Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement that is currently before the Senate.

This budget agreement, while far from perfect, will help move our economy forward, create certainty that has been sorely lacking for far too long, and save some $23 billion over the next decade. It has been 4 years since the House and Senate have reached an agreement on a budget that sets priorities for Federal spending and revenues. While the 2- year budget agreement worked out between Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan is not what I would have written, it is a step in the right direction. It will prevent Congress from lurching from crisis to crisis, avoid most of the across-the-board, meat-ax cuts known as sequestration, and will allow the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, to do its job of developing bills to responsibly fund the government within agreed to limits.

Over the last 9 months since sequestration went into effect, I have met with countless Mainers, including shipyard workers, medical researchers, educators, Border Patrol agents, small business owners affected by the delayed opening and shutdown of Acadia National Park, and nonprofit organizations providing services for the low-income and the elderly. All have shared stories of their personal experiences with how the indiscriminate cuts of sequestration have affected them, their families, and those whom they serve. The sequester has had a detrimental impact on Mainers and our country and is not the right approach to reducing our enormous debt. The $65 billion in sequestration relief provided by this agreement will help mitigate the effect on our economy moving forward and allow Congress to prioritize those programs that are most effective over those that are wasteful, duplicative, or simply no longer necessary.

The agreement will spare the Department of Defense some of the devastating sequestration cuts that Pentagon officials testified could cripple military readiness, harm our national security, and affect thousands of defense-related jobs that are vital to our economy in Maine and in the United States. It also begins to address the harmful impact of indiscriminate cuts made to vital programs such as transportation, education, and biomedical research.

It is critical that Congress continue to work to bring spending under control. Our national debt now stands at an almost incomprehensible $17.2 trillion. This sum, along with rising interest payments, is our legacy to future generations and simply must be responsibly addressed. This agreement will save $23 billion over the next 10 years and help prevent government shutdowns over the next 2 years.

I am, however, deeply disappointed that this agreement includes a reduction in the annual cost of living increase for some current military retirees. We must honor the service and sacrifice of the brave men and women who served our country so that they can continue to have access to the benefits they worked so hard to earn and that were promised to them. The significant changes to military retirement included in this budget single out current retirees and change the rules for them, and that is not fair.

In 2012, I was a member of the Armed Services Committee when we created the Military Retirement and Compensation Modernization Commission with the precise purpose of comprehensively examining this issue in a thorough way that protects current retirees and ensures that the military retirement system is offering the right incentives to recruit and retain the most qualified and experienced servicemembers at a time of budget constraints.

I have raised my concerns with my colleagues about the military retirement provisions in this agreement and will work to ensure that this issue is addressed before it is set to take effect in January 2016. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee has already committed to reviewing this change at the start of next year. I intend to do

everything I can, in conjunction with the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, to identify a more reasonable approach to this problem that would provide the same level of savings while protecting current retirees.

The American people are weary of watching a Congress that can't work. We saw the result of this dysfunction when the government shutdown in October. That is why I worked so hard to forge a compromise that helped get Congress functioning again. We simply must avoid another shutdown and put our Nation back on a sound financial footing. In my judgment, this agreement takes the first steps on a responsible path forward.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who coauthored this legislation, for clarifying that it is not the intent of the bill's authors to require that existing contracts with not-for-profit student loan servicers be canceled and that such servicers will continue to be able to compete for additional Department of Education contracts in the future. Not- for-profit servicers provide students in Maine and across the country with important financial counseling services, and I am pleased to know that they will continue to be allowed to compete to perform this work under this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McCaskill and Senator Manchin to introduce the Securing Job Corps Centers Act, a bill that seeks to address the Job Corps' recent management challenges.

Job Corps is an educational and vocational training program administered by the Department of Labor, DOL, that helps at-risk young people ages 16 through 24 by giving them the tools they need to succeed. Job Corps has been training young adults for meaningful careers for nearly 50 years and is committed to offering its students a safe, drug-free environment where they can train and learn.

Job Corps' mission is to attract eligible young people, teach them the skills they need to become employable and independent, and help them find meaningful jobs or further their education. This mission has been threatened, however, by the Department of Labor's mismanagement.

Earlier this year, the DOL ordered a temporary suspension of new student enrollments as its way to address a significant Job Corps program shortfall of $61.5 million. This was in addition to the $39 million shortfall in the previous

program year. The suspension of enrollments decimated the program, setting it back for years to come, which is especially upsetting considering Job Corps has compiled an impressive record over five decades in preparing at-risk youth for the workforce or higher education.

According to DOL, several factors contributed to Job Corps' financial problems, but the most significant was unchecked growth in expenditures due to serious weaknesses in the financial management processes. I wrote to DOL officials for clarification, and they responded with the following:

Job Corps lacked appropriate program monitoring tools and

control protocols, including those to sufficiently analyze

contractual spending trends. In turn, this led to inadequate

spending projections for the Operations account.

