Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is extremely important to the Central Oregon economy. For over 40 years, an agreement has been out of reach in the Crooked River Basin in central Oregon on how to allocate water from the Prineville Reservoir to meet the diversity of needs. Over the last few years, Senator Wyden and I have worked with a broad group of water users in the Basin and have come to a solution.

Today, Senator Wyden and I are introducing the Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013 that will provide a comprehensive framework for improving the management of water in the Crooked River, while creating opportunities for economic growth and new jobs in central Oregon. This is especially good news in central Oregon, a region that has been plagued with unemployment since the beginning of the Great Recession and is in need of new jobs.

This legislation is built on a broad coalition of stakeholder support. I want to thank those stakeholders who put aside preconceived notions, came to the negotiating table, and worked out a solution that could achieve such a broad range of support.

The key elements of the legislation include meeting the municipal water needs for the city of Prineville long into the future, so the city can continue to attract new businesses like the data centers of Facebook and Apple that have recently moved to the region; providing greater certainty for the agricultural community that depends on the Crooked River for irrigation and is the heart and soul of the Central Oregon economy; allowing water to be released from Bowman Dam to help maintain healthy steelhead, salmon and trout fisheries, which are cherished by local fisherman; allowing the Bowman Dam to be retrofitted to install a hydroelectric turbine and generate low-cost, clean power and create construction jobs; and creating a process to help better plan for dry years, including the impact on fish habitat and fishing, as well as boating and other recreational activities.

This bill is a comprehensive solution to a problem that has plagued the region for 40 years and it has the support of numerous groups in the Central Oregon region. The time is now for the Senate to quickly move on this bill and help the Central Oregon economy move forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from New Mexico to protest the paralysis that has kept the Senate from confirming well-qualified nominees to do their jobs.

The U.S. Senate provides the opportunity for all of us to weigh in on our constitutional role of advice and consent, advice and consent regarding nominations to the executive branch and to the judicial branch by the President.

Everyone in this body agrees that the Senate should, under this responsibility, serve as a significant check on the quality of Presidential nominations, the quality of nominations or nominees for the court and for executive positions. I certainly share that sentiment, that the Senate should provide this significant check on quality. The Senate should vet nominees. We should question them. We should debate them. And then we should vote on whether to confirm or reject them.

What is absolutely clear, however, is that when advice and consent becomes block and destroy, then the Senate process is broken. A minority of one branch of government should never be able to systematically undermine the other two branches of government. Yet that is exactly what we have today.

Look at the well-qualified nominees who have been blocked from having an up-or-down vote here in the Senate Chamber just in recent weeks: Mel Watt, nominated to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency; and then nominees to the court: Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard, and now Robert Wilkins.

These folks are highly qualified, but they were not allowed to have an up-or-down vote. The Senate was not allowed to weigh in on whether they were to be confirmed or not confirmed. This situation in which the Senate minority undermines the executive and judicial branches is unacceptable. It is inconsistent with the concept of coequal branches of government. Our Constitution laid out this vision that the House and the Senate, as the legislative branch, would serve as a coequal branch with the executive branch and the judicial branch.

Certainly the ability to check nominations, to vet nominations, is part of that check on the other two branches. But when it is used in this manner, this manner in which you can systematically undermine the function of another branch, then you have taken a position and created a process that is inconsistent with coequal branches. Taken to its extreme--and we are seeing that extreme today--the executive branch is compromised in its ability to function, the judicial branch is compromised in its ability to function.

Now we have a special situation that has arisen in which the minority says: We are going to block all nominees to the DC Circuit Court regardless of their qualifications because we want to

see it dominated by the nominees from a former President, and we do not let the existing President put his fair share of nominees into those vacancies.

The argument has been brought forward--to cover up this effort to ideologically pack the court--that this is simply about the work requirements of that circuit not being high enough to justify additional judges. Yet if that was indeed the case and there was an effort to distinguish it from the ideological bent that is clear here, then that would be something one would say about the future: Let's implement that 8 years down the road or we would have seen it in the past when President Bush was putting his nominees forward. The Republicans would have said: No, we do not want to confirm these nominees because the workload is not heavy enough. But just a few years ago, the argument was very much: Let's confirm these nominees of President Bush. Well, the workload, if anything, has increased.

So we cannot allow this process in which a minority says: When our President is in charge we are going to insist on up-or-down votes, but when a President of the other party is in charge, we are not going to allow those votes.

Let's be clear: There should not be an ``our President'' and ``their President.'' The President is the President of the entire country, of the blue States and the red States, altogether. The judicial system serves all of us regardless of our party identities. It is our responsibility to make it work.

In January we had a promise made on the floor of this Chamber, and that promise from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was to restore the ``norms and traditions of the Senate'' regarding nominations.

What are the norms and traditions of the U.S. Senate regarding nominations? It is an up-or-down vote, with rare exception. But, unfortunately, as we stand here today, we see that January promise has been broken. It was broken a few weeks into this year when a filibuster for the first time in U.S. history was launched on a Defense Secretary nominee. We then saw it in July--another effort of this Chamber to come together and return to the norms and traditions of the Senate. And briefly we did have up-or-down votes on executive branch nominees. But that ended a couple weeks ago when Mel Watt was blocked from that opportunity. So, therefore, the Senate must act. The Senate must act to restore its traditional role of having an up-or-down vote.

I, quite frankly, would prefer, in a perfect world, to see this done simply through the type of agreement we have sought a couple of times: up-or-down votes, with rare exception. But it is clear that is not possible because the January promise was broken, because the July promise was broken, and, therefore, we are in the position where we have to do by rule that which cannot be done by simple cooperation.

Some have said this has never been done, changing the rules or the application of the rules by a simple majority in the middle of a term. But that is simply not the case. I have in my hand a list of 18 times when this has been done since 1977. I have put up a chart in the Chamber of some of those changes that are quite relevant to this discussion.

By a simple majority in 1977: preventing postcloture filibusters; in 1979, by a simple majority: preventing abuse of legislative amendments in appropriations bills; in 1980, preventing filibusters on the motion to proceed to nominations and treaties; in 1987, preventing filibusters via rollcall of the Journal.

I have put these up for those instances that pertain to filibusters. But these are only 4 of the 18 times since 1977 that we have changed the application of the rules by a simple majority. So let no one say this is unprecedented. And these 18 changes have come more often in Republican hands than the hands of Democrats in terms of the majority of this body.

It is time to end the block-and-destroy strategy being employed by the minority in regard to executive branch nominations and judicial nominations.

I am very honored to be a partner in this conversation with the senior Senator from New Mexico, who has been raising concerns about the functionality of the Senate from the day he first set foot in this Chamber.

With that, I yield for my colleague.

I say to my colleague from New Mexico, I would say that it has been very disturbing to see these very capable women whom you have mentioned not be able to get an up-or-down vote. Indeed, our chair of the Judiciary Committee Senator Leahy held a press conference to make this very concern known, that it seemed as if there is one process for men and a different process for women. I am going to defer to his judgment on that because I have not been part of the Judiciary Committee. I would like to think that in this day and age there is not that sort of gender bias. That is what I would like to think, but I will let Senator Leahy's commentary and his concerns in that area speak for themselves. It is clear, though, that fundamentally the situation is this: These women were highly qualified. They did not get up-or-down votes.

I have in my hand a memo from April 25, 2005. It is titled ``The Senate's Power to Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote.'' It consists of arguments made by the Republican majority in 2005 that nominees should get up-or-down votes for the judiciary. There are many quotes from colleagues who still serve in this body who said in 2005 that regardless of whether they were in the majority or the minority, they felt nominees deserved an up-or-down vote, that the Constitution demanded it, and that the balance of powers between the branches demanded it.

I would ask my colleague if he would help us understand what has changed since 2005 when our colleagues across the aisle made the case that nominees deserved up-or-down votes, said it was essential in the constitutional vision, was essential in the proper application of advice and consent. What has changed that makes those arguments disappear now in 2013, 8 years later?

