now either drive our twisty New England

roads, in the dead of Winter, to a hospital 55 minutes from

her home to deliver her baby, or pay considerably higher

insurance premiums to stay where she is comfortable and safe.

He is one of numerous citizens across New Hampshire who has expressed similar concerns about local hospitals being excluded from the exchange. I wish to share some of the other concerns that have been written from my constituents.

Vicki in Seabrook wrote:

The list of doctors and medical facilities that will take

my insurance is limited and my Massachusetts doctors are not

on the list. . . . The one closest to me, Portsmouth

Hospital, is not on the list.

Kathleen in New Castle wrote:

The exchange choice will not allow me to use my docs,

including primary care who is affiliated with the Portsmouth

Hospital. All oncology physicians are located in Boston, not

covered.

Margaret in Strafford currently goes to Frisbie Memorial in Rochester, which is not part of the exchange.

She explained the impact in this way:

I would no longer be able to go to Frisbie Memorial

Hospital, which is four miles away. I could no longer see the

gynecologist whom I trust. I could no longer use the surgeon

who saved my life when emergency surgery was required. I

could no longer visit the same internist. If I were to

develop heart problems, I could no longer go to Portsmouth

Regional Hospital.

Gregory in Rochester said his primary care physician is at Frisbie. He said that means he will have to go to another hospital, he said, ``I do not know and does not know my health condition.''

Robert in Strafford said he has gone to Frisbie for 40 years. He wrote:

I've had multiple different insurance companies but have

always been able to keep the same doctors. Now because of

ObamaCare, Frisbie is out of the loop. This is totally unfair

to all the people who live in the area. What gives?

Teresa in Peterborough said that none of her current physicians, including her primary care physician and her OB/GYN, are in the exchange. She wrote:

The nearest providers in this network are 45 minutes west,

60 minutes east or 90 minutes north. This will be very costly

to me in terms of time taken off to attend appointments at

these distant offices/hospitals. And since I am self-

employed, a day off to go to the doctor is one day without

income.

A single mother also from Peterborough wrote:

If my 17-year-old son does get sick this winter, I will be

required to take a minimum of \1/2\ day off to bring my son

to Keene or Manchester to find a primary care physician who

will accept the insurance through affordable care (not that I

can even afford that route).

I am also hearing heart-wrenching stories from New Hampshire citizens about how their premiums are going up. As you know, when this law was being sold, it was sold as premiums going down, but that is not what I am hearing from my constituents.

Christopher in Rindge wrote:

My insurance is going to double on January 1, 2014. Even

the options that conform to the health act are double the

amount I am paying today. It doesn't make any sense that my

insurance would go up by double when this is called

``affordable'' health care.

Rick in Pembroke wrote:

Last year, the sum total of my family's health care cost

$2,300. . . . I have been looking at health insurance for my

family. The lowest insurance will cost $566.40 per month. The

family deductible will be $11,500. Even if I spend the same

as last year on actual health care, I will have to pay an

additional $6,800. This isn't fair and it isn't

affordable. I don't know many people who can budget for an

additional $6,800 a year.

Brendan in Sanbornton said:

I am self-employed and my wife and I pay for our health

insurance through Anthem that provides coverage for us and

our 15 month old daughter. Presently, we pay about $580 per

month for a major deductible plan with a total family

deductible of $7,500. A couple of weeks ago, we received a

letter from Anthem informing us that our ``old'' policies

don't meet the requirements of the new ACA and therefore, we

were going to be canceled. When researching new options on

Anthem's Web site, we found that our deductible was now going

to be $12,000 per year at an increased cost of about $150 per

month! We feel as though the country has been misled about

being able to `keep their current coverage.'

Holly in Charleston wrote me:

I buy an individual policy to cover myself, but my policy

went up 25 percent on October 1st and one of the reasons

stated in the letter I received from Blue Cross was to cover

the implementation of ACA. As a result, I dropped down to a

less expensive plan and guess what? I got a letter telling me

I was okay until 2014 when that plan will no longer be

available because it doesn't comply with the new rules and

regs.

