Floor Statements

That was an extremely complicated parliamentary request. Perhaps it would be helpful to my colleagues if I gave a little bit of explanation of what occurred.

The good news, in my judgment, is that the Senate has adopted by voice vote an amendment proposed by Senators Portman, Ayotte, Heller, Hatch, and McCain. I very much appreciate their willingness to work with the cosponsors and sponsors of this legislation.

Many of the sponsors of this amendment are tied up in hearings, but I expect them to be coming to the floor very shortly to debate this amendment after the fact.

I wish to explain about what the Portman, Ayotte, Heller, Hatch, and McCain amendment does. The underlying bill, ENDA, includes a pretty broad exemption for religious organizations based on current law in title VII. What the Portman, et al., amendment does is it ensures that Federal, State and local government agencies will not be able to discriminate against these exempt organizations. For example, the amendment would ensure that exempt religious organizations cannot be denied grants or contracts for which they would otherwise qualify from government agencies. It also protects them from discrimination by government agencies from participating in government-sponsored activities.

I believe this amendment improves the bill. It ensures these organizations--these religious-based organizations that are exempt under ENDA--cannot be suddenly penalized for having that exemption by being denied grants, contracts, other licenses, fees, or whatever, that they would otherwise be entitled to just solely based on the fact they are exempt under ENDA.

I want to commend Senator Portman, Senator Ayotte, Senator Heller, Senator Hatch, and Senator McCain for making sure these important protections are in place, and that if an organization has a legitimate exemption under this bill, the Federal Government or State government cannot discriminate against that organization that is legitimately claiming an exemption under ENDA.

I believe this amendment improves the bill and provides a significant protection for exempt religious organizations, and I am very pleased it was accepted by a voice vote.

I know Senator Portman and Senator Ayotte are on their way and want to speak on the amendment we just adopted.

Let me explain the second part of the very complicated parliamentary action we just took. At least I will attempt to.

What we have done is to preserve Senator Toomey's right to get a vote on his amendment. It is my understanding that vote will require 60 votes of the Senate in order to be approved, but it essentially guarantees he is next up. He is next in line for a vote. So his amendment will be the pending amendment.

Again, I know this was a complicated process, and I want to thank the Chair who was presiding over the Senate, as well as the floor staff on both sides of the aisle, Senator Reid's staff and Senator McConnell's staff, in making sure

we protected everybody's rights in this debate. I think that is very important when we are talking about a bill as significant as ENDA.

Madam President, as I said, I know some of the sponsors are on their way. But since they have yet to reach the floor, rather than filibuster the successful conclusion of the Portman amendment, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I again want to commend the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, for her excellent work on this amendment. As I indicated earlier, I think the Portman-Ayotte amendment, which is cosponsored by several other colleagues as well, provides a very important protection against retaliation for those religious organizations that are legitimately exempted under ENDA.

I also salute them for broadening the purposes section of the bill to recognize not only the need to address a widespread pattern of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but also they have added a new subsection to recognize that another purpose is to help strengthen civil society and preserve institutional pluralism by providing reasonable accommodations for religious freedom. I think both of those changes strengthen the bill, and I wish to commend the Senator for her leadership on this issue.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to commend the Senator from Ohio for bringing forth this very worthwhile initiative, which the Senate passed without dissent just about an hour or so ago. His amendment is a very important amendment. What it simply says is that if an organization is exempt from ENDA for religious reasons, then government cannot turn around and somehow retaliate against this employer based on his claiming or her claiming a legitimate religious exemption as provided by ENDA. That means that if the business or organization is entitled to compete for certain grants or contracts from the Federal, State or local government, that there cannot be this subtle discrimination against the employer for claiming the religious exemption, legitimately conferred, upon the business under ENDA.

I think that is really important. We do not want retaliation or discrimination or unfair treatment on either side. I commend Senator Portman for coming forward with this amendment. I believe that it is consistent with the bill and that it strengthens the bill.

I congratulate him for his initiative. It has been a pleasure to work with him, Senator Ayotte, and other Members of the Senate in support of this initiative.

ObamaCare

Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from Alaska for her powerful endorsement of this bill. She is a member of the HELP Committee. Along with Senators Mark Kirk and Orrin Hatch, she led the Republican support for this bill when it was being considered by the HELP Committee.

I believe the Senator from Alaska did an extraordinary job of outlining why this bill should pass and why it must pass. It is a matter of fairness, and it is a matter of demonstrating that there is simply no place in the workplace for discrimination.

It is significant that most of our large businesses and many of our smaller ones have voluntarily adopted antidiscrimination policies. They have done so because they want to attract and retain the best and brightest employees they can find. They know that sexual orientation and gender identity are irrelevant to an individual's ability to do a good job. What counts are qualifications, skills, hard work, and job performance. The legislation--which I am very hopeful we will pass tomorrow--will help ensure that is the focus in workplaces throughout America.