I thank the Senator for expanding on that picture of the core elements necessary to exercise our constitutional responsibilities. I keep thinking about how polarization in our society has come to bear on this issue. I believe there are many colleagues across the aisle who believe very much in what they said in 2005, that there should be up-or-down votes; therefore, I have to conclude that they have decided their base demands a permanent campaign against the President and the maximum use of every tool available and that is trumping the appropriate exercise of advice and consent.

Perhaps that polarization explains why the promise made by the minority leader in January to return to the norms and traditions of the Senate fell apart within weeks, if not days. Perhaps it explains how the understanding that was reached in July to allow up-or-down votes on executive nominations fell apart a couple of weeks ago. In that situation we have a single path left to us to appropriately exercise advice and consent; that is, to change the rules so they cannot be abused. If the abuse cannot be cured through good-hearted dialog and understanding of our need to honor the constitutional vision, then we need to change the rules. That is why I wholeheartedly support moving toward a simple up-or-down vote.

In 2005 our Republican colleagues said: If the Democrats keep blocking up-or-down votes, we are going to change the rules and require a simple majority. The Gang of 14 came out with a compromise, and they said--the compromise was that Democrats would only filibuster under extraordinary circumstances and Republican colleagues would then not change the rules. But actually that worked fine in that the Democrats honored that until President Obama came into office. But that extraordinary circumstance has not continued to be honored after President Obama came into office. In that situation, it does seem as if the only way to make sure we honor the constitutional vision and the balance between the powers is to actually change the rules and say it is an up-or-down vote.

I would ask my colleague from New Mexico whether he shares that perspective or perhaps has a different take on it.

I thank my colleague from New Mexico for his leadership in trying to restore the Senate so that it will work--work on legislation, work on executive nominations, work on judicial nominations. The country has a low opinion of the function of our Chamber. We certainly do not deserve a high opinion when we are captured by this level of partisan paralysis. I look forward to continuing to work together to help restore this body to a great deliberative body that fulfills its responsibilities under our Constitution.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana for her tireless efforts in this regard. We can tell from the commentaries that have just been put forward from the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Mississippi, the Senator from North Dakota, of course our colleague from Louisiana, and now representing Oregon, that these are folks representing blue States and red States and all types of different terrains, and they have the common purpose of addressing the dysfunction of the Biggert-Waters bill that was passed.

Just to give a small feeling for this, the Hay family from Eagle Creek, OR, wanted to sell their home. They had a nice young couple with solid financials who wanted to buy it. It was all approved except for the insurance policy. When the couple found out the insurance policy would not be the $500 the current family has been paying but $5,000 a year, the deal fell apart because for every $1,000 you pay in flood insurance, the value of the home drops by $20,000. So not only is the couple who wanted this home unable to buy it because of the home's value dropping, but the family who owned the home, who had equity in the home, and who hoped to take these funds into retirement to be their nest egg, has lost that nest egg due to these outrageous additional costs, these dramatic increases.

So the point of sale is one particular problem that has a big impact on the real estate market, but we also have the situation of someone who has a policy lapse. Maybe an individual thinks their mortgage company is paying the policy, the mortgage company thinks the owner is paying it, and it defaults for a few days. When everyone finds out no one has paid the bill, suddenly that family might be going, in that situation, from $500 to $5,000. Or perhaps the mortgage company has never enforced the provision requiring flood insurance and now they have checked their records--and they are checking their records because they are now being charged a significant multithousand-dollar fine if they do not check their records--and they find you should have flood insurance under the law but you don't, so they contact you. Well, now you are facing this unsubsidized rate as a new policy.

So we have all of this, and then layered on top of that is the fact that across the Nation the flood zones are being remapped. So folks who were outside of the 100 years and have been outside and have had their homes for 15 years are suddenly getting notified that they are inside the flood zone and required by their mortgage company to get a policy.

They may say: But wait, I looked at the map, and only the corner of my property is in the flood zone and my house isn't.

Well, the mortgage company says: We are sorry. You have to get this, and you have to then prove you are not in the flood zone.

It may cost those homeowners thousands of dollars to get an elevation survey and be able to demonstrate they are outside the flood zone. The homeowner carries this burden of proof.

So this is a big challenge, and we should recognize how uncertain and what an art form it is to establish these 100-year zones because a company comes in and does a model, and they say: Well, a 100-year flood will look like this, and they will point out what tributary, what watershed that contributes to the confluence of creeks is going to end up flooding that particular town.

Based on their model, the flood zone might look as though it is in the eastern section of the town or the western section of the town, and so on and so forth, that uncertainty where just inches can change whether you are inside a 100-year or outside a 100-year. Some of these areas are very flat. A few inches water rise can cover many additional square miles, and this can have a huge impact on our business districts, because what business wants to reinvest in a business district when now they feel that any improvements they make are going to be in an area where no one else is going to want to buy their company because they are in a situation where they have unaffordable flood insurance.

This is why we have come together--Democrats and Republicans, States from the North, South, East, and West coming together--to say we must change this situation which is creating so much unfairness and economic damage. I am delighted, as the chair of the subcommittee, to be fully engaged in partnering this. A special thanks to my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, who is doing such a fine job of championing this issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to address an issue that should be of concern to all Americans; that is, the advice and consent function of the Senate regarding nominations. This is the critical check envisioned by our Founders in which the President has the power to nominate for the executive branch positions and for judicial nominees, and the Senate is held responsible to provide a check to make sure there are not outrageous nominees that are placed in positions.

That is the advice and consent function which throughout our history has basically been a simple majority function with very rare exceptions. This issue comes up at this moment because 2 weeks ago the minority of this body in the Senate would not allow there to be a vote on whether to confirm Mel Watt. They did that by preventing there being enough votes to close debate.

So that blockade was basically put in place without respecting, if you will, the fact that Mel Watt is highly qualified for his position at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, a position he would hold, and giving the entire Senate the ability to weigh in about whether they agreed with that judgment, the judgment of the President that Mel Watt was well qualified.

In the same week, this body also blocked an up-or-down vote on Patricia Millett, who was a nominee for the DC Circuit Court. On this occasion, it was not because folks said she was not qualified. They said, instead: We do not want to put any more of President Obama's nominees onto the DC Circuit Court because we want it to be dominated by the judges who were confirmed when President Bush was President.

Then, just yesterday, this pattern of blockading up-and-down votes on nominees continued with the minority filibustering, blocking the closing of debate on Cornelia Pillard--again, a highly qualified individual. An argument was not made that there was some exceptional circumstance in her background that left her unprepared for this position. The argument was simply made: We do not want to let the President put any judges on this DC Circuit Court.

That is of extreme concern. I must say that it has caused folks who have been scholars in this area to look at it. Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute basically said: It is ridiculous for the minority to block up-and-down votes, not on the basis that there is something wrong with her qualifications, but just they want to take away the President's ability and constitutional responsibility to nominate individuals to fill vacancies.

So this obstruction, exercised over the last almost 5 years now, has done significant damage to the court. It has done significant damage to the executive branch. It prevents qualified nominees to get a vote on this floor so that they can--if they receive a simple majority vote of support--work on behalf of the American people either in their executive branch capacity or addressing the huge backlog in our judicial system.

The Senate has the advice and consent role which is a treasured responsibility. It is a weighty responsibility. I think everyone in this body--I think all 100 Senators--could agree that under advice and consent the Senate must exercise a significant check on the quality of Presidential nominees, whether for the courts or for the executive branch.

The Senate should vet nominees. The committees that are related to a particular position should explore their background, they should hold a hearing, they should ask tough questions, they should debate the nominees, and then once recommended on the floor of the Senate, we should continue that vetting and debating process. Then, having shared our insights on their background, we need to vote to confirm or reject.

It should be on very rare exceptions, when there are extraordinary circumstances that make someone unworthy that they should be blocked from having a final vote. Advice and consent must not become ``block and destroy.'' But advice and consent has become block and destroy. The Senate nomination process is broken.

A minority of one branch of government, the Senate, should not be able to systematically undermine the other two branches of government. Yet that is what we see today. President Obama's district court nominees have waited, on average, more than twice as long as President George Bush's nominees to be confirmed by the Senate after being reported out of committee.

So we have the challenge of getting up-or-down votes. We also have basically a process of dragging feet in order to make it more difficult to actually get to the votes on these individuals in the first place. For the circuit courts, that comparison is even worse. President Obama's nominees have waited 3\1/2\ times longer than the nominees of his predecessor--3\1/2\ times longer.