It is clear that the Department of Labor has mismanaged this program, and the students suffered the consequences. There are two Job Corps centers in Maine that do excellent work to help these young adults become productive members of society. The Penobscot Job Corps Academy and the Loring Job Corps Center have the capability to serve nearly 800 at-risk youth on a daily basis. These centers put these young men and women on a path to earning their high school diploma and to gaining the necessary skills to enter the workforce or the military or go on to college.

However, the shortfall caused by DOL mismanagement forced these centers to furlough and lay off staff to reduce costs--jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of these centers and their important work.

Studies have found Job Corps to be among the most effective of all federally supported programs that serve youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are disconnected from both school and work. Even in the face of unprecedented budget shortfalls and enrollment freezes, Job Corps has continued to produce impressive results--85 percent of graduates obtain a job, enroll in higher education, or enlist in the military.

To ensure recent management challenges are addressed as transparently and effectively as possible, our bill would create an advisory board responsible for working with the DOL to develop policy and programmatic recommendations related to Job Corps' administration. The advisory panel will provide a series of reports directly to the U.S. Secretary of Labor and Congress on budget and financial management protocols, cost efficiencies, and maximizing the number of youth served. Our bill will also require earlier notifications of management decisions at DOL that could affect student enrollments.

Job Corps' recent management challenges have had ripple effects throughout the communities served by Job Corps centers and continue to have an impact on center operations. The fact that every Job Corps center continues to operate at 21 to 25 percent below full capacity is the result of a management structure that forced operational decisions to be made in haste and without proper consideration of alternatives. An advisory board of experienced Job Corps operations experts can help the program and its new leadership to emerge from the crises of the last year and ensure that, in the future, Job Corps policy decisions are always guided by what is in the best interests of Job Corps students and communities.

Job Corps' value remains clear. Studies suggest that leaving behind the youth served by this program could cost our states and our economy hundreds of thousands of dollars per youth. I urge my colleagues to support our bill to ensure that Job Corps returns to the operational efficiency that characterized its first 50 years and remains among the nation's most successful workforce programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McCaskill and Senator Manchin to introduce the Securing Job Corps Centers Act, a bill that seeks to address the Job Corps' recent management challenges.

Job Corps is an educational and vocational training program administered by the Department of Labor, DOL, that helps at-risk young people ages 16 through 24 by giving them the tools they need to succeed. Job Corps has been training young adults for meaningful careers for nearly 50 years and is committed to offering its students a safe, drug-free environment where they can train and learn.

Job Corps' mission is to attract eligible young people, teach them the skills they need to become employable and independent, and help them find meaningful jobs or further their education. This mission has been threatened, however, by the Department of Labor's mismanagement.

Earlier this year, the DOL ordered a temporary suspension of new student enrollments as its way to address a significant Job Corps program shortfall of $61.5 million. This was in addition to the $39 million shortfall in the previous

program year. The suspension of enrollments decimated the program, setting it back for years to come, which is especially upsetting considering Job Corps has compiled an impressive record over five decades in preparing at-risk youth for the workforce or higher education.

According to DOL, several factors contributed to Job Corps' financial problems, but the most significant was unchecked growth in expenditures due to serious weaknesses in the financial management processes. I wrote to DOL officials for clarification, and they responded with the following:

Job Corps lacked appropriate program monitoring tools and

control protocols, including those to sufficiently analyze

contractual spending trends. In turn, this led to inadequate

spending projections for the Operations account.

It is clear that the Department of Labor has mismanaged this program, and the students suffered the consequences. There are two Job Corps centers in Maine that do excellent work to help these young adults become productive members of society. The Penobscot Job Corps Academy and the Loring Job Corps Center have the capability to serve nearly 800 at-risk youth on a daily basis. These centers put these young men and women on a path to earning their high school diploma and to gaining the necessary skills to enter the workforce or the military or go on to college.

However, the shortfall caused by DOL mismanagement forced these centers to furlough and lay off staff to reduce costs--jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of these centers and their important work.

Studies have found Job Corps to be among the most effective of all federally supported programs that serve youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are disconnected from both school and work. Even in the face of unprecedented budget shortfalls and enrollment freezes, Job Corps has continued to produce impressive results--85 percent of graduates obtain a job, enroll in higher education, or enlist in the military.

To ensure recent management challenges are addressed as transparently and effectively as possible, our bill would create an advisory board responsible for working with the DOL to develop policy and programmatic recommendations related to Job Corps' administration. The advisory panel will provide a series of reports directly to the U.S. Secretary of Labor and Congress on budget and financial management protocols, cost efficiencies, and maximizing the number of youth served. Our bill will also require earlier notifications of management decisions at DOL that could affect student enrollments.

Job Corps' recent management challenges have had ripple effects throughout the communities served by Job Corps centers and continue to have an impact on center operations. The fact that every Job Corps center continues to operate at 21 to 25 percent below full capacity is the result of a management structure that forced operational decisions to be made in haste and without proper consideration of alternatives. An advisory board of experienced Job Corps operations experts can help the program and its new leadership to emerge from the crises of the last year and ensure that, in the future, Job Corps policy decisions are always guided by what is in the best interests of Job Corps students and communities.