As the Senator from Alaska has pointed out, however, we were also very careful to respect religious freedom and liberty in this bill. I agree with her assessment that the amendment offered by Senator Portman and his colleagues helps strengthen that part of the bill by prohibiting any retaliation against religious organizations or employers who legitimately qualify for an exemption under ENDA. We want to make sure those employers receive and are able to compete for Federal grants and contracts just as those employers and businesses which are not exempt under this bill can compete for Federal contracts and grants. So I believe the Portman language does strengthen the bill.

I hope we are on the verge of making history tomorrow by passing this bill with a strong vote. I then hope our colleagues on the House side will follow suit, and that we can see this bill signed into law.

But my purpose in rising once again today is to thank the Senator from Alaska for her strong support, and for making a very powerful argument and for sharing the experiences in her State. I am sure her words help reinforce the support for this highly significant legislation.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, before the Senator from Oregon leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for his leadership on this bill. He picked up the mantle from our dear late colleague Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Merkley had worked on this issue in his home State before coming to the Senate, and we have worked very closely together as this bill has been on the floor. He has been very fair and openminded. Although we were not able to work out agreements on everything, as I would have hoped, I do believe there was a good-faith effort which was evident in the passage of Senator Portman's amendment.

I am very excited that tomorrow we will be reaching final passage, and Senator Merkley deserves an enormous amount of credit for his leadership. I wanted to thank him while he was still present on the floor and also tell him how much I appreciated his kind words earlier today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, tomorrow we will take a vote on Senator Toomey's amendment and on cloture and final passage. There may not be time, as we are wrapping up the work on this bill, for me to pay tribute to some very valuable individuals who worked very hard on this bill; that is, the members of the staff on both sides.

I wish to particularly commend three members of my staff--John Kane, Katie Brown, and Betsy McDonnell--who have literally worked night and day to try work out amendments and procedure with a wide variety of staff on both sides of the aisle.

Our staffs are often the unsung heroes of this institution, and in this case I was receiving emails from my staff--for instance last night at 1:46 a.m.--giving me the latest updates. I just wish to publicly thank them, the floor staff on both sides, the HELP Committee staff, and everyone who was involved but particularly the three members of my staff, John, Katie, and Betsy, who have literally devoted countless hours to this bill. I know they will be very happy when we reach final passage tomorrow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, Senator McCaskill, Senator Ayotte, Senator Heitkamp, and I are introducing the Enhanced Security Clearance Act of 2013, which would strengthen our process for allowing federal employees and other individuals to have access to classified information. We must improve our current security clearance process to prevent, as much as possible, future incidents such as the murders at the Washington Navy Yard. Our bill directs OPM to institute at least two audits of every security clearance at random times during each five-year period the clearance is active. Any red flags raised would then be reported back to the employing agency to determine if a re- investigation of the clearance is needed.

As a former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the issue of background investigations as it relates to security clearances is an issue with which I am well acquainted. There needs to be a balance between processing of clearances quickly enough to allow individuals to do their jobs, but also thoroughly enough to flag potential problems.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and several high-profile espionage cases, heightened national security concerns underscored the need for a timely, high-quality personnel security clearance process. In the early part of this decade, the Department of Defense processed hundreds of thousands of security clearance background investigation requests--both initial and re-clearances, for service members, government employees, and industry personnel who were conducting classified work for the government. The timeliness of DOD's security clearance process was a problem which, when coupled with an increased demand for security clearances, had led to a backlog of more than 500,000 investigations.

Delays in updating overdue clearances for command, agency, and industry personnel performing classified government work increased risks to national security and the costs of doing classified government work. This led GAO to designate the DOD clearance program as a high- risk area, and in 2005 for DOD to transfer its personnel security function and about 1,600 personnel to OPM. At the time, this change seemed a logical step in addressing the problems caused by the backlog. And by 2008 OPM had eliminated the backlog and announced end-to-end electronic processing of background investigations. Now, OPM oversees approximately 90 percent of all background investigations for security clearances with the assistance of private sector contractors.

Although we have made significant advances in the processing of background checks, there is still a gaping hole in the current security clearance process that has enabled people who exhibit obvious signs of high-risk behavior to remain undetected. We have seen this time and time again in incidents like Edward Snowden's disclosure of stolen classified information, and most recently we have Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter with apparently severe mental illness.

Once an individual is cleared, the process of maintaining the clearance requires a reinvestigation at various points in time based upon the type of clearance. These ``gaps'' between clearance and re- clearance can be 5, 10 or even 15 years, and most of the data is self- reported by the individuals themselves. These periods of time pose a significant concern in the current clearance process. OPM has announced, in some cases, that it is going to reduce the time frame down to one year, but this is not the case for all clearances. People's lives may change dramatically over these gaps of time, which poses significant and unnecessary security risks.

The United States issues approximately 5 million clearances to government employees and contractors, and the ongoing review process is conducted manually, by a limited number of investigators. Further, the manual process is flawed. The OPM Inspector General recently reviewed 18 investigators and found disturbing abuses in the quality of clearance investigations they conducted, which included interviews that never occurred, answers to questions that were never asked, and record checks that were never conducted. Even if done properly, however, given the limited number of investigative agents in the field, it is not feasible to manually track nearly five million clearances effectively.