The Congressional Research Service notes that of the last five Presidents, President Obama is the only one to have his district and circuit court nominees wait, on average, more than 6 months for confirmation. So those delays, in combination with ultimately denying the possibility to hold an up-or-down vote--to hold a final vote on whether to confirm or not confirm--

they constitute a systematic undermining of the function of the other two branches of government.

Now, this was not envisioned in any possible way by the creators of our Constitution. They argued there should be three coequal branches. But this outcome, in which the Senate minority seeks to undermine an executive branch nominee, is inconsistent with the constitutional design of coequal branches. They are not coequal if one branch can systematically undermine another.

In regard to the courts, in an outcome in which the Senate minority is seeking to ideologically pack the courts by having insisted on up- or-down votes for President Bush's nominees and then blocking up-and- down votes on President Obama's nominees, it politicizes our judicial system. It undermines the integrity of our court system.

The Senate has confronted this abuse of advice and consent three times in recent history. In 2005, the Democratic minority was blocking up-and-down votes on a series of President Bush's nominees. They were doing the same thing that we see today. A gang of 14 gathered to debate this, because essentially the Republican majority said: If you do not quit blocking up-or-down votes on the President's nominees, we are going to change the rules and make it a simple majority. Out of the gang of 14 came a deal. The deal was that Democrats would, except under exceptional circumstances, not block the nominee. The counterpoint being that the Republicans would not change the rules. So they got what they wanted, which was up-and-down votes without a rule change.

That pledge the Democrats made was honored when subsequent nominees got their up-or-down votes. Now, in January of this year the Democrats, in the reversal of positions, insisted that the Republican minority quit blocking up-or-down votes of President Obama's nominees--kind of a deja vu moment, only the two parties were reversed.

Out of that conversation, out of that dialogue in January, came a promise from the Republican minority leader of this body. He promised a return to the norms and traditions of the Senate regarding nominations. What are those norms and traditions? Those norms and traditions are simple up-or-down votes with rare exception.

But that promise was barely made and within weeks it was broken, when we saw the first ever filibuster of a Defense Secretary nominee. It just so happened, ironically, that the Republican filibuster--the first time in history of a Defense nominee--was against one of their former colleagues, our Republican colleague Chuck Hagel. So the January promise was broken. This led to increasing tensions until July of this year when Democratic and Republican Members met in the Old Senate Chamber to privately share their concerns. A new deal was hammered out, which is, essentially that executive nominees would get up-or-down votes. That happened for a significant list of nominees.

There was an up-or-down vote on Richard Cordray to be the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Gina McCarthy to lead the EPA; nominees to fill the National Labor Relations Board; nominees to head Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; a nominee to lead the Ex-Im Bank; and, following shortly thereafter, a nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Powers.

So that July deal held through a list of nominees until 2 weeks ago. Two weeks ago this body blocked an up-or-down vote on Mel Watt. So we are right back where we were before, right back where we were, the promise made in January shattered, the promise made in July shattered, and the ability of this body to do its advice and consent responsibility shattered.

This should be deeply troubling to all. We must restore the ability of the Senate to perform its responsibilities under the Constitution to advise and consent. The Senate with simple up-or-down votes will be a check on bad nominations from the President. I have voted against at least one of the President's nominees. I was prepared to vote against another here just a few weeks ago. The President withdrew that nominee so that vote was not necessary. But that was related to a judgment of the qualifications of the individuals and whether they were a good fit for a particular position. It was not about trying to systematically undermine the executive branch and keep them from operating.

That is essentially why we have up-or-down votes; it is a check on unqualified individuals or a poor fit for a particular position. So in this area, both in the Senate's failure to do its job vis-a-vis judicial nominees and to do its job vis-a-vis executive nominees, we have created unequal branches of government. It is time to fix the broken Senate in regard to nominations. It is time to restore the traditional role of the Senate in evaluating nominations so that with nominees who are confirmed, they can go to work in the courts, can go to work in the executive branch to do the work that the citizens of the United States of America expect them to do on behalf of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, Senator Wyden and I wish to recognize Holt International Children's Services during this year's celebration of National Adoption Month.

On July 27, 2013 we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the end of the Korean war. By signing the armistice agreement, the border between the Koreas near the 38th Parallel was established. It was in the wake of this armistice that Holt International Children's Services first began its compassionate work, and today continues to be a leader in the field of adoption and child welfare issues.

Harry and Bertha Holt of Eugene, OR were of humble means--Harry a lumberjack and a farmer and Bertha a nurse. In 1954, the Holts went to a small high school auditorium to view a film about Amerasian children living in South Korean orphanages. Moved by the film, their faith and a firm belief that all children deserve permanent, loving homes, the Holts began their lifelong mission in 1955 to revolutionize intercountry adoption.

At the time, there were no laws allowing children to immigrate to one country from another for the purpose of adoption. Overcoming legal and cultural barriers, Mr. and Mrs. Holt sought families for children orphaned by the Korean war. The Holts persuaded Oregon U.S. Senator Richard Neuberger to introduce legislation titled ``The Relief of Certain Korean War Orphans.'' The legislation became law on August 11, 1955, enabling the Holts to adopt eight Korean war orphans: Joseph Han, Mary Chae, Helen Chan, Paul Kim, Betty Rhee, Robert Chae, Christine Lee and Nathanial Chae. With this act of love and the founding of their agency--Holt International Children's Services--two farmers from rural Oregon became pioneers in international adoption.

Today, Holt International strives to uphold Harry and Bertha's vision of finding loving homes for children regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender. Holt is committed to finding families for children, not children for families, an important distinction that sets the tone and priorities for Holt. Since the 1955 act, Holt has placed 49,630 children from 31 countries with families in all 50 States. As the oldest intercountry adoption agency, Holt is the only organization that has more than three generations of adult adoptees.

Holt continues to play an active and vital role in establishing policy and practice for intercountry adoption. In 1993, Holt adoptees Susan Cox and David Kim were members of the U.S. delegation to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, an agreement which sets international standards for intercountry adoption that protects the child, the birth family and the adoptive family. Later, in 2008, Holt was a leading advocate in ensuring U.S. ratification of the Hague Convention treaty. Holt believes that adoption is a life long experience and has been at the forefront of developing post adoption services to ensure that adoptees grow and develop to their fullest potential.

In addition to these monumental accomplishments, Holt International has become much more than an adoption agency. When considering a child's future, Holt always keeps the child's best interest at the forefront of every decision. For some children adoption is the only option, but Holt realizes that it is not the first option for children without families. Holt believes that it is best if children can stay with their birth family. Over the years, Holt has worked to develop and maintain programs overseas to give orphaned, abandoned and vulnerable children safe and nurturing environments in which to grow and thrive. These overseas programs include initiatives directed at family preservation, nutrition support, child and maternal health, income generation, assisting children with special needs, and shaping and establishing intercountry child welfare systems. Through these initiatives, Holt impacts approximately 30,000 children each year and helps to ensure that children at all stages of need are provided for in an effort to avoid the separation of families.

In November, as National Adoption Month is celebrated, it is appropriate to recognize Holt International Children's Services for its diligent efforts and accomplishments in the field of child-welfare and intercountry adoption that have impacted thousands of children in the U.S. and around the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for my intern, Bruce Lehman, to have the privileges of the floor for the balance of the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a short colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I appreciate so much the comments of my colleague from Arizona on the challenges inherent in getting our budget under control. I particularly appreciated over the last few days the conversation we have had about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I would like to say that the Senator from Arizona has brought particular value in expressing concerns about how we make sure businesses have the guidance they will need to implement this act effectively, particularly as this act embraces an area--that is, transgender discrimination--that was not part of the act considered in the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, I look forward to that conversation as well. The State of Wisconsin was one of the first or maybe the first in the Nation to bring an end to workplace discrimination. Oregon has a fully inclusive bill that has worked very well. We have worked out a great partnership with the businesses of Oregon in making sure there is satisfactory guidance for them. I look forward to bringing that experience into this conversation about the concerns of the Senator from Arizona. I echo the appreciation for the thoughtful dialog we have had over the past few days and look forward to future dialog as we continue to try to make this bill ending discrimination in the workplace work well for businesses across the Nation and certainly for the millions of LGBT Americans who will have the opportunity to break these chains of discrimination and more fully participate in our national economic life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes to speak to this bill.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague who preceded me who has summarized the bipartisan collaboration to bring this bill to this point that we will be voting on in just a few minutes. No one has done more than she to advance this conversation over many years. I thank the Senator from Maine for those incredible efforts on behalf of ending discrimination and advancing liberty and opportunity.

