A joint resolution relating to the approval of the proposed Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Concerning the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

Mr. President, I just returned from spending a weekend in my home State of Wyoming, traveling around the State and visiting with people in Natrona County and Casper as well as in Rock Springs, WY. I attended a marvelous event held every year in Sweetwater County called Cowboys Against Cancer. There were 700 people there to celebrate successes and remember those whom we have lost in these battles. I was there along with Senator Enzi as well as our Governor and others talking about an issue facing the Nation--an issue, of course, that is on everyone's mind--the health care law. This has been a very rough 5 weeks for hard-working Americans who are concerned about their health, and this obviously came up for significant discussion at the Cowboys Against Cancer event Saturday night in Wyoming.

Many people were hoping the Democrats' health care law would actually help decrease costs; that it would actually help increase access to quality health care. But all America knows that hasn't happened. On October 1, the Obama administration launched its health care exchange. This was to be the biggest moment of the President's signature achievement in office. It was one where people were looking forward to the opening of the exchanges, and it flopped. It completely flopped. The Web site crashed and fell right on the heads of the people who were already anxious about their health care. People all across the country saw this collapse, and even the late-night comedians have made a lot of jokes about the incompetence and the mismanagement of the Obama administration.

But I have to say the failure of the exchange is no laughing matter, because this is much more than a failed Web site. Real people are facing real health care problems and are being hurt because of this administration's failed health care law. Because of this law, millions of people are getting letters saying their insurance has been canceled. I talked to some of them this past weekend in Wyoming. There are at least 3\1/2\ million people impacted by this across the country, and the number continues to climb every day. The Obama administration says that is no big deal. They say only 3\1/2\ million people are losing the insurance plans they have now. But this administration's goal--their goal--was just 7 million people covered in the exchanges. So why does the White House think 3\1/2\ million Americans losing their coverage is no big deal when their goal this year was to cover 7 million Americans?

President Obama and Democrats in Congress promised over and over: If

you like your insurance, you can keep it. But that wasn't true. The Washington Post Fact Checker looked into the President's claim. These are the folks who decide if something is truthful or not truthful. They gave the President the full four Pinocchios for completely false claims.

The Fact Checker wrote:

The President's promise apparently came with a very large

caveat: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able

to keep your health care plan--if we deem it to be

adequate.''

Well, the President never said that. If the White House had been honest about people losing their health insurance, this law would never have passed. But the law did pass and people across the country are learning how much it is going to actually hurt them personally.

For millions of people who are losing the insurance they have, they are finding the options available under the Democrats' health care law much more limited and much more expensive. The rates are higher, the deductibles are higher, their copays are higher. It is not the kind of reform people wanted or needed, but that is what the Washington Democrats gave them.

The cost increases and the canceled insurance policies are just the beginning. A lot of people are now starting to realize they are no longer going to have access to their family's doctor. It wasn't supposed to happen this way. President Obama said this in 2009:

We will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you

will be able to keep your doctor. Period.

That is what President Obama said. If the White House had been honest about how many families were going to lose access to their doctors, this health care law would never have passed. But the White House did make that promise, Democrats did pass that law, and American families all across the country are suffering as a result.

Coming back from Wyoming this morning I picked up USA Today. The editorial page of this newspaper supported the President's health care law, but their view today is:

Coverage cancellations belie Obama's promise. Obamacare is

starting to resemble a patient bleeding from self-inflicted

wounds. A month after launch, the online health exchanges

where individuals are supposed to shop for insurance remain

slow or unusable, except in states that opted to run their

own marketplaces and did a more competent job than the

administration.

States were more competent than the administration.

Continuing to quote the article:

As if that weren't trouble enough, critics are justifiably

mocking President Obama for his repeated, untrue promise that

if people liked their health plans, they could keep them.

The editorial on the opinion page of today's USA Today says:

Oops. Hundreds of thousands of people are getting

termination notices from plans that don't meet the strict new

requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Presumably, not all

those people disliked their plans.

Referring to the President, they go on to say:

Now he can't seem to admit he overpromised and

oversimplified. He and his aides compound their credibility

problem by suggesting that people whose plans are being

canceled ``just shop around in the new marketplace''--a

laughable impossibility while HealthCare.gov is plagued by

bugs.

So that is what I read in this morning's USA Today as I was coming back from Wyoming. Then I picked up the Wall Street Journal and turned to another column, and this is a guest column: ``You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor.''

You also can't keep your doctor. And there is a little subheadline that reads: ``I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.''