Job Corps' value remains clear. Studies suggest that leaving behind the youth served by this program could cost our states and our economy hundreds of thousands of dollars per youth. I urge my colleagues to support our bill to ensure that Job Corps returns to the operational efficiency that characterized its first 50 years and remains among the nation's most successful workforce programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and to address significant challenges facing the Department of Defense.

The bill approved by the Armed Services Committee includes necessary provisions to take care of our troops, such

as a 1-percent pay raise and the maintenance of affordable health care fees to avoid a detrimental effect on military retirees and their families.

I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for increasing authorizations for the shipbuilding budget, including an additional $100 million to support the procurement of a tenth DDG-51 destroyer under the current multiyear procurement contract. I am pleased that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on which I serve has also included this critical $100 million.

This ship is needed in the fleet to maintain the robust forward presence our Nation requires to protect trade routes, keep the peace, and assist when tragedy strikes.

When tensions flared in Syria, it was Navy destroyers that were positioned off the coast. Following the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, two U.S. Navy destroyers were among the first ships on station.

Taking advantage of the opportunity to procure this ship will lock additional savings on a multiyear procurement that has already saved taxpayers $1.5 billion compared to procuring the ships individually.

I am also pleased the Armed Services Committee incorporated many provisions I support to combat sexual assault, which is one of the greatest challenges faced by the Department of Defense for a decade.

I first raised my concern about sexual assaults in the military with General George Casey in 2004. To say his response was disappointing would be an understatement. I am convinced that if the military had heeded the concern I raised then, this terrible problem would have been addressed much sooner, saving many individuals the trauma, pain, and injustice they endured.

While I will address this issue at greater length during consideration of this bill, I want to highlight three of the most important changes included in the bill.

First, the bill limits the authority of a convening authority to overturn or modify the findings of a court-martial in sexual assault cases. Second, the bill requires the military to provide an attorney dedicated to the interests of survivors of sexual assaults to provide legal advice and assistance when survivors need such assistance the most. Third, a servicemember convicted of sexual assault would be discharged from the military.

I also support the provisions in the bill to maintain the readiness of our military services by authorizing $1.8 billion to address readiness problems caused by fiscal year 2013 sequestration. This bill also directs the Pentagon to rein in unnecessary or wasteful spending while rejecting proposals that purport to save money but that actually cause more harm than good.

Two important provisions require DOD to develop a plan to reduce the number of General and Flag officer billets and to streamline management headquarters in an effort to save $100 billion over 10 years. Reducing unnecessary overhead is something we must insist upon in these fiscally constrained times.

Increasing the authorization for the Department of Defense Inspector General by $36 million will allow the office to perform additional oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD programs. Historically, DOD IG reviews have resulted in a return on investment of nearly $11 dollars for every $1 appropriated.

The bill wisely rejects the President's proposal to authorize a new Base Realignment and Closure round in 2015 and prohibits the authorization of another BRAC round at least until the Department submits a review of excess overseas military facilities.

This is the right way to proceed because the GAO has found that the previous BRAC round has never produced the amount of savings that were promised when it was originally sold to Congress.

While this is an excellent bill, I hope to offer several amendments to make this important bill even stronger in addressing the national security challenges facing our country.

The first amendment I intend to offer, with my colleague Senator King, has been requested by the Navy to support the final settlement of the A-12 case. The Navy has reached an agreement with Boeing and General Dynamics to settle a decades-old lawsuit concerning the cancellation of the A-12 aircraft.

Our amendment would allow the Navy to accept $400 million in in-kind payments from industry to satisfy outstanding Navy claims related to the A-12 legal dispute between the Navy and two contractors, Boeing and General Dynamics. All parties--the Navy, the Department of Justice, Boeing, and General Dynamics--support the settlement.

If this amendment is adopted, the Navy will receive $400 million worth of needed military hardware effectively for free at a time when it is facing incredible fiscal challenges from sequestration.

In addition, taxpayers benefit because there is no guarantee the government will ultimately prevail in the ongoing litigation. If the government does not prevail, taxpayers may not get anything.

The second amendment I intend to file would require athletic footwear purchased for new military recruits to be domestically manufactured. Currently, DOD is circumventing the intent of the law known as the Berry Amendment through the use of cash allowances that provide no preference for domestically manufactured footwear. This amendment, which is also cosponsored by Senator King, would align the procurement policy for athletic footwear with other footwear and clothing provided to servicemembers.

In the last year, the Defense Logistics Agency has awarded more than $36 million in contracts for combat boots and dress shoes made in America. In contrast, the military services have provided cash vouchers totaling more than $15 million per year to new recruits to purchase athletic footwear, without any preference for domestically manufactured products. Why should DOD single out athletic footwear to be treated differently from dress shoes or combat boots?