Today the Senate will vote to break the chains of discrimination that hold back millions of LGBT Americans from the full promise of liberty-- liberty, that freedom to participate fully in our society, in the public square to the voting booth, to the school, to the workplace; liberty, that quality deeply rooted in our national journey and embedded in our Declaration of Independence `` . . . 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;'' liberty, the declared mission of our Nation in the preamble to the Constitution: We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish a Constitution of the United States of America.

But the march to liberty has been long, with numerous battles along the way: the fight to end slavery that President Lincoln figured so prominently in, the fight to end racial discrimination, the fight to end gender discrimination, the fight to end discrimination against our seniors, and the fight that continues today with this bill to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Discrimination diminishes the potential of the individual and it diminishes the potential of our Nation. Senator Ted Kennedy said this succinctly when he helped introduce in 2009 a predecessor of the bill we will be voting on today. Senator Ted Kennedy said: ``The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to even one among us.'' He spoke these words just 20 days before he passed away. It is appropriate to quote Ted Kennedy because he led the fight for this bill since its first introduction in 1994. I think he would be tremendously pleased with the bipartisan vote of affirmation against discrimination which we will soon be taking.

Along the course of the two decades many have helped on this bill, whose footsteps no longer echo in these Halls, and to all of those champions of liberty who have participated in this process I say thank you.

There are many champions of liberty still in this body who have been fighting toward this moment, and I wish to make sure I acknowledge them: Senator Harkin, who championed many elements, including ending discrimination against those with disabilities and who steered this bill through his committee; Senator Harry Reid and the leadership team who worked together to enable this moment in the calendar to have this debate and to advocate this bill; Senator Tammy Baldwin, who brought in energy from the House and the powerful voice of her personal experience to bear on this debate; Senator Collins, who just spoke, who has done so much for so long to make this happen, and in the first 2 years of 2009 and 2010 was the lead cosponsor. She passed the baton to Senator Kirk, who has carried that baton forward in the most admirable way. Senators Murkowski and Hatch joined to help this bill come out of committee and helped create the momentum; Senators Portman, Ayotte, Heller, Toomey, and Hatch engaged to help make sure the religious exemption which we developed with the right hand is not taken away with the left hand, to reinforce the integrity of the title VII religious exemption; Senator Flake, who brought forward ideas on how to make sure the guidance would be there to help businesses understand how to implement this act.

There are a lot of coalition groups that have done a tremendous amount of work. Well done. Every conversation such as this takes advocates inside the Chamber and advocates outside the Chamber but a particular acknowledgement of the Human Rights Campaign.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

There are two staff members on my team who have labored on this whom I wish to personally acknowledge: Scott Rosenthal, who carried this organizational responsibility for a number of years, and my legislative director Jeremiah Bowman, who provided over these last few months this critical organizing stage.

I look forward to this vote for liberty, this vote for freedom, this vote for opportunity, and this vote for a fairer and just America.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent that my intern, Chloe Becker, who is shadowing me today, be accorded full privileges of the floor for the balance of the day.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Maryland, who has argued so well that the time has come to take a bold step in favor of equality, in favor of fairness in passing employment nondiscrimination. I too rise to speak to the importance of this action.

The Declaration of Independence in its second paragraph says, in words that are famous and well-known to all Americans:

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.

Certainly that vision of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is infused into everything we pursue in this Nation in the success of individuals, the success of our families, the success of our communities, and the success of our Nation. The debate on which we are about to embark is deeply connected to this issue because certainly the ability to be free from discrimination in the pursuit of a job and to be free from discrimination in the course of employment is central to that pursuit of happiness. It is central to the issue of liberty.

I rise today to say how important and vital this is to millions of Americans for whom discrimination has blocked and compromised the vision laid out in the Declaration of Independence. This bill, this framework for ending discrimination in employment, S. 815, is born with a lot of bipartisan partners whom I wish to thank at this moment.

It was back in 2009, my first year in the Senate, that Senator Kennedy and his team asked me to take the leadership of this bill that he had held near and dear to his heart and to carry the torch forward in fighting for fairness in employment, fighting for an end to discrimination. Since that time, many have stepped forward to be partners in this journey.

Senator Collins was the first chief cosponsor on the Republican side, stepping forward and taking her voice, her energy, her experience, and her insight in bringing that to bear. After 2 years, she passed the baton to Senator Mark Kirk, who had been a long-time champion of the vision of fairness and equality for all Americans. Both of them have done an outstanding and extraordinary job in forwarding this dialogue.

On the Democratic side we have, first and foremost Senator Kennedy, who carried the leadership for many years, including back in 1996 when we had this on the floor of the Senate--and I will return to that in due course. He was a champion for civil rights in many different parts of our world, including race discrimination, gender discrimination, and discrimination against the LGBT community.

Senator Harkin, who chairs the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, carried this bill forward through two hearings in 2009 and 2012, and then brought it to markup this past year and is prepared to send it to the floor. So I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership.

Senator Tammy Baldwin, who came to us with her own personal story and her experience with leadership in the House, has extended the conversation here in the Senate and has carried on so many individual meetings to speak to these core issues of equality, fairness, and opportunity.

So I thank all the bipartisan sponsors, and I thank all of those who last night said, yes, we should debate this issue. We should debate this issue of discrimination and blocking full opportunity for millions of Americans. So shortly we will be engaged in that debate.

After the Declaration of Independence, we had the preamble to the Constitution. This also is well known to Americans across our land.

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 the

Constitution of the United States of America.

So here we have this core concept of justice and the blessings of liberty for that generation and the generations that would follow. But what exactly is liberty? What is freedom?

President Johnson, in 1965, at a commencement address at Howard University, said:

Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in

American society--to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public

place, to go to a school. 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 that is a pretty good description of what liberty and freedom mean--a right to participate fully in American society in every respect: at the voting booth, in the job place, and in the public square, as you would choose to participate.

So the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which ends discrimination against our LGBT community, is rooted in the best of American values. It is rooted in the concepts of liberty and freedom in our founding documents and in our founding vision. It is rooted in the concept of fundamental fairness.

How unfair is it if an individual who is seeking to apply for a job cannot have the full opportunity for that job, the full opportunity to thrive because of discrimination? How fair is it that because of who you are outside of the workplace you are fired from the workplace?

Let us think of the Golden Rule. We all learned this early in life-- that we should treat others according to how we would want to be treated. And we all want to be treated with the respect and dignity President Johnson referred to.

It is the vision of equality that was in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the vision of opportunity that is rooted so deeply in the American Dream--the idea that in America, if you work and study hard, you can do just about anything. That is the vision my father gave me when he took me to the schoolhouse doors when I was small and said: If you go through those doors and you study hard, here in America you can do just about anything.

But discrimination takes away from that vision of opportunity. It says: If you study hard, here in America you can do just about anything, unless you have a certain color of skin, unless you are a certain gender, unless you have a certain gender identity or sexual orientation.

We have struck down many of those barriers. We have advanced on this vision of equality, but we have further to go. That is what this debate is about. In 29 States, an individual can still be fired from their job, they can still be told not to apply in the first place because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity--in 29 States. It should not be the case that the vision of equality and fairness and opportunity happens to occur on one side of a State line but it is destroyed if you cross that State line. This vision of opportunity and fairness and equality in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence didn't say the vision is only if you live in particular States, only if you live in the 21 States that have protections for our lesbian, gay, and bisexual community; only if you live in the 17 States that have employment protection for our transgender community.