I heard from Patty in New Ipswich and she said that after her insurance company told her to find a plan, she signed up for the least expensive bronze plan available. She says:

Still not only will my premium be $75 a month higher for a

total of just under $600 per month for me, but in addition to

that, I have a $5,400 annual deductible. Also, the

prescription plan that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi mandated

also has a $5,400 deductible, so effectively that is not a

prescription plan at all. In fact, this plan is basically a

very expensive catastrophic plan and nothing more. It is not

affordable and I am disgusted.

Barbara in Merrimack and her husband don't yet qualify for Medicare. Their existing plan is being phased out, so she checked the exchange. She wrote:

The product that was closest to what we currently have is

Silver and is just too expensive. The cheapest coverage we

could find is in the Bronze category and will cost $1,228.32

per month and will have a deductible of $5,950/individual and

$11,900/family. That means that all basic services and

medications will be out of pocket. Medications will be

covered at 40 percent of the copay. $1,228.32 equals

$14,739.84 per year and it is more than my mortgage!. . . .

Unlike the government, I can't raise my debt ceiling.

Anita in Sutton wrote:

What was supposed to help people like my husband and I who

are self-employed--and he has a chronic illness--only hurts

us. Our premium went up $2,287.70 per month and this is now

with a $4,000 single/$8,000 family deductible . . . nothing

like a 30 percent increase for one year . . . Having to hoist

yourself up each day and go to work and try to carry on is

hard enough with this chronic illness, now we have to pick

and choose what bills we can afford to pay . . .

Jane in Troy said she tried to enroll her son in the Federal program, and this is what she wrote to me:

The quote was $600 a month! Do you know of any 20 year old

who can afford $600 a month?

Tim in Merrimack wrote me:

Contrary to the original intent of the Affordable Care Act,

individuals who obtain insurance on their own are paying

radically escalating costs based on individual coverage for a

healthy, non-smoking 51-year old male available for January

1, 2014, on the healthcare exchange in NH, the results are as

follows: Premium--25 percent increase from $4,200 to $5,300.

Deductible--20 percent increase from $5,000 to $6,000. 82

percent increase in less than 2 years--$2,900 in June of 2012

to $5,300 in January 2014.

Then I heard from Erik in Hancock. He said he has seen a 46-percent premium hike. He wrote to me:

What has been done to our health care system? This is the

Unaffordable Care Act.

In some cases, the cost of insurance is rising because plans must include coverage for services that consumers don't want based on their individual situation or don't need based on their individual situation. For example, Jeff in Hudson says that his premiums will go up nearly 40 percent because of ObamaCare. He said:

It seems that some of the cost drivers are for coverages

which my wife and I do not need or want, but are required to

have due to the law. For instance, we must have maternity

coverage even though we do not plan

on having more children. (We are in our early 50s.) We

must have pediatric dental insurance, even though we have

no children under the age of 18.

Doug in Bedford wrote me:

The maternity issue is a trap for seniors.

Carol in Newport wrote:

Can anyone please explain to me why at 60 years of age I

need an insurance plan that requires maternity provisions?

Can anyone explain to me why I would be required to pay for

pediatric standalone dental when I have no children? Since

this is mandated by the government, why would I have to pay

an insurer fee, exchange fee, and reinsurance fee?

She said the most affordable plan she has seen has been $504.15 a month--which she can't afford--and a $6,350 out-of-pocket deductible. Carol asks:

If I cannot afford the premium, how can I afford the

deductible?

Others I have heard from are worried that their employers will drop their coverage, finding it cheaper to pay the fine than to provide coverage for their workers.

Benjamin in Greenville wrote:

My portion, currently about $5,000 a year will jump to

$20,000+ per year to maintain my current coverage. I make

``too much'' money to be subsidized. Tell me senator, where

do I find $15,000 a year, $1,250 a month, $288 a week in my

already tight budget?

He wrote me:

No more vacations. No more dance lessons for my kids. No

more family date night once a month. No more Christmas

presents.

Another theme I have heard in the letters I have received from my constituents is a feeling that those in the middle are being squeezed the most.