I am sorry the Senate Chamber isn't full of all those people who voted for this health care law as this woman worries how long she will live. The Wall Street Journal says it is an absolutely devastating piece by one woman who is suffering because of the health care law. Her name is Edie Littlefield Sundby. She wrote about her experience fighting stage 4 gallbladder cancer. She had a health care plan with affordable access to good doctors who she points out saved her life.

As a doctor, I will tell you stage 4 gallbladder cancer has a very small chance of success and survival. She has beaten the odds because of those taking care of her. But now she has been told that the plan she has is being canceled because of the President's health care law. Here is what she wrote:

What happened to the President's promise, you can keep your

health plan? Or the promise that, you can keep your doctor?

Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-

class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a

world-class physician.

She has had some of the best physicians in the world--MD Anderson in Texas and California at Stanford, as well as in her home community of San Diego.

Washington Democrats knew their law would harm people such as Edie Littlefield Sundby who writes today in the Wall Street Journal. They knew that people like her all across the country would lose their insurance and lose their doctors. They just didn't want the American people to know it.

It was in the regulations that they wrote and they supported. The issue has to do with a section of the health care law that says that anyone who had an insurance policy on March 23, 2010, and continued to renew it, could keep it even after the ObamaCare exchange is launched. It is called a grandfather clause, and it is to protect people from the law's new rules and mandates--to let people, if they had something they liked, keep what they had.

But less than 3 months after the President signed his health care law, the administration issued a regulation setting very specific criteria these health plans had to meet in order to be grandfathered. The regulation dismantled the section of the law by placing unreasonably tight restrictions on grandfathered policies. Now, any routine change made to a grandfathered insurance plan immediately breaks the Democrats' promise that Americans can keep their health insurance.

A lot of consumers want the freedom and flexibility to increase their plan deductible, or copayments, rather than face a higher monthly premium. It is natural that people want to do it--with their health insurance, car insurance, or homeowners insurance. Looking and making decisions for you and your family is just part of being responsible. The Obama administration's regulations took away that choice.

Republicans saw this train wreck coming, and we tried to stop it. My colleague Senator Enzi from Wyoming in 2010 brought S.J. Res. 39 to this floor. This was a Resolution of Disapproval, which would have immediately overturned the administration's burdensome grandfather regulations.

What Senator Enzi brought to the floor for a vote of the entire body would have, if passed, allowed everyone to keep the insurance they had if they liked it--basically, to uphold the President's promise.

Republicans supported this resolution. Senate Democrats voted against it in lockstep. Absolutely every one of them said no. They kept the regulation on the books and made sure people would not be able to keep the insurance policy they had if they liked it.

Now Democrats don't want to hear about people like Edie with stage 4 gallbladder cancer. Republicans do want to hear about people like her-- people who are losing their coverage because of this health care law. We want people to tell us their stories by tweeting with the hashtag ``YourStory.'' We want to make sure that nobody in the Obama administration forgets that these are real people and they have been hurt by this health care law which the President has continued to, on party lines, force down the throats of the American people in its passage, and then continue to deliberately deceive the American people with his quotes, not very long ago, and repeated so many times: If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

Republicans support real health care reform. We support ideas such as allowing people to buy insurance across State lines. That would increase access to coverage and to care, not decrease it. That would increase competition and bring down prices--not raise them. But the Democrats' health care law is doing just that. That would be a reform that would help the American people. But the Obama health care law took the exact opposite approach.

Here is how Edie Littlefield Sundby put it in her story. She wrote:

Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies

could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on

the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across

county lines.

That should change. President Obama and Washington Democrats wanted a political win. They were willing to do anything and say anything--to say whatever they needed--to get that win, whether it was true or not. If they had been honest with the American people, they would have never gotten this law passed. But the Democrats' health care law today in America is hurting people, hurting families, hurting Americans. This must end.

The President should come to the table. He should work with Republicans to pass real reform, to help the American people who have been hurt and continue to be hurt by his health care law.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a bipartisan effort to advance uniquely American values: freedom, fairness, and opportunity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, has at its foundation these core values. It is about freedom, the freedom to realize our founding belief that all Americans are created equal under the law. It is about fairness, about whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans deserve to be treated just as their family members, their friends, their neighbors, and fellow workers. It is about opportunity, about whether every American gets to dream the same dreams, chase the same ambitions, and have the same shot at success.