The journey of this legislation began in 1974. It was a year after Stonewall. It was 39 years ago that Bella Abzug and Ed Koch introduced in the House of Representatives legislation that would ban job discrimination. It took another 19 years before such legislation was introduced here in the Senate and where hearings were held in the Labor and Human Resources Committee in 1994. It was 2 years later the bill was debated here in this Chamber--right here in this very room. The outcome was 49 for and 50 against, with Vice President Gore sitting in the presiding chair where the Senator from Hawaii now sits.

Vice President Gore had already clarified where he stood, so we were missing one Senator and one vote, and the result was that it took 17 years to again hold this conversation in this Chamber--17 years of discrimination in so many States across America. It is time to end that discrimination and enhance the vision of equality and fairness.

Today, we have a bill before us with 55 cosponsors. When we think about that 49-50 vote 17 years ago, we might think: Well, isn't this a done deal? There are 55 cosponsors and you only need 51 or 50 plus the Vice President to pass a bill in the Senate. But it is not a done deal. Because in the last decade and a half, the Senate has gone from being a simple majority Chamber, as envisioned in the Constitution, to being a Chamber where every action takes a supermajority vote.

We needed a supermajority of 60 to get on to the bill last night, and everyone anticipates we will need 60 votes to get off the bill; that is, to close debate and have a final vote. That is not the Senate of the past 200 years, but it is the Senate of the last 10 years, where the courtesy of extended debate has been turned into the veto of a supermajority. That is where we stand right now. Therefore, we need 60 votes.

We had 61 votes last night to get onto this debate, and I thank every one of those 61 Senators who stood up and said: Yes, after 17 years it is time to debate this issue; yes, it is right to consider the core issue of fairness to millions of Americans; yes, it is right to recognize that we should have a debate about the impact of discrimination on the ability of the individual to have full opportunity in our Nation.

Have no doubt. Discrimination is alive and well. I will share with you the story of Laura from Portland, OR, before Oregon had nondiscrimination clauses, which we adopted in 2007. Laura wrote that from 1980 to 1996 she worked for the Josephine County Sheriff's Office in Grants Pass, OR. She had the rank of sergeant. She was promoted often. She worked in a variety of capacities, including as a SWAT team commander, as a detective of the major crimes unit, and in the narcotics task force. During her 16 years, she says: I received numerous commendations, including commendations for removing an automobile accident victim from a burning vehicle, delivering a baby alongside a roadside, and disarming an armed man intent on harming himself. She was awarded for her expertise and diligence shown in a number of complicated criminal cases. She was named Deputy of the Year in 1994. She taught law enforcement classes at Rogue Community College and at the Oregon Police Academy. She had a distinguished employment record.

On Labor Day 1995, Laura was in a remote area when a police dog attacked her and did some damage to her leg and she was put on administrative leave. During the month that followed, her storage unit was broken into. Out of that break-in of her storage unit came information she was a transgender individual, and because of that she was fired. She had a stellar career in every aspect, but a break-in into her storage unit, plus discrimination, ended that career.

She ends her commentary by saying: Had employment nondiscrimination laws been in effect, I likely would have continued serving the citizens of Josephine County to this day.

We know from her employment record she would have served well. But that was before Oregon adopted antidiscrimination legislation.

Many people have written to share their stories. Terri from Aloha wrote:

Thank you for continuing the fight against discrimination.

I am retired now, but I did lose a job when I was young, for

being a lesbian. Until later in life, I stayed deep in the

closet after that to keep from losing another job. All of the

non-discrimination bills help us define who we are as a

people and underscores our belief in life, liberty, and the

pursuit of happiness for every American.

By one survey, far more than a third of LGBT individuals have experienced some form of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. That has a tremendous impact on the pursuit of happiness. That is a tremendous shrinking of freedom and liberty as envisioned in our founding documents, our vision for this Nation.

There are a number of issues which have been raised as colleagues have talked about this bill before it comes to the floor, and I wish to address some of them.

First, this bill is fully inclusive. It includes the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. It should be fully inclusive because discrimination is wrong. Discrimination shrinks opportunity. Discrimination is an offense against liberty and freedom in our Nation and full participation in society. So of course this bill should be fully inclusive, as it is in 17 of the 21 States that have laws on their books right now.

A second issue has been concern about lawsuits. We heard this yesterday from the Speaker of the House. But we have all of these pilots, if you will, with 21 States with measures on the books with all kinds of experience. So I asked the General Accounting Office to do an updated study on the issue of lawsuits, and what did we find? There has been no abuse. There has been no extraordinary stream of unfounded lawsuits against businesses, no damage to business, none at all.

In Oregon, LGBT discrimination claims are less than 2 percent of the total number of employment discrimination claims. That is less than 1 out of 50. In other States it has ranged from 2 to 6 percent. That is a small number, and that is why the business community has remained so supportive. In fact, close to 90 percent of the Fortune 500 companies have nondiscrimination practices they have adopted on their own. They have adopted them because it is good business.

Nike, in my home State of Oregon, says that ``ENDA is good for business, for our employees, and for our communities.''

The Nike statement continues: Inclusive, nondiscrimination policies ``enable us to attract and retain the best and brightest people around the world.''

That is why Fortune 500 companies have lined up to adopt nondiscrimination provisions--because what is good for liberty and what is good for opportunity is good for business. And the GAO study shows that any claim that there has been a problem with excessive lawsuits is simply false.

A third concern is about the religious exemption. The religious exemption in this bill is deeply founded on title VII of the Civil Rights Act, so there is a whole history of interpretation and understanding exactly where the boundaries are. This is the same religious exemption that was voted in favor of in the U.S. House of Representatives by a measure of 420 to 25. Mr. President, 420 to 25 said this is the right foundation to make sure we create the balance for religious organizations.

There are others who are concerned that, simply, the American people are not ready for this discussion--despite the fact that it has been adopted in 21 States, despite the fact that we have had many related issues before the American public up for discussion, including hate crimes. We have the Matthew Shepard hate crimes act; we had don't ask, don't tell; we had a Supreme Court discussion about marriage equality. Certainly Americans are well familiar with this. In fact, 80 percent of Americans think we have already done this.

I was explaining to my daughter Brynne about this bill, this fight against discrimination and its terrible impacts on liberty, freedom, and opportunity.

She said: But, Dad, people can't fire others because they are lesbian or gay, right? That is not possible.

I said: Sweetie, it was possible right here in Oregon until a couple years ago when in 2007 we adopted nondiscrimination policies and nondiscrimination statutes for our State.

She just shook her head.

It took me back to when I was in high school and I was hearing about

Jim Crow and discrimination against those with dark skin instead of lighter skin, and I thought that is not possible, not under our vision of opportunity and equality in our Constitution and our pursuit of happiness. It is not possible.

But it was possible, and it was very real well after I was born. But we ended that discrimination, and it is time to end this discrimination.

This is about the individual, but it is about our Nation as well. It is certainly about the vision of the Declaration of Independence, which has the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the founding motivation. It certainly is about our Constitution, which says that the core purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty because certainly you do not have liberty if you do not have the full opportunity to participate in the workplace across America.

Senator Ted Kennedy carried this battle until days before his death. The quote I am about to share is from August 5, 2009. He died just 20 days later. This may well have been one of his last public comments and introducing the 2009 bill may well have been one of his last legislative acts. He said:

The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as

justice is denied to even one among us.

I urge my colleagues, take a stand for equality. Take a stand for fundamental fairness. Take a stand for the vision of the pursuit of happiness embedded in our Constitution. Take a stand for justice for all. Support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to continue the series of comments my colleagues have been making about the situation we find ourselves in at this moment, with our government shut down and with the possibility of a default on the payments of our Federal Government. This situation is virtually unprecedented, to be in a situation of near default.

I want to step back from the immediate arguments over what the answer looks like to understand that we have wandered far outside the normal, orderly lines of legislative debate. Legislative debate is like a baseball game. Folks come together, and some want plan A, some want to oppose plan A, and one team wins and one team loses. In this case, we can go back to the health care debate. Some folks wanted a health care plan that would put millions of folks without insurance into insurance and have a number of systematic reforms that would help Americans and to end abuses in the insurance industry. They wanted to create competition between companies so that customers; that is, citizens, could compare policies and thereby get a better deal, and encourage companies to drop their prices.