Another amendment with Senator Blumenthal would require the Attorney General to jointly prescribe regulations to implement prescription drug take-back programs with the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

We know prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and veteran suicides, which are occurring at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, 349 servicemembers died from suicide in 2012--more than the number of servicemembers who lost their lives in combat in Afghanistan last year. According to the VA, 22 veterans commit suicide each day based on data collected from more than 21 States.

Last year, the Senate adopted this amendment by unanimous consent. Regrettably, the provision was eliminated at the urging of the Drug Enforcement Agency with assurances that the agency was nearing completion of regulations that would address the concern.

One year later, we are still receiving written assurances from the DEA that they are ``almost ready'' to complete these regulations. In the meantime, prescription drug abuse continues to afflict our service men and women and our veterans. We cannot sit idly by for another year waiting for the bureaucracy to address this matter of life and death.

Finally, Senator King and I will offer an amendment to allow businesses that are located on a closed military base to draw employees from the local community to meet the 35-percent requirement for the purposes of qualifying as a HUBZone.

Congress previously passed a law to assist communities affected by previous BRAC rounds by allowing former bases to be eligible for HUBZone status, which provides preferences for certain Federal contracting opportunities.

Unfortunately, the law limits the geographic boundaries of a BRAC- related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed, which makes it difficult or impossible for businesses to qualify for the HUBZone program.

Our amendment would allow employees that live in nearby census tracts to count toward the 35 percent requirement and extend the period of eligibility from 5 years to 10 years so Congress' original intent can be fulfilled.

In addition to these amendments, I intend to cosponsor several others to further improve the bill.

Once again, I will support Senator Feinstein's amendment to make clear that a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident arrested in the U.S. cannot be

detained indefinitely without charge or trial.

I am also cosponsoring an amendment with Senator Pryor to make sure that our dual status National Guard technicians are treated on an equal footing as our Active-Duty personnel. If our Active-Duty personnel are exempted from sequestration, then the National Guard dual status technicians--who are effectively the equivalent of Active-Duty military in the National Guard--should be exempt as well.

Let me close by thanking Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for their hard work in putting together a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of our military and our national security.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins and Ms. Klobuchar pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 303 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here on the Senate floor with my friend and colleague from Minnesota Senator Klobuchar as we submit an important resolution.

This month is National Alzheimer's Awareness Month. Alzheimer's is a terrible disease that exacts a tremendous personal and economic toll on both the individual and the family. As have many families, mine has experienced the pain of Alzheimer's. I know there is no more helpless feeling than to watch the progression of this devastating disease. It is equally painful to witness the emotional and physical damage inflicted on family caregivers exhausted by an endless series of 36- hour days.

Moreover, Alzheimer's disease is the only cause of death among the top 10 in our Nation without a way to prevent it, to cure it, or even to slow its progression. More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease--more than double the number in 1980. Based on current projections, as many as 16 million Americans over the age of 65 will have Alzheimer's by the year 2050.

In addition to the tremendous human suffering it causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States more than $200 billion a year, including $142 billion in costs to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. This price tag will increase exponentially as the baby boom generation ages. If we fail to change the current trajectory of Alzheimer's disease, our country will not only face a mounting public health crisis but an economic one as well. If nothing is done to slow or stop this disease, the Alzheimer's Association estimates that Alzheimer's will cost our country an astonishing $20 trillion over the next 40 years.

It is estimated that nearly one in two baby boomers reaching the age of 85 will develop Alzheimer's. As a consequence, chances are the members of the baby boom generation will either be spending their golden years suffering from Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways, Alzheimer's has become the defining disease of this generation.

If we are to prevent Alzheimer's from becoming the defining disease of the next generation, it is imperative that we dramatically increase our investment in Alzheimer's disease research. According to a study commissioned by the National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer's and other dementias cost the United States more than cancer and heart disease. This study finds that both the costs and number of people with dementia will more than double within 30 years--skyrocketing at a rate that rarely occurs with a chronic disease.

At a time when the cost to Medicare and Medicaid of caring for Alzheimer's patients exceeds $140 billion a year, we are spending only slightly more than $500 million on Alzheimer's research. We are spending $142 billion under Medicare and Medicaid, more than $200 billion overall, and yet only $500 million on research. We currently spend $6 billion a year for cancer research, $3 billion a year for research on HIV/AIDS, and $2 billion for cardiovascular research. And I wish to emphasize that those are always worthy investments--investments that have paid dividends in terms of better treatments, cures, and in some cases prolonged lives. Surely we can do more for Alzheimer's given the tremendous human and economic price of this devastating disease.

The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease was authorized by a bipartisan law passed in 2010 called the National Alzheimer's Project Act, which I authored with then-Senator Evan Bayh.

The national plan has as its primary goal to ``prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by 2025.'' The chairman of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services, which was created by the National Alzheimer's Project Act, has testified before Congress that the United States must devote at least $2 billion a year to Alzheimer's research to achieve that goal.