One year ago this week the people of Wisconsin elected me to the Senate. The citizens of Wisconsin made history, electing our State's first woman to the U.S. Senate, and electing the first out gay or lesbian person to the U.S. Senate in the history of our great Nation. But I didn't run to make history, I ran to make a difference, a difference that would give everyone a fair shot at achieving their dreams.

I couldn't be more proud of the bipartisan effort to make a difference with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I thank and recognize my colleagues Senators Mark Kirk, Jeff Merkley, Susan Collins, and Tom Harkin for their leadership working across party lines and moving this legislation forward. I take great pride at being a part of this effort. I think it shows great promise of what can be achieved if we work together in a bipartisan way to get work done for the American people.

I also want to take the time to recognize the 55 cosponsors of this bill, both Democrats and Republicans, who made a commitment to ending discrimination against our fellow citizens simply because of who they are and who they love. I realize that for some this is not an easy vote. I understand for some they may believe it is not good politics. But I want to say that I have a deep respect for those who choose to stand on the side of progress for our country this week. For those who stand this week and answer the call for courage, I can say with confidence your courage will be respected and remembered when the history of this struggle is written.

In June I had the opportunity to speak at the Department of Justice during its Pride Month observations. It was fitting that we gathered in a building that bears the name of Robert F. Kennedy. He became Attorney General at a time of rapid progress in the area of civil rights, progress that thrilled many Americans and frightened others. Kennedy knew, however, that America should be on the side of progress. He traveled to Georgia, at the time unfriendly territory for a civil rights reformer, to make his first formal speech at the University of Georgia law school. He did not shy away from the Kennedy administration's commitment to equal opportunity, ``For on this generation of Americans,'' he explained, ``falls the full burden of proving to the world that we really mean it when we say that all men are created free and equal before the law.''

He backed his words with actions, not only by vigorously enforcing the laws and court orders that advanced the cause of civil rights but by holding the Kennedy administration itself accountable, demanding that the Justice Department and other government entities prioritize diversity in the workplace. Of course, as much progress as that generation made in fulfilling the promises America makes about fairness and equality, there was plenty to do for the generations that have followed.

Today we continue that work, guided by the belief that everyone deserves a fair shot at the American dream and that our LGBT family members, friends, and neighbors deserve to be treated as everyone else in the United States. Every American deserves the freedom to work free of discrimination. Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act strengthens this freedom by recognizing the right to be judged based on your skills, talents, loyalty, character, integrity, and work ethic.

My home State of Wisconsin was the first State in the Nation to add sexual orientation to its antidiscrimination laws. At the time, back in 1982, only 41 municipalities and 8 counties in the United States offered limited protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Wisconsin's efforts to pass the Nation's first sexual orientation antidiscrimination statute were supported by a broad and bipartisan coalition, including members of the clergy, various religious denominations, medical and professional groups. The measure was signed into law by our Republican Governor, Lee Sherman Dreyfus, who based his decision to support the measure on the success of municipal ordinances providing similar protections against discrimination.

Since Wisconsin passed its statute in 1982, 20 States and the District of Columbia, representing nearly 45 percent of our Nation's population, have passed similar antidiscrimination measures. Sixteen States and the District of Columbia also protect their citizens on the basis of gender identity. However, 76 million American workers have to contend with the ugly reality that in over two dozen States it is legal to discriminate against LGBT employees. That is simply wrong and this legislation seeks to right that wrong.

The business community understands this. That is why a majority of Fortune 500 companies have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination policies in place, and more than 100 companies have endorsed this bill. It is time to level the playing field and extend these protections to all Americans. But we don't just want to live in a country where our rights are respected under the law; we want to live in a country where we are respected for who we are, where we enjoy freedom and opportunity because that is who we are as Americans.

More than 5 years after he spoke at the University of Georgia law school, half a world away at Cape Town University, in South Africa, Robert F. Kennedy said, ``Few will have the greatness to bend history, but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events and then the total--all of these acts--will be written in the history of this generation.''

The change we work for today can add up to incredible progress in our lifetime. This generation can be the one in which we fulfill the promises of freedom and equality for all, in which America finally becomes a place where everyone's rights are respected at work and every family's love and commitment can be recognized and respected and rewarded under the law.

I am hopeful that we can now move this Employment Non-Discrimination Act forward, to build a tomorrow that is more equal, not less, for all Americans.

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

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maine for her statement. This is not a partisan issue. Senator Mark Kirk, my Republican colleague from Illinois, is a cosponsor of this issue as well.