Donna in Newport wrote:

My employer is now canceling the company sponsored health

plan as of January 2014, which costs me $2,288 per year. In

shopping for a new plan, I am seeing the possibility of a $22

subsidy to help me with a monthly cost of $400, an increase

in my health care costs I cannot afford. I am the middle

class, a tax paying and proud American that did not ask for

this Act and now suffering because of it.

Cheryl in Acworth wrote:

Not only do I have to pay twice the premium, but it will be

post-tax--a double hit. If I was poor, I would be okay or if

I worked for a large employer I would be okay but for those

of us trying to make a good living and be responsible

productive citizens, we end up carrying this . . . This is

not the American dream at all.

Joseph in Salem wrote to me:

On September 30th I received a letter from Anthem informing

me that my new payment to keep my current plan which I have

had for over 8 years will increase $212.47 on January 1st.

That is a $2,548.80 increase for 2014. This is what ObamaCare

is doing to the middle class.

Roberta in Nashua is like many of my constituents pleading for help. She wrote:

Please hear my plea and see what you can do to allow people

like me and my husband to keep our care and not be forced

into purchasing exchange insurance which is so costly and

will be a financial hardship for us. IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE!

In addition to canceled policies, patients losing their doctors, and higher premiums, I have also heard about another aspect and consequence of ObamaCare from people who are working hard, trying to make ends meet, and those are workers who are seeing their hours cut. Under the law, employers must provide coverage for employees who work 30 hours or more per week. Many of these employers, not surprisingly, have decided to reduce hours rather than comply with this new mandate. So this is what my constituents are writing me about--these hard-working people trying to make a living.

I heard from an EMT from the Monadnock region who wrote to me and said:

My employer notified the 75 of us who work there that

effective January 1st, our hours will be cut due to

ObamaCare. So our incomes will drop and make it harder for us

to buy our own insurance.

An educator from the Upper Valley wrote:

Our school district and surrounding ones are cutting back

para-professional jobs to 29 hours. Many of these people were

full time. Instead they hired several part-time people to

cover the once full-time positions . . . Now they are no

longer entitled to any benefits. Many of these individuals

have worked 15 or more years with a school district as full-

timers.

I have heard from business owners as well. They have told me that the looming mandates in the law are causing them to think about eliminating coverage for their employees even though they don't want to do it. They want to do what is right for their employees.

Steven in Nashua wrote me:

I am a small employer. I would be very tempted to dump my

plan for my employees, give them a few extra dollars and just

get out of the health care business.

I have also heard time and time again about how looming penalties under ObamaCare are causing businesses to think twice about growing and adding new workers.

I heard from Matt on the seacoast. He wrote to me and said:

On a business level, I don't know if I will expand because

I would not be able to pay the penalties or the health

insurance for my staff members.

These are just some of the stories I am receiving from New Hampshire about hardships ObamaCare is causing for people who are working hard, who want to make ends meet, who want to keep the health care plans they have now. I feel terribly bad for these people. It breaks my heart.

I have worked hard. I have sponsored many efforts and voted to repeal this law. I have called repeatedly over the last several days for a timeout from ObamaCare. We do need a timeout because of the concerns I just talked about in this Chamber that I am hearing from my constituents and that I know many Members in this Chamber are hearing. We need the President to call a timeout.

I came to the floor several times during the government shutdown and I said it was wrong to shut down the government to try to defund ObamaCare because of the harmful impact of a government shutdown. I even took the step of calling on Members of my own party: Please, do not go forward and shut the government down.

Now it is time for the President to see the impact of this law and understand from someone who in some instances has stood up to her own party on the government shutdown--I am asking the President of the United States to hear from the people of this country who are being impacted negatively by the health care law, and I say: Call a timeout, Mr. President. It is not working. They are having difficulties with the Web site. They are worried that their personal information will not be protected on the Web site.

But, as I talked about today, the problems are much deeper, with people receiving cancellation notices, with people receiving premium hikes they cannot afford, with hours being cut for workers who want to work and make a living in this great country.

I would ask the President to call a timeout, to bring people together. This law was passed out of this Chamber on party lines. I would argue the best way to address health care in this country and to address real concerns I know people had with the status quo as well is to bring a bipartisan group together because what we are seeing now is not working.