For example, in fiscal year 2010, fewer than one percent of all contractors with clearances filed an incident report, despite the fact that they are required to file these reports on a wide variety of events including marital status change, excessive financial hardship, and criminal activity, to maintain their clearance. Generally, such events occur in the lives of more than half of the U.S. population during the same time periods. The fact is, cleared personnel under- report lifestyle changes, allegiance changes, and derogatory information for fear of job loss, embarrassment, and, most important, the discovery of nefarious intent. Further, because the system relies on self-reported data, the chances of someone getting caught are minimal. Between 1997 and 2013, of the civilian clearances issued, fewer than one percent were revoked. This can mean that the people who are cleared very seldom-go bad, that cleared individuals are not self- reporting changes in their lives, or the current process is not detecting everything.

In 2004, I sponsored the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which became law in December of that year. This law allows for the use of advanced technology and third party databases to expedite, verify, and enhance the investigative and adjudicative process. The government needs to utilize existing solutions, which are already used by law enforcement, to automate random audits on individuals with active security clearances.

If random audits had been in place after Aaron Alexis's secret clearance was granted in 2007, red flags would have been generated with his arrest in 2009 and the two liens on his property, which could indicate potential excessive financial hardship. Further, it may have identified a potential alias with a vast social media trail indicating other concerning traits. The alerts generated would have prompted OPM to notify DOD, which would have provoked a reevaluation before Alexis's 2017 re-clearance. This re-evaluation could have discovered that he openly discussed ``hearing voices,'' a clear sign of his mental illness. A random audit would have alerted OPM of these new issues and potentially averted tragedy.

The OPM Background Investigation process must be capable of flagging high-risk individuals holding clearances and alert case officers of situations requiring review before any adverse consequence takes place. The current process, however, is dated, but the system can be strengthened to better help the government identify these dangerous individuals. OPM must address the blind spots that exist in the current manual security clearance review process. The shooting tragedies at the Washington Navy Yard, along with the information security breaches perpetrated by Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, have demonstrated that the current security clearance process is inadequate.

This legislation has been endorsed by the Federal Managers Association; the FBI Agents Association; the Alcohol-Tobacco-Firearms and Explosives Association; The International Association of Chiefs of Police; The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC; The National Native American Law Enforcement Association; TechAmerica; General Dynamics Information Technologies; LexisNexis; Lt. Gen. Charles

J. Cunningham Jr., Former Director of the Defense Security Service, 1999-2002; Brian Stafford, Former Director of the United States Secret Service, 1999-2003; Howard Safir, Former Police Commissioner of New York City, 1996-2000; Floyd Clarke, Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1993; and Michael Sullivan, Former Acting Director of the ATF, 2006-2009, and US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, 2001-2009.

We must act now. Our legislation represents a sensible path forward to protect national security and to help prevent future tragedies. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense solution.

Mr. President, today, Senator McCaskill, Senator Ayotte, Senator Heitkamp, and I are introducing the Enhanced Security Clearance Act of 2013, which would strengthen our process for allowing federal employees and other individuals to have access to classified information. We must improve our current security clearance process to prevent, as much as possible, future incidents such as the murders at the Washington Navy Yard. Our bill directs OPM to institute at least two audits of every security clearance at random times during each five-year period the clearance is active. Any red flags raised would then be reported back to the employing agency to determine if a re- investigation of the clearance is needed.

As a former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the issue of background investigations as it relates to security clearances is an issue with which I am well acquainted. There needs to be a balance between processing of clearances quickly enough to allow individuals to do their jobs, but also thoroughly enough to flag potential problems.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and several high-profile espionage cases, heightened national security concerns underscored the need for a timely, high-quality personnel security clearance process. In the early part of this decade, the Department of Defense processed hundreds of thousands of security clearance background investigation requests--both initial and re-clearances, for service members, government employees, and industry personnel who were conducting classified work for the government. The timeliness of DOD's security clearance process was a problem which, when coupled with an increased demand for security clearances, had led to a backlog of more than 500,000 investigations.

Delays in updating overdue clearances for command, agency, and industry personnel performing classified government work increased risks to national security and the costs of doing classified government work. This led GAO to designate the DOD clearance program as a high- risk area, and in 2005 for DOD to transfer its personnel security function and about 1,600 personnel to OPM. At the time, this change seemed a logical step in addressing the problems caused by the backlog. And by 2008 OPM had eliminated the backlog and announced end-to-end electronic processing of background investigations. Now, OPM oversees approximately 90 percent of all background investigations for security clearances with the assistance of private sector contractors.

Although we have made significant advances in the processing of background checks, there is still a gaping hole in the current security clearance process that has enabled people who exhibit obvious signs of high-risk behavior to remain undetected. We have seen this time and time again in incidents like Edward Snowden's disclosure of stolen classified information, and most recently we have Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter with apparently severe mental illness.