When it comes to discrimination, neither party has a monopoly on opposing discrimination. We should be working together. So I thank the Senator from Maine for speaking as she has so often for the kinds of liberties and values which we all should share in this country.

If we ask most Americans this very basic question: Is it legal to discriminate against someone because they are gay--to say I won't hire you, I won't promote you, I won't give you a raise--80 percent of Americans say, of course not. That can't be legal in America. The reality is that in more than half of the States it is legal, and in more than two-thirds of the States it is legal to discriminate based on gender identity. That which we take for granted as part of the ordinary course of life and business in America turns out not to be true. This ENDA bill, which is going to be considered on a procedural vote in about an hour, is an effort to establish a national standard of tolerance, a national standard against discrimination.

I come from a background--and I think most people do--that believes each person deserves a chance to prove themselves and that we shouldn't hold it against them if they happen to be a man or a woman, a person who is of one religious faith or another, or because of a person's national origin, race, or religion. We shouldn't discriminate against people based on that. It really strikes me as fundamental to what we are as Americans to say that everyone deserves a chance to be judged on the merits, on the basis of their performance. This Employment Non- Discrimination Act, on which we will consider a procedural vote in about an hour, is an effort to enshrine that into law at the Federal level.

Some of the critics say: Why are you doing this? The House of Representatives will never take this up; they will never consider it. Well, I think it is our responsibility to speak out in favor of doing the right thing. I am hoping that, as we saw with the statement from the Senator from Maine, Republicans will step up and realize that this shouldn't be a partisan issue, and that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where the Republicans have the majority, will actually stand and speak against this form of discrimination.

As many as 48 percent of lesbian, gay, or bisexual Americans and 59 percent of transgender Americans have no legal protection against discrimination in the workplace. In 29 States, lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans have no legal protection. In three States, transgender Americans have no protection. Between 15 percent and 43 percent of LGBT people have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace as a result of their sexual orientation. Twenty-six percent of transgender people report having been fired from a job because of gender identity, and 90 percent reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment, or discrimination.

Those are terrible statistics, but there is a ray of hope. We found it on the issue of marriage equality, and we found it when it comes to discrimination based on sexual orientation, and here is what is most hopeful: Younger people don't feel this way. The newer generation across America looks at the older folks, scratches their heads, and says: What are you doing? Why would you possibly discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation?

There are some who will decry this as the deterioration of American values. Not me. I think it is an indication that each generation has an opportunity to expand opportunity, an opportunity to expand freedom, and to put to rest discrimination. How many times has it happened throughout our history? We waged a Civil War over the issue of race and slavery, and in our Constitution women were treated as second class citizens and not allowed to vote until the 20th century. We have seen similar discrimination against groups throughout our history. We know it happened in the early days when it came to discrimination against those who were disabled and faced other disabilities. All of that is changing for the better. We are moving toward a society that really judges people based on what they do with their lives, how they conduct themselves.

When we extend Federal employment discrimination protections currently provided based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability to sexual orientation and gender identity, we will be moving forward on this Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is known as ENDA. In this measure, we prohibit public and private employers with more than 15 employees, employment agencies, and labor unions from using an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for employment discrimination such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation. We apply to Congress and the Federal Government as well as employees of State and local governments the same basic protection.

This bill reflects what the business community is largely already doing. A majority of Fortune 500 companies have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination policies in

place. More than 100 companies have already endorsed this bill.

Recent polling has shown the majority of small businesses have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination policies in place. One might say: If so many businesses are already moving in this direction, why do we need it? Well, the vast majority of American businesses didn't discriminate based on race, but to protect people looking for jobs, and others, we wanted to make sure everyone was protected in the Civil Rights Act.

The business community from Wall Street to Main Street understands that hiring the best and brightest, without considering irrelevant characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity, is the best way to compete in our global economy.

ENDA would extend the protections already offered by the majority of businesses to level the playing field and ensure that all Americans have equal protection against employment discrimination.

We do not get many chances in this job to make a mark in history. This will be our chance in the Senate. In just an hour we will have this procedural vote. We need 60. We have 55 Democrats, but we need 5 Republicans to step up and join us. I believe we will have them, and I hope many more.

Let's make this a solid bipartisan effort, a solid stand against discrimination. That ought to be one issue that brings both parties together. With a solid vote coming out of the Senate, I hope our friends on the opposite side of the Rotunda will follow our lead and they will consider and pass this important and historic legislation.