My constituents have also taken the time to point out to me--in addition to the major problems they see with ObamaCare, they have shared a few ideas with me as well about where they think we should go from here instead of ObamaCare. I want to share those ideas as well.

Many of them agree that competition in New Hampshire is effectively nonexistent. Let's face it. We have one insurer on the exchange. One suggestion I saw--and it is one I agree with--is to allow for the purchase of insurance across State lines. Why shouldn't insurance companies have to compete on a national basis?

I also agreed with a constituent who said we need to place our focus where it belongs: crafting legislation that reduces health care costs rather than trying to create an artificial health insurance marketplace.

Another constituent wisely pointed out that there should not be a cookie-cutter set of policies, such as the ones that result in seniors purchasing coverage that includes maternity care. Instead, people should be able to shop for coverage that suits their particular needs, and we should respect that different people have different needs in health care.

There are many other ideas that I know we could work on together. These are just some of the ones my constituents have written to me, and I know they have written me other great ideas as well.

Finally, an overarching theme I have heard is that Americans are tired of

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.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about jobs-- about manufacturing jobs. As we all know, manufacturing jobs are high- quality jobs. Manufacturing jobs come with higher pay and higher benefits. Manufacturing jobs help create other local service sector jobs, and manufacturing jobs contribute more to the local economy than jobs in any other sector. Beyond that, manufacturers invest the most of any industry sector in research and development, which is critical to America's continued growth and our security as a leading innovation economy.

Last week 21 Senate colleagues and I joined in a new initiative called the Manufacturing Jobs for America to help create good manufacturing jobs here at home today and tomorrow. It has grown out of 25 Senators who have all contributed different policy ideas. This is not one big megabill with dozens of sponsors, but just one bill. Instead, it is a constellation of 40 different proposals. Some of them have already been introduced as bills, and half of those that have been introduced are bipartisan. These bills illustrate some of our best ideas about how we can work together across the aisle to provide badly needed support for our growing manufacturing sector here in the United States.

There are 4 different areas these 40 different proposals fall into, and I wanted to talk about 1 of them today. Three of them are: How do we open markets abroad? How do we strengthen America's 21st century manufacturing workforce? How do we create a long-term environment for growth through a manufacturing strategy? The fourth is: How do we ensure access to capital?

Of the four I just mentioned, I want to speak about access to capital. As any business owner knows, you cannot ensure the long-term growth and vitality of your business unless you have capital to invest--whether in research and development, new workers, new products, or new equipment to expand into new markets. Access to capital is absolutely essential to manufacturing jobs for America.

The three bills I am going to talk about today, which are part of this constellation of 40 different proposals, would each expand access to capital for manufacturers in different ways.

Let me start with the Startup Innovation Credit Act. This is an existing bipartisan bill I have introduced, along with Senators Enzi, Rubio, Blunt, and Moran, who are all Republicans, and Senators Schumer, Stabenow, and Kaine, all, like me, Democrats. Although we represent different parties, come from different parts of the country, and have different backgrounds, we have all come together to strengthen our economy and in particular to support innovation and entrepreneurship.

One way we do that now is to support private sector innovation and manufacturing through the research and development tax credit. The R&D tax credit generates new products and industries, benefiting other sectors. But there is a critical gap in the existing and longstanding R&D tax credit. It is not available to startups because they are not yet profitable. This is a tax credit you can only take if you have a tax liability and are profitable.

We worked together--Senator Enzi and I, and the other cosponsors--to fix this hole with a relatively simple tweak, and that is what the Startup Innovation Credit Act does. It allows companies to claim the R&D tax credit against their employment tax liability rather than in income tax liability--a corporate income tax liability. Supporting small innovative companies in their critical early stages of research and development could unleash further innovations and unleash greater growth that would spur good job creation for Americans in the long run.