Once an individual is cleared, the process of maintaining the clearance requires a reinvestigation at various points in time based upon the type of clearance. These ``gaps'' between clearance and re- clearance can be 5, 10 or even 15 years, and most of the data is self- reported by the individuals themselves. These periods of time pose a significant concern in the current clearance process. OPM has announced, in some cases, that it is going to reduce the time frame down to one year, but this is not the case for all clearances. People's lives may change dramatically over these gaps of time, which poses significant and unnecessary security risks.

The United States issues approximately 5 million clearances to government employees and contractors, and the ongoing review process is conducted manually, by a limited number of investigators. Further, the manual process is flawed. The OPM Inspector General recently reviewed 18 investigators and found disturbing abuses in the quality of clearance investigations they conducted, which included interviews that never occurred, answers to questions that were never asked, and record checks that were never conducted. Even if done properly, however, given the limited number of investigative agents in the field, it is not feasible to manually track nearly five million clearances effectively.

For example, in fiscal year 2010, fewer than one percent of all contractors with clearances filed an incident report, despite the fact that they are required to file these reports on a wide variety of events including marital status change, excessive financial hardship, and criminal activity, to maintain their clearance. Generally, such events occur in the lives of more than half of the U.S. population during the same time periods. The fact is, cleared personnel under- report lifestyle changes, allegiance changes, and derogatory information for fear of job loss, embarrassment, and, most important, the discovery of nefarious intent. Further, because the system relies on self-reported data, the chances of someone getting caught are minimal. Between 1997 and 2013, of the civilian clearances issued, fewer than one percent were revoked. This can mean that the people who are cleared very seldom-go bad, that cleared individuals are not self- reporting changes in their lives, or the current process is not detecting everything.

In 2004, I sponsored the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which became law in December of that year. This law allows for the use of advanced technology and third party databases to expedite, verify, and enhance the investigative and adjudicative process. The government needs to utilize existing solutions, which are already used by law enforcement, to automate random audits on individuals with active security clearances.

If random audits had been in place after Aaron Alexis's secret clearance was granted in 2007, red flags would have been generated with his arrest in 2009 and the two liens on his property, which could indicate potential excessive financial hardship. Further, it may have identified a potential alias with a vast social media trail indicating other concerning traits. The alerts generated would have prompted OPM to notify DOD, which would have provoked a reevaluation before Alexis's 2017 re-clearance. This re-evaluation could have discovered that he openly discussed ``hearing voices,'' a clear sign of his mental illness. A random audit would have alerted OPM of these new issues and potentially averted tragedy.

The OPM Background Investigation process must be capable of flagging high-risk individuals holding clearances and alert case officers of situations requiring review before any adverse consequence takes place. The current process, however, is dated, but the system can be strengthened to better help the government identify these dangerous individuals. OPM must address the blind spots that exist in the current manual security clearance review process. The shooting tragedies at the Washington Navy Yard, along with the information security breaches perpetrated by Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, have demonstrated that the current security clearance process is inadequate.

This legislation has been endorsed by the Federal Managers Association; the FBI Agents Association; the Alcohol-Tobacco-Firearms and Explosives Association; The International Association of Chiefs of Police; The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC; The National Native American Law Enforcement Association; TechAmerica; General Dynamics Information Technologies; LexisNexis; Lt. Gen. Charles

J. Cunningham Jr., Former Director of the Defense Security Service, 1999-2002; Brian Stafford, Former Director of the United States Secret Service, 1999-2003; Howard Safir, Former Police Commissioner of New York City, 1996-2000; Floyd Clarke, Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1993; and Michael Sullivan, Former Acting Director of the ATF, 2006-2009, and US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, 2001-2009.

We must act now. Our legislation represents a sensible path forward to protect national security and to help prevent future tragedies. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense solution.

Mr. President, I am delighted to commend the Williams-Cone Elementary School of Topsham, ME, on being named a 2013 National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. This year, Williams-Cone was one of only 236 public schools across the country to receive this prestigious recognition of high accomplishment by the U.S. Department of Education.

Created in 1982, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program honors public and private schools that are either academically superior in their States or that demonstrate significant gains in student achievement. The schools singled out for this national recognition are models of high educational standards and accountability.

This award recognizes the remarkable improvements made in student achievement rates at Williams-Cone Elementary over the past several years. During the 2007-2008 academic year, students achieved 66 percent proficiency in reading and math. Four years later, Williams-Cone's approximately 200 students scored 81 percent proficiency in reading and 77 percent in math. These outstanding academic improvements can be attributed to the positive learning environment fostered at Williams- Cone School, where students are encouraged to pursue their interests, teachers instruct in innovative ways, and teachers and administrators engage with families to create a strong school community.

I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has selected Williams-Cone Elementary School for this well-deserved honor, and congratulate not only the students, but also the administrators, teachers, staff, and parents on this outstanding achievement. Together, they are making a difference in the lives of hundreds of students and helping them become responsible learners and engaged citizens in their community.