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

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

Madam President, I am pleased to be a longtime supporter and original cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, known more commonly as ENDA. This bill

will affirm the principle that individuals in the workplace should be judged on their skills and abilities and not on extraneous criteria, such as sexual orientation.

In 2002, more than 10 years ago, I was proud to join Senator Ted Kennedy, whom we all remember as a lifelong champion of civil rights, as the cosponsor of ENDA. I am pleased to support this important bill again today, but I am dismayed that so many years have gone by--more than a decade--and this bill still has not become law. It is time for us to enact this important legislation.

I wish to recognize the efforts of the chief sponsors of this bill, Senators Merkley and Kirk, who took up this cause and moved this bill forward. I also acknowledge the work of chairman Tom Harkin in bringing this bill to the Senate floor. He, too, has been a champion of civil rights throughout his long career, and I hope that when he retires at the end of this Congress, this bill will be one more of his accomplishments.

The time to pass it has come. All Americans deserve a fair opportunity to pursue the American dream. Over the years, we have rightly taken a stand against workplace discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, religion, age, and disability. It is past time that we ensure that all employees are judged solely based on their talents, abilities, hard work, and capabilities by closing an important gap in Federal employment law as it relates to sexual orientation. The right to work is fundamental. How can we in good conscience deny that right to any LGBT American who is qualified and willing to work? Especially in today's economy, job security has taken on an even greater importance to all Americans. How can we, in good conscience, tell one segment of Americans that they are not entitled to that security because of whom they love?

Equal rights in the workplace is neither a new nor a revolutionary concept. Much of corporate America has already embraced LGBT protections. Why? Because it allows them to attract the best and the brightest employees and to retain talented employees. Nearly 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies already have sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies in place, and many Maine businesses and businesses associated with the State of Maine have such policies. They include IDEXX Laboratories, L.L. Bean, Maine Medical Center, the Warren Center in Bangor, Hannaford Supermarkets, Bath Ironworks, and Unum, a large insurance company. There are many more. I ask unanimous consent that a list of leading Maine employers that support workplace fairness and the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act be included in the record following my remarks.

In addition, ENDA is very similar to current law in nearly two dozen States, including, I am proud to say, the great State of Maine.

But in spite of how far we have advanced the cause of civil rights in this country, it still remains legal in 29 States to fire or to refuse to hire someone simply because he or she is lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Most businesses don't discriminate. They simply want to hire the best worker for the job, regardless of sexual orientation. But in others, high-performing LGBT employees can be and still are legally discriminated against.

When I discuss this issue with many of my constituents, they are shocked to learn it is legal under Federal law--not Maine law but Federal law--for them to refuse to hire or to fire someone solely because of their sexual orientation. They find that shocking. They just assume our civil rights laws, which protect people from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and age, also protect individuals based on sexual orientation. Of course, because they are operating in the State of Maine, they cannot legally discriminate against an individual based on sexual orientation. I am proud to say the vast majority of Maine's businesses would never think of discriminating based on sexual orientation. They simply want to hire and retain the best person for the job.

Along with former Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, I worked hard to repeal the military's discriminatory policy of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' That policy prevented gay and lesbian servicemembers from being open about their sexual orientation. My view was that if they were willing to put on the uniform of our country, be deployed to distant lands, and risk their lives for our freedom, we should be thanking them, not trying to exclude them from serving in the military. Now that ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has been repealed, I think it is significant that the implementation of repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has gone so smoothly. It has gone very well, contrary to the dire predictions of some of the opponents. We hear some of the same kinds of predictions today as we debate this bill. I would say that, just as the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has been implemented quite smoothly, we will see ENDA implemented smoothly as well if we stand, do what is right, and pass this bill.

The bill before the Senate deserves support as a matter of fairness and as a matter of civil rights. It is a commonsense solution consistent with existing Federal civil rights laws, and it will not place an undue burden on American employers. We would not see so many companies voluntarily adopting nondiscrimination policies if it were somehow burdensome to do so. They are doing so because it is in their own best interests, because they want the most qualified employees and to retain the most talented employees, regardless of their sexual orientation. That is not relevant to their ability to do the job.

Finally, it is simply right to pass this bill. We cannot in this day and age countenance legal discrimination against qualified employees and applicants. It is time that we enact this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support ENDA, and I am hopeful we will get more than the 60 votes needed this evening to proceed to this important bill.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 39; also, as part of that unanimous consent request, I ask that the joint resolution be indefinitely postponed.