Between 1980 and 2005, all net new jobs created in the United States were created by firms 5 years old or less. In total, that was about 40 million jobs over those 25 years. This credit is specifically designed with those new young firms in mind--those early-stage firms that are the font of the greatest source of creativity and jobs. It is limited to those companies that are 5 years old or less, and it is limited to being an offset against their W-2 liability so we can provide some access for early-stage startups to this R&D credit that encourages them to hire more folks and grow more quickly--just a part of Manufacturing Jobs for America.

The second bill I would like to talk about today is the Master Limited Partnership Parity Act. It levels the playing field as far as getting access credit. Instead of giving smaller, early-stage startup companies the same access to capital that larger, more mature firms have, this bill levels the playing field in the energy sector. It levels the playing field, in particular, for clean energy firms.

This is bipartisan as well. I introduced it with Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow as my lead cosponsor and Republican Senators Jim Moran and Lisa Murkowski. I am grateful for their persistent and engaged leadership on this bill. I am thrilled that in the last couple of days Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican Senator Susan Collins signed on as cosponsors as well.

The MLP Parity Act allows us to have an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. As I presided in my first 2 years--as I served on the Energy Committee--there are many Senators, Republican and Democrat, who think we should not pick winners and losers in technology and we should be promoting an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. This bill makes that possible in clean energy financing and in preserving a widely used tool for existing traditional energy financing. Oil and gas will play a significant role in our Nation's energy picture for the foreseeable future, but right now we don't have a level playing field between renewables and between oil and gas and pipelines.

For nearly 30 years, traditional nonrenewable sources of energy have had access to master limited partnerships. MLPs give natural gas, oil, and coal companies access to private capital at a lower cost. That is something that capital-intensive projects, such as pipelines, badly need. I would argue that alternative energy products need that as well; in fact, in some ways more than ever.

Last night I spoke to a group of board members at the National Academies of Science, and what we spoke about was how much technology has

developed and sped up in the clean energy space, but how financial innovation has not kept pace. This has held back renewable energy and investments in energy efficiency even as technology has made energy production and distribution and energy efficiency cheaper to achieve.

Expanding access through this broad bipartisan bill to low-cost, long-term capital would be an important step to letting new energy sources take off and letting them compete on a level playing field with all sources of energy. That is exactly what the MLP Parity Act intends to do.

Last but not least, I was proud to be able to join a number of other Senators in cosponsoring the Small Brew Act. Senators Cardin and Begich, Senators Collins and Murkowski, Democrats and Republicans, have worked together to give small brewers a leg up by lowering the excise tax they face on the beer they produce.

Small Brewers, such as Dogfish Head in my home State of Delaware, are big job creators in communities across the country. As Senator Cardin said on the floor earlier this year, ``While some people may think this is a bill about beer, it is really about jobs.'' And I would say jobs in manufacturing.

Small and independent brewers today employ more than 100,000 Americans and pay more than $3 billion in wages and benefits. Sam Calagione, the owner of Dogfish Head Brewery in my home State of Delaware, now employs 180 workers at their facility in Milton. Of course, what they are manufacturing is not a new or innovative or recently invented product. People have been brewing beer for thousands of years. Sam has done a remarkable job of coming up with a very broad range of different brews, and, in fact, of bringing back brews that are centuries or millennia old by recovering recipes for fantastic and tasty beers.

What I am focusing on today is about the expanse. This particular company has invested $50 million in a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility. When I recently visited, I was struck at how different it is from the beer bottling plant of the past, from what some may have seen on ``Laverne and Shirley'' or what they would imagine a traditional manufacturing plant to look like.

Those folks who work on the manufacturing line at this particular facility have to be able to use programmable logic controls. They have to be able to do quality control and math, and to communicate as a team. They have to communicate in a way that puts them at the cutting edge of advanced manufacturing. This highlights some of the biggest challenges in manufacturing. It takes a lot of money to invest in a plant and machinery in order to make them capable of competing as a modern-day plant. It takes access to capital.

We also need to change the public's perception of what manufacturing is. It is a very different place to work--a manufacturing line--than it was 20 or 50 years ago. They are safe, clean, and well lit. These are decent, high-paying jobs. If we are going to win in the global competition for manufacturing, we need to strengthen the skills and the perceptions of manufacturing across our country.