Madam President, later today the Senate is likely to consider legislation that would reopen government, avert the default, and put us on a long-term path to come up with a plan to deal with our unsustainable $17 trillion national debt by reopening the long overdue budget negotiations. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the plan that has been put forth by our two leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell.

I am pleased that elements of the compromise that the two leaders have worked out have been taken from a plan that was developed by 14 Senators who have worked very hard, on both sides of the aisle, 7 Democrats--actually 6 Democrats and 1 Independent, the Senator from Maine--and 7 Republicans, who have come together in good faith and have worked very hard over the last 2 weeks to put together a compromise plan, a compromise plan that I have to say I actually prefer to that which we will vote on later today.

But elements of our plan have been incorporated into the plan the two leaders have presented for our consideration. This was truly a collaborative effort. I want to make sure that all of my colleagues who worked so hard on it receive the kudos they deserve for being willing to do what this body does too rarely, and that is for both sides to get together, come out of our partisan corners, stop fighting, and start legislating.

This great country deserves a Congress that can govern, and that was the unifying theme of our group. On October 5, a Saturday, when we were in session and the shutdown was in its early days, I was sitting in my Senate office, watching the floor debate. I was disheartened by what I heard because what I heard were partisan speeches from both sides of the aisle and no one offering a path forward. I decided then and there to chart out, to outline a possible plan to end this impasse, and I marched over to the Senate floor and gave a speech in which I urged my colleagues to work together.

Virtually immediately I heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle who wanted to be part of that effort and who have worked night and day to try to come up with a plan, a plan that I believe helped lay the foundation for the ultimate compromise reached by our two leaders.

Senator Murkowski and Senator Ayotte were the first two Members to call me. I know my colleagues are tired

of hearing about the women in the Senate, but the fact is they were the first two to contact me. Senator Joe Manchin was the first person on the Democratic side to call and say: Count me in. I want to work on this as well. Senator Pryor and Senator King were also very early on, and Senator McCain endorsed the proposal of our working together and the outlines of this plan. Senator Johanns was such a thoughtful addition to our group. Amy Klobuchar was there for every meeting. Senator Kirk, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Joe Donnelly, Senator Jeanne Shaheen--it was a wonderful group of people, united by our determination to demonstrate that we could compromise, we could govern, we could bring an end to this impasse and do it in a way that was worthy of this great country and our constituents.

We worked together over and over. There were a lot of tough decisions to be made, a lot of lengthy negotiations. We came up with a plan which we presented to our two leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell. Not all elements of our plan were incorporated by the leaders, but I think they would say they built on our work and did, indeed, take some of our provisions verbatim. I continue to believe our plan was a great path forward, but I am pleased that it paved the way to what I hope will be a solution to the impasse we have been facing, that has been so unfair to the American people and has hurt so many people.

I think it is important for us to remember that the damage goes beyond the hundreds of thousands of furloughed Federal workers, furloughed through no fault of their own. It goes beyond the damage to the private sector employees who lost business because of the closure of our parks.

It goes beyond the damage to our disabled veterans who have had to wait for their claims to be handled. It goes beyond the anxiety of many who are dependent on very important Federal programs, the most vulnerable in our society. It goes beyond the impact on our national defense, although we were able to mitigate that to some extent. It goes to something far more fundamental, and that is whether the people of this country can have confidence in our ability to put aside partisan politics and act as patriots committed to doing what is right for our Nation.

I thank the 13 Senators who joined me and worked so hard and did just that--they left their partisanship at the door and negotiated as real patriots who care about America. I thank them all. It has been a great pleasure to work with each and every one of them. All of them contributed so much to the bipartisan plan we presented, and I am glad it has helped to bring us to what I hope is an end to a very unfortunate chapter in America's history.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the government shutdown represents a failure to govern and must be brought to an end. Disabled veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country are waiting for their claims to be handled. Pregnant women and small children are at risk of their WIC benefits not being funded. Crucial biomedical research is being disrupted and the sickest of children are being turned away from clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health.

The impact goes far beyond the direct consequences for Federal employees and the programs they administer. One has only to look at the impact of the closure of Acadia National Park in my State of Maine to see the ripple effects on shopkeepers, servers at restaurants, inn owners and others who depend on revenue from these disappointed tourists.

That is why I have worked hard to put together a three-point plan to bring this impasse to a speedy end. I am very delighted that my friend and colleague from Alaska Senator Murkowski has joined me in shaping and supporting this plan. Let me quickly describe it and let me give credit to those who have talked about concepts that have been incorporated into this plan--people such as my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Toomey, and on the House side, Representative Kind and Representative Dent.

The first point of the plan would fund government for the next 6 months at the level of $986 billion, so that would allow government to immediately reopen.

Second, it would repeal the tax on medical devices and equipment such as x ray machines and pacemakers. This tax will only serve to drive up the cost of health care because it will be inevitably passed on to the consumer, it will stifle innovation, and industry estimates that it will lead to the loss of some 43,000 jobs. It is a tax that does not make sense.