I am therefore joining with my colleague from Minnesota Senator Klobuchar in submitting this resolution declaring that the goal of preventing and effectively treating Alzheimer's by 2025 is an urgent national priority. Our resolution recognizes that dramatic increases in research funding are necessary to meet that goal and resolves that the Senate will strive to double the amount of funding the United States spends on Alzheimer's research in fiscal year 2015 and then develop a plan to meet the target of $2 billion a year over the next 5 years.

Just think of the figures. We are spending some $212 billion a year treating, caring for people with Alzheimer's.

All we are asking is that over the next 5 years we achieve the goal that the Alzheimer's Council--a council of experts in Alzheimer's-- including experts from the Mayo Clinic in Senator Klobuchar's home State, have recommended that we spend $2 billion. Mr. President, $2 billion is such a tiny percentage of the amount we are spending.

So this is a worthy investment. It is one that will not only relieve suffering, save lives, potentially, but it will also more than pay for itself.

I urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

I ask unanimous consent that letters from the Alzheimer's Association and the UsAgainstAlzheimer's group--both predominant national advocacy groups endorsing our resolution--be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that my colleague Senator Klobuchar, who has been such a leader in this area, has joined me on the Senate floor and I yield the floor to her.

First, I wish to commend the senior Senator from Maryland, the dean of the women Senators, for organizing this debate today on an issue that concerns each of us; that is, the growing crisis of sexual assault in the military.

I first raised my concern over the military's inadequate response to the growing crisis of sexual assault nearly 10 years ago. I remember it well. It was a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004, at which I expressed my growing alarm about the number of sexual assaults in the military and the inadequate response by the leaders of the military to provide adequate care for the survivors and to ensure appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of these reprehensible crimes.

In an exchange I had with GEN George Casey, I stated the military needs to be much more responsive to reports of sexual assault, particularly in the field, and to separate these women and, in some cases, the male victims, from their alleged attackers. The Department must also vigorously prosecute offenders and hold commanders accountable for establishing zero tolerance policies.

To say that General Casey's response was disappointing would be an understatement. I am convinced that if the military had heeded the concerns that I and others such as Senator Mikulski raised a decade ago, this terrible problem would have been addressed much sooner, saving many individuals from the trauma, the pain, and the injustice they endured.

Back then, sadly, the attitude of the high-ranking officials who were testifying at that 2004 hearing was dismissive, even though these crimes never should have occurred in the first place, traumatized the survivors, and eroded the trust and discipline that are fundamental to every military unit. Thankfully, the attitude I perceive amongst senior military officers today is markedly different from the one I encountered 9 years ago. The work of translating the military's stated policy of zero tolerance into reality, however, remains unfinished business. Fostering a culture of zero tolerance so that the number of assaults is greatly diminished remains a goal, not reality. Ensuring that survivors do not think twice about reporting an assault for fear of retaliation or damage to their careers is still not part of the military culture.

In 2011, I joined our former colleague John Kerry in coauthoring the Defense STRONG Act as an initial step to address this crisis. Provisions of that bill were signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. They provide survivors of sexual assault the assistance of advocates with genuine confidentiality. They provide guaranteed access to an attorney and expedited consideration to be transferred far away from their assailant.

Earlier this year I introduced the Coast Guard STRONG Act to extend these protections to Coast Guard members. I thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Senator McCaskill for their work to include these provisions in this year's NDAA.

More than anything, survivors need to have the confidence that the legal system in which they report a crime will produce a just and fair result. Based upon data from the Department of Defense's most recent sexual assault prevention and response survey, that view is not held by enough servicemembers or survivors.

As a result, I have supported and introduced legislation with Senators Gillibrand and McCaskill aimed at reducing the barriers to justice that many survivors of sexual assault currently face in the military.

I commend both Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill for their extraordinary leadership and dedication to resolving this unacceptable problem.

Let me also thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for incorporating significant provisions from both bills into the NDAA.

In fact, there are more than 26 provisions specifically targeting sexual assault in the military in the bill that we are debating today. For example--and there are many, but I wish to highlight one because it was part of a bill Senator McCaskill and I introduced--the legislation mandates a dishonorable discharge or dismissal for any servicemember convicted of sexual assault. This came from a bipartisan, bicameral bill, the BE SAFE Act, that I introduced with Senator McCaskill, Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, and Congressman Mike Turner earlier this year.

In addition, the NDAA eliminates the ability of a convening authority to overturn a conviction by a jury post-trial for major offenses.

It permits a commander to relocate an alleged perpetrator of a sexual assault crime rather than relocating the survivor following an attack.

It eliminates certain factors, such as the alleged character of the accused, that a commander can consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense so that these decisions are based on evidence and the law.

Finally, the bill includes a provision I support that requires the military to provide an attorney dedicated to the interests of survivors of sexual assaults who can provide legal advice and assistance when survivors need such assistance the most.

There are many other important provisions that are included in this bill. Our work will not be complete until the Pentagon has demonstrated that it is fully enforcing its stated policy of zero tolerance for sexual assault.