Each of the three bills I have spoken about today will help create good manufacturing jobs here in America, and I believe are ready for consideration on a bipartisan basis by this Chamber. We need to take action together on a bipartisan basis to get our economy going again.

I will remind everyone: Manufacturing jobs are not just decent jobs, not just good jobs, they are great jobs. They are the jobs of today and tomorrow. They are the jobs that sustain and build the backbone of the American middle class.

We already have all the tools in this country to ensure its growth, but if we work together and put in place stronger and better Federal policies in partnership with the private sector, we can put jets on our manufacturing sector, and it can take off and grow again.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every so often in between the crises and rancor and partisan fighting, we have an opportunity to make real progress in the Senate. This week we are considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It is a bill that will put in place basic workplace protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

It has been a big year for equality nationally and in my home State of Delaware. The Delaware General Assembly legalized same-sex marriage in May, giving every Delawarean access to the full rights and responsibilities of marriage, no matter the orientation.

A month later, Delaware's General Assembly built on its 3-year-old law by protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination, adding protections for transgender Delawareans as well. These two laws are about dignity, respect, and basic fairness for our neighbors.

Of course, a month later, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, giving all married couples across our country access to the Federal benefits they are due. This has truly been a historic year for civil rights and for our country.

For all of our progress, much remains to be done. In 29 States it is still legal to fire someone just because they are gay, just because they are lesbian, or just because they are bisexual. That means that more than 4 million Americans across those States go to work day in and day out with no protection against being fired summarily because of who they love. In 33 States, which include 5 million people, it is legal to fire someone because of their gender identity.

I thank my colleague, the Senator from Oregon, for his hard work and leading this fight here on the floor, and the Senator from Iowa for his long advocacy for this bill that should have passed years and years ago.

More than 40 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans, and almost 80 percent of transgender Americans, say they have been mistreated in the workplace because of who they are or because of who they love. Clearly there is still work for us to do.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would provide basic protections against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It is a bill that is built on our Nation's historic civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. This is about basic fairness.

The overwhelming majority of Americans--in fact, more than 80 percent--think it is already against the law to fire someone just because they are gay. Most Fortune 500 companies already have policies preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in place.

Some of Delaware's biggest employers and companies, including DuPont, Dow, Bank of America, TD Bank, Christiana Care, and the University of Delaware have led the way with their own policies to protect the rights of LGBT Delawareans and their employees.

There is real momentum behind these protections, and it is time for Congress to pass this law. Protecting Americans from discrimination is part of America's shared values, and it needs to be part of our laws as well.

No one here thinks it is OK to fire someone simply because they are African American or because they are a woman or because they are an older American. It is not OK to fire someone because they are gay or transgender either. Equality is a fundamental part of our shared American values: Do unto others; treat people with the respect and dignity with which you want them to treat you. Majorities in every State support putting these protections in place. Majorities of Democrats and of Republicans and of Independents support putting these protections in place. Majorities in every Christian denomination support putting these protections in place. The majority of small business owners surveyed support putting these protections in place.

Freedom from discrimination is a fundamental American value that we don't just share, we cherish. Why not put these protections in place now, today, to ensure that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans will be able to go to work, to earn a living, to provide for themselves and their families, without the fear of being fired just because of who they are.

The opportunity in front of every one of us is an important one. Leadership on civil rights in this Chamber has traditionally been bipartisan, and this period of partisanship on civil rights is only fairly recent and need not be permanent. In fact, this bill is cosponsored

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.

Mr. President, I so much appreciate the comments of my colleague from Delaware, first speaking to the importance of rebuilding our manufacturing sector, of creating living-wage jobs and how important that is to building the middle class and providing the foundation for families to thrive, and then speaking to the core issue we are debating today, that of ending significant discrimination against millions of American citizens. His words were well spoken, I say to the Senator from Delaware, and I thank him for his advocacy that will make this Nation work better for so many of our fellow citizens.

This issue of freedom from discrimination is a core issue of freedom. It is a core issue of liberty. It goes right to the heart of the founding of this country. Our Founders were often chafing under the heavy hand from the land they came from across the ocean, and they wanted to be able to forge their own world where they would be able to participate fully in society. So liberty and freedom became right at the heart of our founding documents.