This debate now goes back quite a while, to 2009, 2010. The side that wanted the improved health care won. The other side normally says, Well, we will be back next year. We will be back with some changes in team members, as in baseball, and we will debate this again.

Instead of calling to have another legislative debate down the line, those who lost asked for the umpire to declare that the losing team had won. This is acceptable; that is, turning to our Supreme Court and asking them if we had violated any of the constitutional provisions that guide our Nation. In this case the answer came back, and the answer was, no, the health care plan was constitutional and it would go forward.

So now the losing team, instead of saying we are going to debate this with the public, we are going to try to get our point of view across and get people elected who support it, said, We are going to hold the crowd hostage and threaten to burn down the stadium. If a person is attending a baseball game, we know that is outside the normal rules of competition. We create these rules in a democracy so we can have an orderly process by which to consider the viewpoints of our constituents and make decisions, but threatening to hold the American people hostage is outside of the rules. Threatening to have our national government default and burn down our economy is outside the rules. Yet that is where we stand today.

Great harm, even as I speak, is coming to our communities across the Nation. This harm may not touch some of the Members of this body who may have the financial foundation to not be particularly concerned about what happens to others. But I would encourage them to go live a few days in a working-class community and find out how this impacts families across our Nation. Not only are those families who work for the government not getting their salaries as well as being furloughed, but they are not then spending their funds in the local community, which creates an impact on all kinds of other groups. It isn't just in that direct employment. We have a situation with, say, those who are affected by food stamps. If the first day of the month comes and food stamps are not available, they don't go to the stores and buy groceries, so the stores are affected. The list goes on and on in all kinds of ways.

In fact, I can turn to my home State of Oregon to demonstrate some things known to me that maybe folks haven't considered. I have here a letter from the Port of Astoria. The Port of Astoria, in order for them to receive oceangoing ships, has to have its slips dredged to a certain depth; otherwise,

those ships can't dock. This letter basically is about how the government shutdown is affecting their ability to dredge and how the inability to dredge may have a profound economic consequence on the community.

The port writes, ``Every year the Port of Astoria is required to dredge to maintain operations.''

They have done that in various ways for the last 23 years. The letter goes on through all kinds of details of the process through which dredging occurs. On the third page, it gets down to this: ``Our biggest issue at this stage is the government shutdown has prevented our consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service. . . . '' Without that consultation, they cannot satisfy the ESA requirements of section 7 of the Clean Water Act.

The letter goes on to say:

This is the only element that is holding us up. . . .

You may think: Well, if they do not dredge on time, what is the big deal? To Astoria it is a very big deal. I continue with the letter:

If we are not able to dredge soon, this Port and this

community could suffer immense economic damages to the tune

of 5-6 million dollars of direct economic funds per vessel

that fails to dock at the Port of Astoria or 10-12 million

dollars of direct economic impact per month.

That is based on the fact that there are a couple major vessels per month.

The letter goes on to say:

Furthermore, if one vessel strikes the bottom [of the

river] the industry and our investors, clients and tenants

will be in an uproar and our entire business will be

blacklisted on the international trade market.

That would be terrible, to have a ship hit the bottom and have the Port of Astoria completely shut down as a result of the fact that they cannot consult--as they point out, that part of this is their ability to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

That is just one sizable impact for a community. There are thousands of these occurring across the country.

Let me take another example. We have a company in Oregon that produces a particular device that it exports, and it needs an export license to do so; otherwise, it cannot send its items abroad to its customer. Right now it has a big stockpile of a shipment it needs to send out.

Well, they cannot get the export license because the government is shut down. This is creating a big cashflow issue because they cannot receive the funds until they ship the item, which means huge potential damage to the company--in other words, something that may not have been thoroughly thought through.

What about the rural areas in our States? Some will be surprised to find out that you have a lot more government workers per capita in rural areas than in urban areas. Many parts of my State are forested, and the forests are owned either by the Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service--it is owned by the national government, in other words. If the folks are not there because the government is shut down, it has a direct impact. In fact, right now, the U.S. Forest Service is issuing directions on how folks who are in the middle of logging have to shut down, skid the logs they have cut, quit felling any more, and basically clean up and clear out--in the middle of an operation. That does not just mean losses for the company that is logging, it also means a loss of saw logs for the sawmill, which means layoffs or a shutdown at the sawmill.

Well, you can start to see how the consequences roll through the economy.

How about the superfund site in the Portland Harbor? There is an intense effort going on to get a plan to be able to clean up that superfund site. Negotiations are underway between the industries that populate that stretch and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Well, it is very important to move forward to meet deadlines. How are you going to move forward if the folks are not at the EPA?

If we go back to a timber company, it is not just the immediate impact, it is the impact a year out, because the folks who are planning the sales for a year out cannot plan those sales if they are shut down or if they are furloughed. They cannot plan those sales. And they have to have teams of biologists and folks evaluate every aspect of every sale to prepare it, put it up for auction. If you cannot put it up for auction, somebody does not buy it, there is no cutting, and then the logging companies and the mills are hurt.

This is not acceptable. What we have is a series of fiscal irresponsibilities by the group within the Senate and the House that has been blocking the budget and appropriations process. Fiscally irresponsible--let me lay that out. It is fiscally irresponsible to block the Budget Committee for the last 6 months from having a conference committee. Yet a small group has come to this floor and repeatedly objected to the conference committee meeting. Without that budget, you cannot have common numbers for the Senate and the House. That blocks the spending bills--known here as appropriations bills--so the spending bills cannot be put together. Or if they are put together, they are based on a different number than the House has, which means those become deadlocked.

That leads to a continuing resolution, which means continuing what we are already doing rather than having a new spending bill. That is a waste of money because it means we are going to keep doing things that we know are not working instead of doing the things we know are working better. That is why you have an annual appropriations or spending process so you can cast aside the things that are not working and do the things that are working. So it is wasteful to block the budget and appropriations process.

Then we have this government shutdown. What does this mean? This means less income because of less economic activity, and it means more expenses because of more safety net responsibilities, which means more deficit and more debt. So this group that is blocking the budget and appropriations process is responsible for increasing the deficit and increasing our debt.

Then let's fast forward to the threat of not paying our bills. I think everyone in America knows, as a family, if you do not pay your bills, your credit score goes down and you have to pay a higher interest rate when you borrow. It is the same with the Federal Government.

There are some in this body who have said: Well, let's make sure we pay our Treasury bonds, make good on our debt obligations, and let's just not pay other obligations. Anyone who has had a credit score knows that no matter what obligation you fail in, it becomes part of your credit score. It raises the interest. You can go for your home loan and say: I have always made my house payment, and they are like: Yes, but you did not pay your utility bill, you did not pay your car payment. That means you are a higher risk. You say: But I have always paid my house bill, always paid my mortgage. It does not matter. It shows that you are stressed and you do not have a consistent exercise of responsibility in paying your bills.

So there is no easy out, despite that my colleagues have come to this floor, this Chamber, and said: It is not a big deal. They are, simply put, wrong. If they had come to the Committee on Banking, they could have heard expert after expert after expert say, essentially: You are wrong. All your bills matter. All your bills affect your credit rating. When your credit rating goes down, your interest rates go up.

It is very expensive for the government, and it is wasted money, money that is buying us nothing--nothing. It is just paying more for the borrowing you have to do.

It is not just government that pays. It is the families who pay. They have to pay higher interest on their mortgage, a higher payment on their home loan, if you will, their home equity loan, a higher payment on their car loan, a higher payment on their business loan. Everyone wastes money because of this group of incredibly irresponsible, fiscally irresponsible Members of the House and Senate who have brought us to this point.

I can see my colleague has come to the floor, and I am sure he has stories from his State, and he has his insights on why this is an unacceptable, irresponsible place we find ourselves. All we really need--all we need is a short-term continuing resolution at this point to reopen government while we negotiate, and we should have a long-term resolution of the default issue because that is something that should never be threatened.

It is Ronald Reagan who said: Do not mess with the good faith and credit of the United States of America. It is time everyone on both sides of the aisle listens to what President Reagan said, because he was right on on this, that that is just a shoot-yourself-in-the foot, self-inflicted wound that does no one in America any good at all.