There are strong views in the Pentagon and in Congress on how best to address this issue beyond the 26 provisions in the bill before us. There is much debate on what it means for the military's unique legal system.

One of the criticisms I have heard is that we should wait a few more months for the results of still more studies or

perhaps even wait a few more years to see if recently enacted provisions have made a difference. I strongly disagree. How many more victims are required to suffer before we take additional action? How many more lives must be ruined before we act? Rather than waiting for the results of yet more studies, we must debate proposals to increase the confidence of survivors and increase prevention efforts now until we have proved that the military has, indeed, fostered a culture of zero tolerance in which survivors are no longer concerned about retaliation from their peers or even their commanders.

This is why I have decided to support Senator Gillibrand's amendment to this bill. This was not an easy decision, as there are valid arguments on both sides. Senator Gillibrand's amendment takes aim squarely at the problem of victims failing to report sexual assault. In my judgment, her amendment will encourage more victims to report sexual assaults, and that is absolutely critical.

There can be no question about the Senate's commitment to reducing the instances of sexual assault in the military and to providing appropriate care for survivors. As we debate various proposals, we are united by the need for the serious reforms that are included already in this bill and that will enhance the military's response to sexual assault.

I wish to thank all of those on the Armed Services Committee, particularly the two leaders, Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand, for their excellent work.

I am certain our work on the NDAA will make a real difference in reducing unnecessary suffering, injury, and injustice.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013, or the ``CURB Act.'' This legislation is designed to help relieve the onerous regulatory burden on our Nation's job creators.

When I ask employers in Maine what we need to do to help them add jobs, they tell me that Washington must reduce the cost and complexity of the regulations imposed on them. And this is not just a concern voiced by Maine businesses. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll of small business owners found that the vast majority are not hiring new workers right now, and more than half pointed to government regulations as one of the reasons why. The National Federation of Independent Business found the same when it polled its members last year.

No business owner I know questions the legitimate role of regulation in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of employees and the public. But the public is not well-served by regulations that bury small businesses under a mountain of paperwork, driving up costs unnecessarily, and impeding growth and job creation. Proper regulation should be as efficient and simple as possible. At the very least, the benefits of a regulation should exceed its costs.

Unfortunately, the burden of Federal regulations continues to grow. Right now, Federal agencies are at work on nearly 2,500 new rules, at least 229 of which affect small businesses. One hundred thirty-nine are major rules, costing more than $100 million each. These rules will go on top of a pile of regulations now measured in the millions of pages.

Year-by-year, this pile of pages gets ever deeper. In the 1970s, the Federal Register, the compilation of Federal regulations, added some 450,000 pages. In the first decade of the 21st Century, more than 730,000 pages were added--a rate of 73,000 pages per year. The pace continues to accelerate. On average since 2010, the Federal Government has added more than 80,000 pages to the Federal Register each year. This cannot continue.

We are not in the fifth year of an economic ``recovery'' that has produced tepid economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment. The red-tape that is strangling our job creators is one of the chief reasons our economy has not fully recovered, and why millions of Americans still cannot find jobs. If we want to get our economy moving again and get Americans back to work, we must get serious about streamlining and reforming our regulatory system.

The CURB Act is designed to do that by requiring Federal agencies to take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. It does this in four ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices; second, by requiring agencies to follow ``good guidance'' practices; third, by helping small businesses avoid unnecessary penalties for first-time, non-harmful paperwork violations; and fourth, by implementing reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act proposed by our former colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. Let me explain each of these provisions in further detail.

First, as a general rule, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect costs regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. The CURB Act would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order.

Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice

and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' Let me explain why this is necessary:

After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so-called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements.

In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. The CURB Act would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin.

Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses do not have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. The CURB Act directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply does not make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.

Fourth, as I mentioned, my bill also includes reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. These reforms would build on the RFA by expanding its requirements to include guidance documents and indirect costs, in a manner consistent with what I have already described. In addition, the reforms to the RFA would allow small businesses to challenge burdensome rules when they are proposed, instead of when the rules have become final, which is often too late.

Finally, these proposed reforms would put teeth into the RFA's requirement that agencies review their rules for possible savings at least once a decade. The bill directs each agency's Inspector General to notify the head of the agency if a rule has not been reviewed in the time required. Once this notification is received, the agency has 6 months to conduct the required review. If it fails to do so, the bill directs the IG to notify Congress, triggering the recission of one percent of the offending agency's personnel budget unless Congress intervenes.

Before I close, I want to note that many Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, have offered serious regulatory reform proposals for our consideration in recent years. Indeed, even the President's own ``Jobs Council''--before it was disbanded--stressed the need for regulatory reform, and put forward ideas consistent with many of the proposals I and other Members of this body have submitted as legislation. Last session, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under the leadership of then- Chairman Lieberman and myself, held a series of hearings on regulatory reform. But the Senate as a whole did not act on these proposals last session, or dedicate any time whatsoever to their consideration. I am hopeful this session will be different, and room will be made on the Senate's agenda to consider regulatory reform. As we do so, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach I have proposed in the CURB Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013, or the ``CURB Act.'' This legislation is designed to help relieve the onerous regulatory burden on our Nation's job creators.