Our Declaration of Independence says in its second paragraph:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That concept of liberty was echoed when we went to our U.S. Constitution. It started out saying, as Americans are well aware:

We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a

more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic

Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the

general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to

ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this

Constitution for the United States of America.

We, the people, sought in that year to establish a more perfect union, and we continue in our pursuit of a more perfect union--one with more complete blessings of liberty.

What, indeed, is liberty? That opportunity to participate fully in our society. This was well captured by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. He was speaking in 1965 to Howard University students at their commencement, and President Johnson said:

Freedom is the right to share fully and equally in American

society; to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to

go to school.

President Johnson continued:

It is the right to be treated in every part of our national

life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.

I think President Johnson captured well what freedom and liberty are all about, as have many of our major public citizens over time as they sought to examine this core premise of liberty and freedom and what it meant in this Nation, what it meant to create a more perfect union in this regard.

Eleanor Roosevelt spent a lot of time talking about human rights. She said:

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small

places, close to home, so close and so small that they cannot

be seen on any map of the world. Yet they are the world of

the individual person, the neighborhood he lives in, the

school or college he attends, the factory, farm or office

where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman,

and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal

dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have

meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.

Indeed, today we are very much talking about the factory, farm, and office Eleanor Roosevelt spoke about, where, if rights do not have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.

It has been long recognized that the opportunity to thrive for the individual is so fundamental to this notion of liberty and freedom, and it is also a powerful force for the good of our Nation as a whole. This is well captured by Theodore Roosevelt. He said:

Practical equality of opportunity for all citizens, when we

achieve it, has two great results. First, every man will have

a fair chance to make of himself all that in him lies, to

reach the highest point to which his capacities, unassisted

by special privilege of his own, unhampered by the special

privilege of others, can carry him; to get for himself and

his family substantially what he has earned.

Theodore Roosevelt continued:

Second, equality of opportunity means that the commonwealth

will get from every citizen the highest service of which he

is capable. No man who carries the burden of the special

privileges of another can give to the commonwealth that

service to which it is fairly entitled.

Theodore Roosevelt was speaking in the masculine, but he was talking about all citizens--men and women--equality of opportunity for the individual and for the benefit of society.

Senator Ted Kennedy summarized this concept much more succinctly. He did so on August 5, 2009, when the bill that is before this body was introduced in that year, the 2009 version. He said:

The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as

justice is denied to even one among us.

So, again, the success of the individual in gaining full access to liberty and freedom, full opportunity to participate in society, builds a stronger community, a stronger State, and a stronger Nation.

The bill we have before us today is a simple concept: That an individual can pursue that place on the farm or in the factory or in the office without discrimination; that the LGBT citizen has full opportunity to fulfill their potential in the workplace.

Religious groups from across America have weighed in to say how important and valuable that is. Here is a sign-on letter--a letter that is signed by approximately 60 religious groups across America. It is addressed to each of us in this Chamber.

Dear Senator: On behalf of our organizations, representing

a diverse group of faith traditions and religious beliefs, we

urge you to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As

a nation, we cannot tolerate arbitrary discrimination against

millions of Americans just because of who they are. Lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender people should be able to earn

a living, provide for their families, and contribute to our

society without fear that who they are or who they love could

cost them a job. ENDA is a measured, commonsense solution

that will ensure workers are judged on their merits, not on

their personal characteristics like sexual orientation or

gender identity. We call on you to pass this important

legislation without delay.

This letter from these roughly 60 religious organizations continues:

Many of our religious texts speak to the important and

sacred nature of work . . . and demand in the strongest

possible terms the protection of all workers as a matter of

justice. Our faith leaders and congregations grapple with the

difficulties of lost jobs every day, particularly in these

difficult economic times. It is indefensible that, while

sharing every American's concerns about the health of our

economy, LGBT workers must also fear for their job security

for reasons completely unrelated to their job performance.