Let's return to the normal process of understanding there are bounds on the legislative debate. If you lose with your perspective in a legislative battle, you can come back again next time around. You can come back the next year, you can come back 2 years later, you can come back 3 months later if the votes shift. You can propose amendments. But you do not--you do not--hold the crowd hostage. You do not threaten to burn down the stadium. You do not hold the American people hostage. And you do not threaten to burn down our economy and our international standing by proposing that we not pay our bills.

Thank you very much.

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

I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with my colleagues from Montana and Alaska to talk about some of the impacts in our various States. I thought I would share six or seven different aspects of the impact of a government shutdown and the potential of a default and then turn this over to my colleague from Montana. Then I think we are going to engage in a little bit of back-and-forth.

Before I list specific examples of the challenges that are faced, I thought I would give a framework or an analogy of how to think about this.

The legislative process is very much like a baseball game where various folks come together. There are some for bills, some are against a bill, they have a competition, and ultimately one side wins. Normally, the side that loses, if they believe they are still right, will say we will be back again later in the session, next year, just like a baseball team, to compete again or we will be back next year with an improved team.

But in this case, after the team that supported health care won, the team that lost said we are going to appeal the ruling to the umpire and we are going to ask the umpire to rule the game out of order and rule that the losing team actually won. Then, if the umpire doesn't come to our rescue, we are going to hold the crowd hostage and we are going to threaten to burn down the stadium.

Those are the types of actions that are outside the sphere of the normal legislative process--and they should be--because we have to be able to have a dialog in a democracy where we consider a bill and decide yes or no and then implement it and then come back and have an argument over improvements to that framework or whether we should throw it out completely. The American people have the opportunity to weigh in and say: Keep those folks. They did good legislation or throw the bums out.

But all that is broken if, instead of completing that cycle, we have the losing team say we are going to hold the crowd hostage and threaten to burn down the stadium. Then democracy doesn't function. That is where we are right now. Holding the crowd hostage is the government shutdown, and threatening to burn down the stadium is the threat to default on the payment of bills due.

So let's look at how the government shutdown is reverberating in some unexpected ways. Let's take home mortgages. A great majority of home mortgages across the Nation are insured by Fannie and Freddie. That insurance doesn't happen while Fannie and Freddie are shut down.

Let's take work necessary to improve our ports, where that work is on jetties. Now that work has to stop because we can't incur a new liability to the contractor to haul the rock out and put it into place or maybe it is on a dredger that needs to take place during a window between different salmon runs in the Columbia River. But now that gets delayed and who knows when it will get done.

Let's talk about a company in Oregon that exports, and they need for those exports an export license, but they can't get the export license because Commerce is shut down and can't issue that license. They have inventory that is waiting to ship out. Then they have cashflow problems not only because they can't ship the inventory, they can't get the payments for shipping.

Let's talk about the trickledown for folks who are unemployed. You may think about it as an employee who is staying home. One employee wrote to me and said, think about this, think about the fact that I owe child support that is not going to get paid because I am not getting paid. Then he said, think about the housing market. I am not going to be able to pay my mortgage. What impact is that going to have on the U.S. economy?

Let's take a look at the backlog of veterans' benefits. All over my State I have veterans who are applying for benefits and they want an answer, and the Veterans Department is trying to process those applications. They have a high, intense effort to catch up on that backlog. Suddenly the backlog is getting bigger instead of getting smaller because the work that was being done to get rid of that backlog grinds to a halt and therefore individual veterans are disadvantaged by not having their applications processed.

Let's think about Head Start. Jessica wrote to me.

I work in early headstart in Grants Pass. We are facing a

shutdown due to the government shutdown. We have children who

need stability and a caring place where they can get their

basic needs met. So many families struggle to feed their

children and sometimes the food we serve is all those

children get for the day.

Then she says:

We provide more than just what some consider day care. We

teach, we nurture, we give hope to the next generation.

Shutting down our centers would mean a higher rate of poverty

and dangerous homes for families and children. We need our

voices to be heard. We need someone to stand up for us.

There are so many different ways in addition that this shutdown is reverberating in Oregon. One that affects every rural community is the impact on timber planting. We have had the shutdown going on of actual logging that is taking place in Federal forests. Folks who are logging are being told to stop cutting new trees, to pull their logs, skid them out, if you will, haul them out and shut down.

What about the planning for the cuts for next year? What about the supply of logs to the sawmills that is going to keep that sawmill operating through the winter and into the spring? The reverberations are substantial. What about the economy in those small towns that depends on those log mills when folks don't have the money, because they can't log, to buy food at the grocery store?

I know the issues are not unique to Oregon. I am sure many of them reverberate in Alaska and Montana.

With that, I yield the floor for my colleague from Montana.

I thank my colleague from Alaska. He is correct in pointing out that essentially right now we have a shutdown tax being imposed on families and businesses across our country. Indeed, we are facing just a few days from now a default tax. A lot of folks from across the aisle come here and say they took a pledge to block any form of tax. But this is the worst kind of tax of all.

There is absolutely no value, no revenue raised that can be applied to the important aspects of running a government or reducing our deficit. Indeed, this is a burden on

American businesses and American families that has no benefit in any other way.

In fact, the Senator mentioned the ripple effect. That ripple effect means what damages a family--I gave the example of a simple situation when an employee does not get their wages. They cannot pay their child support and they cannot pay their mortgage--and then what goes on from there.

Let's take, for example, the cut in food stamps. If food stamps are not issued, then it is not just the family who is directly hurt--and I might mention our most vulnerable families--but it is also the grocery stores that are hurt. They may have to lay off additional employees, additional ripples. This is a huge infliction of a burden.

If we want to think of a few examples of what happens with the default, we can think of many. Let's picture the default tax. By threatening not to pay our bills, that reduces confidence in Treasury bills, so therefore the interest rates go up on those Treasury bills. The interest rates therefore on mortgages go up and the interest on home loans go up.

Indeed, maybe you were planning to take out a home equity loan to repair your roof or make improvements to your house. You are going to pay a higher price. This is a default tax on all of America that does nothing productive at all.

This infliction of pain and agony on our businesses and our families is something that has not apparently resonated for some of my colleagues who want to threaten a default. Some of them have come to this floor and said: We think there is enough revenue coming in that we can pay our T-bills--our Treasury bills--and we can default on other obligations and therefore there won't be much damage.

We had a group of experts come in and testify before the banking committee. They said: Look, envision a situation where you are applying for a mortgage and you tell the bank that you have always made your house payments, but you were not able to make some of your other payments, such as your student or car loan. The bank is going to charge you more for your house payment because there are bills you have been defaulting on.

The same situation applies in America. If we pay our Treasury bills but we don't pay other obligations, that in itself will lower our credit rating and increase interest rates. A default is a default. You can choose whom you are going to default on, but no matter whom you default on, there will be a default tax on American families and American businesses with great damage to this country. That is why President Reagan simply said: Do not mess with the good faith and credit of the United States of America.

I think the children across the country know that responsible individuals pay their bills and responsible governments pay their bills. I am sure this concept is common sense in the great State of Montana.

If I could just emphasize the point the Senator from Montana just made, there are those who say they want to engage in a default strategy because they think it will somehow do something positive in controlling our deficit and controlling our debt, but what the Senator from Montana pointed out is that when you engage in using default as a weapon, you reduce revenues, increase costs, which increases deficits and increases the debt.

I think what we can summarize is not only is the default strategy severely damaging to families and businesses across the country, but it is damaging to the effort to reduce our deficits and reduce our debt.

I ask through the Chair whether the Senator knows of any business group in Alaska that is arguing that the government shutdown strategy or the default strategy is good for business.

It is the same in Oregon. I don't think I have heard from a single business group that has argued in favor of the shutdown or default strategy. I know many businesses need the export license, and they need permission to take up the subcontract or the contract on the jetty or the dredging or any number of other areas.

We have Crater Lake National Park. The tourist industry relies on people to come to that area. There are timber companies that need to have permission to complete their logging contract. In every single way they know, they are partnered with the government groups that enable this work to go forward, and they want those doors open. They want the government open.

I ask through the Chair, what is the story in Montana?