The administration has pointed to the $30 billion that would be raised by this tax over the next 10 years. Fair enough. There is a way to replace that revenue and it is a way that has beneficial consequences to many employers who are struggling to make pension contributions in this difficult economy. It would do so without in any way weakening the pension obligation to their workers. It is a complicated issue. It is called pension smoothing. But it is one that this body has dealt with before in the transportation bill known as MAP 21. We would extend that pension smoothing on the contributions which have been produced

by the fact that the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at a very low level.

I will describe this in more detail in a written statement. It is in the statement that I made on the Senate floor on Saturday. But suffice it to say that by smoothing these pension contributions, we can replace the lost revenue that would result from the repeal of the 2.3-percent tax on medical devices and equipment.

The third point of our plan, the Collins-Murkowski plan, includes a bill that Senator Mark Udall and I introduced earlier this year that would provide flexibility to Federal managers in dealing with sequestration, but it does so in a way that preserves the important congressional oversight. Sequestration is a flawed policy because it does not discriminate between essential programs and those that are duplicative and wasteful. But if we are to have sequestration, surely we should give Federal managers the ability to set priorities and apply common sense in its administration instead of having across-the-board, equal meat axe cuts for every line item in their budgets.

But to ensure that this flexibility is not abused, we would have the Appropriations Committee oversee this process and have the right to reject the plans. It is very similar to the reprogramming requests that the Appropriations Committee receives now and either accepts or rejects when agencies want to move money from one account to another.

This would represent a modest proposal that could bring this impasse to an end, allow government to reopen, give those on both sides of the aisle who have voted during the course of the budget resolution by 79 votes to 20-something votes to repeal this harmful tax on medical equipment and devices and yet replace the revenue. I don't see how the administration could object to that because the revenue would be replaced. Yet this harmful tax would be repealed and we would give Federal agencies the flexibility to deal with sequestration.

There is something in the Collins-Murkowski plan that everyone on both sides of the aisle can point to. Yet it would get us out of this impasse that is increasingly harmful to our country and its image in the world.

It is past time for us to come out of our partisan corners, it is past time for us to stop fighting, and it is past time for us to reopen government. We have all made crystal clear what our positions are on ObamaCare at this point. Let's proceed with governing rather than continuing to embrace a strategy that will lead us only to a dead-end and whose consequences will be increasingly felt by our economy and by the American people. We can do this.

I ask my Democratic colleagues to take a close look at the plan we are putting forward. It is a reasonable approach. I ask my Democratic and Republican colleagues to come together. Let's get this done. We can do it. We can legislate responsibly and in good faith.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, on October 9, 1863, the Maine legislature signed a charter establishing the State's first public institution of higher education. I rise today to celebrate 150 years of remarkable accomplishments by the University of Maine at Farmington.

Also, 2013 marks another significant anniversary: this is the 16th consecutive year that the University of Maine at Farmington has been named to the U.S. News and World Report ``Best College'' list. That same publication has named UMF, as it is known throughout Maine, a ``Best Value'' school for its quality programs and affordable cost. In addition, the Institute of International Education and the U.S. State Department have recognized UMF as a ``Top Producer'' of Fulbright Scholars, with 11 faculty members having received that prestigious award.

Such recognition is but one measure of UMF's success. Another is the deep affection alumni and people throughout Maine have for this remarkable institution. In 2005, I had the privilege to serve as honorary chairman of UMF's campaign for a new Education Center to integrate technology with teaching and learning. The support from countless individuals, businesses, and organizations was overwhelming and enabled a small school of just 2,000 students to keep pace with the top colleges and universities in the country.

Responding to the needs of an ever-changing society is one of the richest traditions a college can have. The UMF tradition of service began in 1857, 6 years before the charter was granted, when a convention of teachers from Franklin County, in the mountains of western Maine, urged the establishment of an institution dedicated to educating educators for the benefit of their region and of the entire State. When the first class of 31 students matriculated at the new Farmington Normal School the summer after the charter, they did so in a setting that was described by a UMF historian as ``rough, crude, and plenty humble.''

Over the years, UMF has become known for its outstanding liberal arts programs, which attract students not only from Maine but also from all over the nation.

Through the years, UMF has established another noble tradition--that of contributing to the entire region by adding to its cultural life, teaching in local classrooms, coaching youth athletics, and helping youngsters learn everything from swimming to foreign languages. From the Health and Fitness Center to the Mantor Library, the doors of UMF are open to the community.

The combination of quality and value results in graduation and freshman retention rates that are significantly higher than the national averages for both public universities and private colleges. UMF's dedication to educating educators continues today, with graduates receiving the Maine Teacher of the Year Award in four of the last 6 years.

On that ``rough, crude, and plenty humble'' foundation laid 150 years ago, something magnificent has been built--an ongoing commitment to excellence and a spirit of service. On behalf of the people of Maine, I congratulate the University of Maine at Farmington for 150 years of outstanding contributions to our State.