Our faith traditions, the letter continues, hold different

and sometimes evolving beliefs about the nature of human

sexuality and marriage as well as gender identity and gender

expression, but we can all agree on the fundamental premise

that every human being is entitled to be treated with dignity

and respect in the workplace. In addition, any claims that

ENDA harms religious liberty are misplaced. ENDA broadly

exempts from its scope houses of worship as well as

religiously affiliated organizations. This exemption--which

covers the same religious organizations already exempted from

the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964--should ensure that religious

freedom concerns don't hinder the passage of this critical

legislation.

Then this letter concludes:

We urge Congress to swiftly pass the Employment Non-

Discrimination Act so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender Americans have an equal opportunity to earn a

living and provide for themselves and their families.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the sign-on list associated with this letter.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is a list that Americans will well be familiar with, including Methodist groups, Lutheran groups, Jewish groups, and so on and so forth, from the spectrum of Protestant religions, Christian religions, and other religions. It is powerful and helpful that they have written to share their perspectives, and I thank them for doing so.

Business coalitions have also weighed in. I have here a letter from the Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness. Their letter is much shorter. It is signed by approximately 120 companies. I will read it for my colleagues now. It says:

The majority of United States businesses have already

started addressing workplace fairness for lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender employees. But we need a federal

standard that treats all employees the same way.

The Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness is a group of

leading U.S. employers that support the Employment Non-

Discrimination Act, a federal bill that would provide the

same basic protections that are already afforded to workers

across the country.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees are not

protected under federal law from being fired, refused work or

otherwise discriminated against. ENDA would do just that.

These are companies that include American Eagle Outfitters to Morgan Stanley, Charles Schwab to Nike, General Mills to Xerox, and Hilton Worldwide to Apple, and so on and so forth.

Speaking of Apple, it might be interesting to hear the perspectives of the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook. He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and here is what he had to say. This was published, by the way, on November 3, just a few days ago. He said:

Long before I started work as the CEO of Apple, I became

aware of a fundamental truth: People are much more willing to

give of themselves when they feel that their selves are being

fully recognized and embraced.

At Apple, we try to make sure people understand that they

don't have to check their identity at the door. We're

committed to creating a safe and welcoming workplace for all

employees, regardless of their race, gender, nationality or

sexual orientation.

As we see it, embracing people's individuality is a matter

of basic human dignity and civil rights.

Tim Cook continues:

It also turns out to be great for the creativity that

drives our business. We've found that when people feel valued

for who they are, they have the comfort and confidence to do

the best work of their lives.

Apple's antidiscrimination policy goes beyond the legal

protections U.S. workers currently enjoy under federal law,

most notably because we prohibit discrimination against

Apple's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.

A bill now before the U.S. Senate--

Of course, this bill we are currently debating--

would update those employment laws, at long last, to protect

workers against discrimination based on sexual orientation

and gender identity.

We urge Senators to support the Employment

Nondiscrimination Act, and we challenge the House of

Representatives to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Protections that promote equality and diversity should not

be conditional on someone's sexual orientation. For too long,

too many people have had to hide that part of their identity

in the workplace.

Those who have suffered discrimination have paid the

greatest price for this lack of legal protection. But

ultimately we all pay a price.

If our coworkers cannot be themselves in the workplace,

they certainly cannot be their best selves. When that

happens, we undermine people's potential and deny ourselves

and our society the full benefits of those individuals'

talents.

So long as the law remains silent on the workplace rights

of gay and lesbian Americans, we as a nation are effectively

consenting to discrimination against them.

Congress should seize the opportunity to strike a blow

against such intolerance by approving the Employment

Nondiscrimination Act.

Again, that is a letter from Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, published in the Wall Street Journal.

So we see this long arch in pursuit of a vision of liberty and freedom, from our early settlers of North America, to the Declaration of Independence, to the opening words of our U.S. Constitution, to our leaders through a scope of time who recognized the power of liberty in fulfilling the potential of the individual and the potential of the Nation, to our current religious leaders and our current business leaders. It is time we take another bold stride in this long journey toward freedom and liberty for all Americans. In that regard, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation before us. It will make a difference in millions of lives, and it will make a difference in the strength and character of our Nation.

Thank you.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I 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 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.