When I ask employers in Maine what we need to do to help them add jobs, they tell me that Washington must reduce the cost and complexity of the regulations imposed on them. And this is not just a concern voiced by Maine businesses. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll of small business owners found that the vast majority are not hiring new workers right now, and more than half pointed to government regulations as one of the reasons why. The National Federation of Independent Business found the same when it polled its members last year.

No business owner I know questions the legitimate role of regulation in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of employees and the public. But the public is not well-served by regulations that bury small businesses under a mountain of paperwork, driving up costs unnecessarily, and impeding growth and job creation. Proper regulation should be as efficient and simple as possible. At the very least, the benefits of a regulation should exceed its costs.

Unfortunately, the burden of Federal regulations continues to grow. Right now, Federal agencies are at work on nearly 2,500 new rules, at least 229 of which affect small businesses. One hundred thirty-nine are major rules, costing more than $100 million each. These rules will go on top of a pile of regulations now measured in the millions of pages.

Year-by-year, this pile of pages gets ever deeper. In the 1970s, the Federal Register, the compilation of Federal regulations, added some 450,000 pages. In the first decade of the 21st Century, more than 730,000 pages were added--a rate of 73,000 pages per year. The pace continues to accelerate. On average since 2010, the Federal Government has added more than 80,000 pages to the Federal Register each year. This cannot continue.

We are not in the fifth year of an economic ``recovery'' that has produced tepid economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment. The red-tape that is strangling our job creators is one of the chief reasons our economy has not fully recovered, and why millions of Americans still cannot find jobs. If we want to get our economy moving again and get Americans back to work, we must get serious about streamlining and reforming our regulatory system.

The CURB Act is designed to do that by requiring Federal agencies to take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. It does this in four ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices; second, by requiring agencies to follow ``good guidance'' practices; third, by helping small businesses avoid unnecessary penalties for first-time, non-harmful paperwork violations; and fourth, by implementing reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act proposed by our former colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. Let me explain each of these provisions in further detail.

First, as a general rule, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect costs regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. The CURB Act would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order.

Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice

and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' Let me explain why this is necessary:

After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so-called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements.

In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. The CURB Act would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin.

Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses do not have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. The CURB Act directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply does not make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.

Fourth, as I mentioned, my bill also includes reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. These reforms would build on the RFA by expanding its requirements to include guidance documents and indirect costs, in a manner consistent with what I have already described. In addition, the reforms to the RFA would allow small businesses to challenge burdensome rules when they are proposed, instead of when the rules have become final, which is often too late.

Finally, these proposed reforms would put teeth into the RFA's requirement that agencies review their rules for possible savings at least once a decade. The bill directs each agency's Inspector General to notify the head of the agency if a rule has not been reviewed in the time required. Once this notification is received, the agency has 6 months to conduct the required review. If it fails to do so, the bill directs the IG to notify Congress, triggering the recission of one percent of the offending agency's personnel budget unless Congress intervenes.

Before I close, I want to note that many Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, have offered serious regulatory reform proposals for our consideration in recent years. Indeed, even the President's own ``Jobs Council''--before it was disbanded--stressed the need for regulatory reform, and put forward ideas consistent with many of the proposals I and other Members of this body have submitted as legislation. Last session, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under the leadership of then- Chairman Lieberman and myself, held a series of hearings on regulatory reform. But the Senate as a whole did not act on these proposals last session, or dedicate any time whatsoever to their consideration. I am hopeful this session will be different, and room will be made on the Senate's agenda to consider regulatory reform. As we do so, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach I have proposed in the CURB Act.

Mr. President, thousands of Mainers are receiving notices that their health insurance is being canceled due to ObamaCare.

This past weekend I talked with Mark Pendergast, the owner of a small landscaping company, who just found out that the premiums for his small business plan will jump by 54 percent next year due to ObamaCare. He can't

pay that and stay competitive, and his workers can't afford it either. Their share of the premium will go up by $740 next year. Mark is worried they will simply drop their coverage and pay the fine instead.

Mark and his workers are not the only Mainers hurt by ObamaCare. Mrs. Beatrice Logan of Cape Elizabeth, ME, emailed me to express her deep concern that her family is facing an increase in their deductible from $4,500 to $12,000. Moreover, she is being told that they may not be able to continue with the health care team at Boston's Children's Hospital that has provided a lifetime of excellent care to her 19-year- old son who has cystic fibrosis.

Dave Eshelman of Falmouth told me that he and his wife are facing a more than 90-percent increase in their premiums. Having to spend an additional $5,000 a year for health insurance is no small matter to them at a time when they are struggling to start a small business.

One of the major reasons I strongly opposed the Affordable Care Act was that there was nothing ``affordable'' about it. I predicted it would lead to fewer choices and higher insurance costs for middle income families and small businesses.