Mr. President, today marks the fifth day of the government shutdown. With each passing day, the consequences grow more severe, more people are affected, and the implications grow far more serious.

Federal civilian employees working to support our National Guard, overhaul our nuclear submarines, and analyze the latest terrorist threat are

being furloughed, leaving us less safe as a country. I understand this afternoon Secretary Hagel, in response to a letter the Presiding Officer and I signed, along with many of our colleagues, is recalling some of those civilian workers. But there are still other implications.

Disabled veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country are facing delays in the handling of their claims. Pregnant women and little children who depend on the foods provided by the WIC Program are at risk. Vital biomedical research is being disrupted such that even the sickest children cannot enroll in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health.

The impact goes beyond these services provided by essential Federal programs. Jobs in the private sector are affected as well. In Maine, our gem of a national park, Acadia National Park, is shuttered during the peak of the foliage season. This not only disappoints tourists, it hurts the innkeepers, owners of bed and breakfast organizations, servers at restaurants, and the small gift shop entrepreneurs who depend on these tourists during this time of year.

The list of harm goes on and on and on and worsens with each passing day. It is time for this shutdown to end.

From the start of this debate, I have urged our House colleagues not to adopt a policy that linked ObamaCare with the funding of government. I have been outspoken in my own opposition to ObamaCare and have cast many votes consistent with that position. I have cosponsored and introduced bills to reform the law so we can better rein in health care costs and truly help the uninsured without jeopardizing their jobs and without imposing billions of dollars of new taxes, fees, and penalties that discourage job creation and drive up costs. But the fact is the Democratic Senate is never going to pass, nor is President Obama ever going to sign, a bill that repeals his signature accomplishment.

So now that we have all made it crystal clear where we stand on ObamaCare, it is past time that we reason together on how to bring this impasse to an end. In that regard, I must express my own disappointment in the lack of results from the President's meeting with congressional leaders and what I understand to be the President's refusal to enter into negotiations with Congress.

So let me present to my colleagues and to the President for their consideration a proposal to bring an end to the shutdown. The proposal is based on concepts that have been discussed by Senator Pat Toomey and Congressman Charlie Dent, and they also reflect my own personal discussions with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Even the staunchest advocates of ObamaCare, including the President himself, recognize the law is not perfect. What 2,000-plus-page law dealing with extremely complex issues could be? The President himself has delayed the implementation of the employer mandate and certain consumer protections.

I have, therefore, searched for common ground on reforming ObamaCare, seeking a proposal that has widespread bipartisan support in order to attract the necessary votes of our House colleagues on both sides of the aisle; that is, the repeal of the 2.3-percent tax on the sales of medical equipment. When such an amendment repealing this tax was considered by the Senate during the budget resolution, it passed by a resounding vote of 79 to 20. Clearly, it has strong bipartisan support.

This $30 billion tax on medical devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators will cause the loss of as many as 43,000 domestic jobs, according to industry estimates. It will reduce investment in research to produce new medical devices and, ironically, it will increase health care costs because the manufacturers will simply pass on the costs to consumers.

Now the administration has protested the idea of repealing this tax because it would lose $30 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. Fair enough. Let's make up for the lost revenue by providing an offset. It is a complicated one, but it works. It is called pension smoothing. It would smooth out the amount of payments businesses make into pension plans. This is not an unusual concept. New York State has adopted it to allow local school systems to reduce their annual pension contributions somewhat next year in exchange for higher payments in future years. The result of allowing private businesses to smooth out their pension contributions would produce tax revenue by lowering their deductions, and that could be used to offset the cost of repealing the tax on medical equipment.

Second, I would propose that the continuing resolution funding government include a bipartisan bill that Senator Mark Udall and I introduced earlier this year to give agencies flexibility to deal with sequestration. It makes no sense at all for Federal managers not to be able to set priorities and then submit their plans to the appropriations committees as they do now with reprogramming requests. Sequestration is a flawed policy. It does not discriminate between absolutely essential programs and those that are duplicative, wasteful, or simply less important. Now, it is Congress that should be making these decisions, but if the across-the-board meat-ax cuts of sequestration stay in effect, the least we can do is let Federal managers set priorities and manage their budgets subject to congressional oversight.

It is my hope that if repeal of the medical equipment tax, offset fully by the pension-smoothing proposal, plus the Collins-Udall flexibility bill were combined with a continuing resolution to fund government, we might well have the combination necessary to secure the votes and reopen government. Surely, it is worth a try. So on this late Saturday afternoon, I offer this proposal, and I urge my House colleagues to send us such a bill, which I would then urge the Senate majority leader to schedule for an immediate vote.

We have a lot to do to restore the public's confidence in our ability to govern. We can start by offering and voting on specific proposals such as this one. It is time that both sides come out from their partisan corners, stop fighting, and start legislating in good faith. The shutdown represents a failure to govern and must be brought to an end.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the distinguished public service of my chief of staff, Mary Dietrich, who will be retiring from the Senate after more than 26 years of public service. Mary's departure is not only a great loss to my office but also a loss to this Chamber and the many Senators and Congressional staff with whom she has worked throughout her years of dedicated service.