I appreciate my colleague from Alaska helping to organize this conversation. I must say, I think if we got 10 commonsense people in a room, they would agree to do that short-term continuing resolution. The Democrats have agreed to a Republican number. It is a win for the Republicans. The Democrats are asking for a negotiation. That is a win for our country. We are asking for the default strategy to be set aside completely because it is completely contrary to any responsible organization to use a strategy of not paying their bills.

On that foundation we should get back to the normal process of considering legislation we should be passing, such as how we restore the regular budget and appropriations process. I know that would be very welcome across this Nation. This Senate has to be able to get a budget process that isn't cut off right out of the gate, if you will, as it has been this year. It was 6 months ago that we passed a budget and we started to go to a conference committee, and a small group of colleagues filibustered starting the budget conference committee. Somehow we have to have a process where we can get into a conference room and have that conversation and not have a small group basically sabotage the entire budget appropriations process that is so important for our Nation.

The word's ``fiscal responsibility'' have echoed in this Chamber time after time and they have been put forward in defense of a series of strategies this year that can only be described as incredibly irresponsible.

Let's turn the clock back 6 months. We tried to convene a budget conference committee with the House and it was blocked. The budget conference committee was not blocked with the argument of fiscal responsibility. Yet there was a blockade of putting together a budget so we could have a smart plan to go forward and a foundation for the appropriations bills.

Then colleagues across the aisle blocked the appropriations process. They argued it was fiscally responsible to do so. But that meant keeping programs that are not working and continuing them rather than replacing them with better plans. So that, too, was irresponsible.

Then we had folks argue it would be fiscally responsible if we shut down the government. But this is costing America. This is decreasing revenue. This is increasing expenses and it is increasing the deficit. Therefore, we have imposed by this group who argues in the name of fiscal responsibility that we have a tax across America, the government shutdown tax imposed on families across the land. If that was not enough, not enough to block the budget process, not enough to block the appropriations process, not enough to shut down the government, now we have a group wanting to go even further. They have their grand default strategy. They want the United States to default and they argue this will do us well fiscally.

They could not be more wrong. In the Banking Committee we had a series of experts come in and we asked the question, What will happen if we default? Just simple examples were given. For example, the interest rate will go up on mortgages. A 1-percent increase on a mortgage means for a family buying a 200,000 house, about $120 more a month. That is the shutdown and the default tax that colleagues are imposing on families across America.

It doesn't stop there. Everything based on interest rates goes up. Everything based on income from economic activity goes down. Expenses of safety net programs go up; in other words, the deficit goes up and the debt goes up.

Let's stop this irresponsibility of blocking the budget process, blocking the appropriations process, shutting down the government, and imposing a default tax on families across this land. It is not only incredibly wrongheaded, it is doing great damage to families in every county, in every State across the United States of America. At this moment in this vote we are about to have, let's end this attack on the American families. Let's end this irresponsibility.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, I ask my colleague from Alabama, if he has a moment or two more, after I read an official consent request, if he might stay for a moment and answer a question about how that budget conference committee works?

Madam President, through the Chair, I want to pose a question about the budget conference committee. I think it is something that has puzzled a lot of people across America.

We hear some folks standing and giving speeches saying for 6 months we have been trying to get a conference committee and we have other folks who are standing and saying we will be glad to go to conference as long as there is a deal beforehand on exactly what is done in the conference committee.

In that regard, I thought it would be useful to have a little bit of perspective here. My understanding is that anything that comes out of the budget conference committee would have to have agreement of both the team of delegates from the House side and the team of delegates from the Senate side. That is a question I ask of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, to clarify that process?

Madam President, might I ask about a couple of other pieces to this puzzle. Why not, with that concern--I pass this question through the Chair to my colleague--why not, with that concern, simply ask the House delegates to carry that concern, rather than blocking the start of the conference committee?

Madam President, the thing that puzzles me, if my colleague would still consider responding, is that there is a process on the floor of giving instructions to a conference committee.

My colleague has left the floor, but the question I would have followed up with is, given that there is a specific process in the Senate for doing budget instructions to a conference committee, why not utilize that specific process, hold a vote on the conference committee instructions, rather than blockading the conference committee from starting?

I guess I will have to rhetorically answer the question, that there is no good explanation for why not go through the normal process and propose a Budget Committee instruction for our conferees.

Then the question becomes, couldn't we resolve this today? Couldn't we resolve this today, have a proposal put forward to instruct the conferees, vote on it on the floor of this Senate, and it either passes or it does not? Isn't the whole budget process designed specifically to be a simple majority process under the Budget Act so we can indeed get the job done and not be paralyzed?

I think--I believe the story--and I would have liked to have had the perspective of my colleague--but I think the story is a determination to not allow a majority determination of the budget instructions, to, instead, allow a minority to do so. I believe also that is an absolutely unprecedented situation, but I wanted to clarify that and understand whether there was in fact precedent for this type of determination that in a simple majority budget process, a minority would blockade a budget conference.

It is very strange that this should become such a central issue. But I want Americans to understand that essentially it boils down to this: For 6 months we have been trying to start a budget conference committee. A small group, a couple of individuals have wanted to instruct that Budget Committee but to do so without going through the normal process on the floor so they could do it as a minority rather than as a discussion and decision of the Senate as a whole. It is that precedent that seems unacceptable. I think if the tables were turned it would be felt strongly on the other side.

I hope to keep exploring these questions, because this 6-month obstruction of being able to get the budget that provides a framework for spending is deeply damaging. This body absolutely has to be able to do its fundamental work in determining the budget, getting a budget conference, getting a budget number, doing the spending bills, all appropriations bills--because otherwise we are careening from crisis to crisis.

I am going to shift gears here. I am going to step back from what is going on immediately with the shutdown and ask where did the seeds of this come from? If we turn back to about April of 2009, shortly after I first came to the Senate, there was a memo put out by an individual named Frank Luntz. Frank Luntz was providing a roadmap on how to block any sort of improvement in our health care system. Frank Luntz said, and he was specifically instructing my colleagues across the aisle--he said it doesn't matter what is in the health care bill. It doesn't matter what good it does. Whatever it is, let's attack it and call it a government takeover.

This was long before anyone even knew what was going to be in the bill. So this strategy of poisonous partisanship rather than problem solving has been with us since at least April of 2009. Therefore, a series of myths were generated. As the process proceeded, those who were behind the myths kind of doubled down on them. For example, we have in the health care reform a process by which small businesses can join together and get the marketing clout of a large group to negotiate lower rates and get a better deal. But under the Frank Luntz ``let's demonize and deceive'' strategy, instead of honoring the fact that the small businesses will be able to get a better rate, there has been an assertion this would hurt small businesses.

In the health care reform bill we have a process by which individuals who have no market clout can band together and get a much better deal. We are seeing significant drops in rates for individuals across this country under the marketplaces that are just now opening for signup. But indeed, under the Frank Luntz ``deceive and demonize'' strategy, it became: Let's tell people insurance rates will go up instead of down.

We have a bill before us--not a bill but a health care reform law coming into effect--that ends abuses in the insurance industry. There was a situation where you could not get a policy if you had a preexisting condition; the sort of situation where if you had insurance and you got sick you would be thrown off the policy; the fact that your children were not able to stay on your policy until they were able to get health care insurance of their own.

These bills of rights are reforms that are deeply sought by Americans across this country, urban and rural. But under the Frank Luntz ``deceive and demonize'' strategy, there was simply an assertion, unfounded, that this would destroy the insurance system.

You have a process whereby, under the marketplaces, insurance companies will have to compete, private insurance companies. Yet under the Frank Luntz strategy adopted by some of my colleagues across the aisle, they decided to say this would hurt competition even though it strengthens competition. It puts before people, apples to apples, companies having to lay out their rates and benefits under these different levels of insurance. We are seeing that competition from private companies proceed to lower rates.

Let's fast forward. We had that phase of the ``demonize the plan'' even though we have to mischaracterize it and deceive and delude Americans about what is in it.

Madam President, I will wrap up with a sentence or two and yield to my colleagues. Thank you for coming to the floor to continue the conversation.

I think it is so important that we proceed to put our government back on track and quit careening from crisis to crisis, doing damage to communities and families across our Nation.