Congress must work together to address the very real health care concerns of the American people and the budget realities we face. Repealing ObamaCare's poorly crafted and misguided mandates and replacing the law with a fiscally responsible reform bill that contains costs and provides more choices is the best path forward.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we are about to make history in this Chamber by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, more commonly known as ENDA. We will establish the principle that the right to work free from discrimination is a fundamental right of each and every American regardless of age, race, gender, religion, disability, national origin, and now, finally, sexual orientation.

It has taken a long time to get to this day. More than 10 years ago I was proud to join a life-long champion of civil rights, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, as a cosponsor of ENDA. That was back in 2002. Over the years our country has rightly taken a stand against workplace discrimination in a wide variety of forms. It is past time we close this gap for our LGBT employees. The time to pass this bill has come.

I thank Senators Merkley and Kirk for taking up the cause and for moving this bill forward. Senator Kirk, along with Senators Hatch and Murkowski, led Republican support for this bill during its consideration by the HELP Committee.

I also acknowledge the work of the chairman of the committee Tom Harkin in bringing this bill to the floor.

Other Senators who helped to improve this bill include Senators Portman, Ayotte, Heller, Hatch, and McCain, in their effort to draft strong antiretaliation language. Their amendment, which was adopted unanimously, improves this bill by strengthening the protections for religious institutions that are legitimately exempted under ENDA.

I thank each of those Senators and others, such as Senator Flake, for their willingness to work with the sponsors and cosponsors of this legislation. Senator Toomey also has worked hard.

Mr. President, all Americans deserve a fair opportunity to pursue the American Dream. ENDA is simply about the fundamental right to work and to be judged according to one's abilities, qualifications, and job performance. Much of corporate America has already voluntarily embraced LGBT protections because they know that doing so helps them attract and retain the best and the brightest employees.

Nearly two dozen States have versions of ENDA. In fact, in my home State of Maine, it has been the law for nearly a decade. Simply put, ENDA is about fairness and workplace equality. Today, I am confident the Senate will affirm that principle and will say to everyone in this country the workplace is simply no place for discrimination.

Mr. President, Sergeant Lawrence A. Roukey, a native of Maine, was honored today for his exceptional service and sacrifice by the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, in a ceremony at DIA Headquarters. SGT Roukey was among four servicemembers honored and inducted into the DIA Patriots' Memorial located in the lobby at DIA Headquarters on Joint Base Bolling Anacostia in Washington, DC. The DIA Patriots' Memorial honors DIA employees who died in service to the United States in support of DIA's mission.

As a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart, Sergeant Roukey has previously been recognized for emulating the highest values of selflessness, dedication, and courage. Let me illustrate how DIA described Sergeant Roukey's heroism and outstanding contribution on behalf of our country and why the agency is honoring him today. A member of the U.S. Army Reserve, Sergeant Roukey volunteered to serve during Operation Iraqi Freedom as a member of the security detail for the Iraq Survey Group mobile collection team that was conducting a critical field inspection in an anticoalition forces area. Under dangerous conditions, Sergeant Roukey and his squad mate provided protective security for personnel charged with inspecting a suspected weapons of mass destruction facility in Baghdad on April 26, 2004. Both soldiers lost their lives when a massive explosion occurred at the facility being inspected.

Prior to rejoining the military as an Army Reservist in Maine, Sergeant Roukey served in the U.S. Army infantry in South Korea and Egypt. He was a respected teammate in the Reserves and at the Portland Post Office, where he worked as a civilian, and he enjoyed hiking and sharing stories about his family.

It is fitting for the DIA and for all of us to honor Sergeant Roukey so close to Veterans Day, as well as all of the men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of America and American values, including our military intelligence professionals. Prior to today's ceremony, the memorial at DIA honored 21 individuals for their ultimate sacrifice. Now the memorial honors 25 individuals. Today we commemorate Sergeant Roukey and the other servicemembers honored with him, as well as all of those who have served under the flag of the United States of America.

Madam President, I see the Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on the floor. I would inquire, through the Chair, how long she is seeking to speak. We were about to proceed to the consideration of the amendment that has been filed by Senator Portman and cosponsored by Senator Ayotte, Senator Heller, and Senator McCain.

This is a rather complicated parliamentary situation. Then there is going to be a debate. If the Senator from Massachusetts is going to speak very briefly, I would withhold. If she is going to speak at length, then since we have Members on their way, I would proceed.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts be permitted to speak for no longer than 10 minutes. If she were a little shorter than that, it would make me very happy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of S. 815 and the pending Portman amendment; that the Toomey second-degree amendment be withdrawn; that the Senate proceed to a vote on the Portman amendment; that upon disposition of the Portman amendment, the previously withdrawn Toomey amendment be made pending as a first-degree amendment to the committee-reported substitute; that a Reid second-degree amendment to the Toomey amendment, which is at the desk, be made pending; that following the reporting of the Reid second-degree amendment, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 236, H.R. 3204, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I call up Reid amendment No. 2020.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Reid amendment.