Mary is not someone who seeks the spotlight, but there is no question that she truly has made a difference. Day in and day out she has demonstrated her commitment to public service. Mary is always willing to accept a challenge head on: The greater the challenge that confronts her, the greater her tenacity and resolve become. In addition, her unparalleled understanding of the Senate is indicative of the deep appreciation and respect she has for this Chamber.

Her skills and talents have benefitted many Mainers as well. Mary worked with me on my successful effort to allow the heaviest trucks to drive on Federal highways in Maine. Previously, the heaviest trucks in Maine were diverted onto secondary roadways that ran through our crowded downtowns, past schools and homes, and over busy narrow streets. Because of this change in the law, both drivers and pedestrians in Maine are safer.

Mary also led my team to success in my efforts to require that all fresh fruits and vegetables, including fresh white potatoes, be allowed as part of the healthy lunches that are fed to our Nation's children in school cafeterias.

Prior to joining my staff, Mary already had an exceptional career in public service. Upon graduation from Miami University in Oxford, OH, Mary went to work for the U.S. General Accounting Office. At GAO, Mary managed numerous and extensive reviews, investigations, and audits of a wide range of government programs. It was at GAO that Mary developed a fierce reputation for rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. In fact, this is what brought her to the U.S. Senate. After 10 years at GAO, Mary was detailed to work for former Senator Richard Lugar on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Mary was so well respected in this position that by the end of her detail, she had two full committee chairmen asking her to join their staffs.

In the end, Mary joined the staff of former Senator Ted Stevens on the Senate Appropriations Committee. While on the Appropriations Committee staff, Mary was known for her superior work and ability to handle complex and challenging matters. These talents enabled her to advance to very senior positions. In this role, she served as a liaison to a number of Senators past and present including Senators Arlen Specter, Mike DeWine, Sam Brownback, Thad Cochran, and myself. I was fortunate to have Mary serve as the minority clerk on the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee when I previously served as ranking member.

Similar to her accomplishments while serving as my chief of staff, Mary's accomplishments on the Appropriations Committee are too numerous to list in their entirety. Among them, however, include her work to increase funding to improve education for District of Columbia public school students, and a doubling of funding over a 5-year period for the National Institutes of Health.

Those who know Mary well know that one of her favorite actresses is Julie Andrews. Julie Andrews once said, ``Sometimes opportunities float right past your nose. Work hard, apply yourself and be ready. When an opportunity comes, you can grab it.'' When the chief of staff position became available in my office, asking Mary to lead my office was an obvious decision. There was no need for Mary to grab this opportunity. I could not think of a better person for the job. That was nearly 4 years ago, and I could not have asked for a more-trusted advisor.

Mary Dietrich has been the engine that keeps my staff moving. She has guided my staff with the same tact, wicked sense of humor, and sharp mind that defined all her years of public service. Her retirement from the Senate is a true loss, and she will be deeply missed.

Mr. President, today along with Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that we have accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution in our Nation.

A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard fisheries, and track the effect of emissions reductions in the U.S. This tracking is particularly important in light of increasing mercury emissions from other countries. By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, a monitoring network would help policy makers, scientists, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury pollution.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 410,000 children born in the U.S. were exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however, levels remain unacceptably high.

Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in more ecosystems and in more species, and the issue of mercury emissions is growing in importance around the world. At present, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require comprehensive long-term information. A system for collecting such information, such as we have for acid rain and other pollution, does not currently exist for mercury--a much more toxic pollutant. We must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions.

Specifically, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would direct EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites across the Nation.

The act would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the monitoring program.

The act would establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the Internet and that is compatible with similar international efforts.

The act would require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trend data, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury deposition rates that need to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects every 4 years; and

The act would authorize $95 million over 3 years to carry out the act.

We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring network to provide the data needed to help make decisions that can protect the people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.

Mr. President, today along with Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that we have accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution in our Nation.

A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard fisheries, and track the effect of emissions reductions in the U.S. This tracking is particularly important in light of increasing mercury emissions from other countries. By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, a monitoring network would help policy makers, scientists, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury pollution.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 410,000 children born in the U.S. were exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however, levels remain unacceptably high.

Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in more ecosystems and in more species, and the issue of mercury emissions is growing in importance around the world. At present, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require comprehensive long-term information. A system for collecting such information, such as we have for acid rain and other pollution, does not currently exist for mercury--a much more toxic pollutant. We must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions.

Specifically, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would direct EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites across the Nation.

The act would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the monitoring program.

The act would establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the Internet and that is compatible with similar international efforts.

The act would require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trend data, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury deposition rates that need to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects every 4 years; and

The act would authorize $95 million over 3 years to carry out the act.

We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring network to provide the data needed to help make decisions that can protect the people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.