senate. she passed on the baton to senator kirk but did not stop championing this bill, and late last night was working on this and has been holding meetings many, many days in the weeks that have led up to this moment and over the years that have led up to this moment. so thank you very much some the senior senator from maine for your engagement and advocacy for fairness for all americans. and my colleague from alaska, it was a pleasure to exchange voice mails as we prepared for the monday night and knowing that she wouldn't be able to be here for that vote but was sending good wishes and we were uncertainty whether we would have 60 votes that night or whether we would have the floor open to midnight or whether we would be voting the next day in order to have her support be the support that put us over the

top. but long before that vote occurred she, too, has been talking to her colleagues noting that freedom for american citizens means freedom to pursue your mission in life, your meaning in life through your work, and that discrimination in the workplace diminishes the individual but diminishes the full potential of our nation as well. so we are now all hoping that we will be able to have final votes on amendments and votes to close debate and to have a final vote sometime tomorrow. that work is not yet done. in the -- the path before us may still have unexpected challenges to be overcome but as we overcome them and approach that final vote it will be in large measure because of the terrific

work of these two colleagues. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from delaware is recognized. mr. carper: good afternoon, mr. president, my colleague from oregon. my wife ran into one of her colleagues the other day, ted kaufman. he was the interim senator, succeeded joe biden and held down that slot for two years until senator chris coons was elected on his own not that long ago. one of the things i loved about ted, every month he would come to the floor and he would talk about a different federal employee. sometimes i've heard our colleagues, other people talk about federal employees or state and local employees as nameless, faceless bureaucrats. in a derisive way, unflattering, uncomplimentary and i suspect dispiriting.

and the foacts who serve in federal government or state and local government do so usually not because it pays a lot of money, because they get huge bouquets and a lot of credit, they just want to do something constructive with their lives. but ted used to do that every month. he'd come to the floor. so this is like a shoutout to him because i heard about a fellow in delaware who decided to step down after a great career of public service and i want to take a few minutes if i could to talk about him. the person i have in mind today is the fellow who has been the dwrector of delaware, parks and recreation. charles hawkins, we call him chas, c-h-a-z-z. he continued to serve with distinction in that capacity

leading the division of parks and recreation for the eight years i served as governor and he went on to serve two governors. he served michael castle, a republican governor before me, and a total of four dpofs. that doesn't happen every day in every state. and when you get those kinds of opportunities it must mean use pretty good. in his case he's very good. he's now retiring after more than 35 years of service of our state and for over three decades he's been a tremendous leader and a real advocate for the educational, for the mental and physical benefits of state parks. he's a devoted husband to his wife of 40 years, a woman named sue who is accomplished in her own right and she has recently retired as deputy director of delaware division of the arts. i have a daughter, emily, who now believe is grown, and they -- it's interesting to see where they pull up their anchors

and sail off into the sunrise. we thank them and emily well. their hard work and creativity and dedication are going to be missed a whole lot and we'll remember for many years the many contributions they've made. but since 1978 chazz has played an active role in the preservation of delaware's open space areas and the development of programs that introduced delawarans and visitors of all ages to the historical and recreational benefits of our state, state parks. as he steps down from the position as director of delaware division of parks and recreation we give him our sincere thanks and want to thank his staff for their long-standing efforts to maintain a representation for having one of the most dynamic park systems in the nation. throughout his career, chazz has been a visionary who has changed the very nature of our state park systems from the institution of zip lines to i

kayak rental, he's done a tremendous job of inspiring the love of nature in just about all delawarans. he's secured delawaran's national park system. delaware was the first state to ratify the constitution, william penn came to america through delaware, one of the oldest houses in all of north america is in lewis, delaware, a dutch cement, we're the first state to ratify the constitution. a lot of firsts in a little state but we don't have a national park. and we've been working on it for a number of years and chazz and chris coons and john carney, we have the first national monument, we grateful for that, and vice president biden. we're knocking on the door for a national park and chazz and his people have been laborers in that effort. his research and personal membership in all kinds of organizations like the national association of state park

directors and the national association of state outdoor recreational liaison officers have supported delaware's natural resources and emphasized state parks' values. places like oregon, senator merkley and the presiding officer from ohio, senator collins who is still on the floor, all your states have wonderful national parks and it turns out the top destination, top tourist destination for people who come to the united states from other countries is our national parks. and we don't have one in delaware. we want one. but in the meantime our state parks have filled the gap and we have some state parks we're real proud of. one of the guys who has worked very hard to make them something we can be proud of is chazz hawkins. he has passion with the parks and recreation team that have included hundreds of people over the age of 35 -- that have included hundreds of people over

the past 35 years. we in the state of delaware are grateful for everything he has done to protect and preserve our state's beauty and history. on behalf of senator chris coons, my colleague here in the senate, on behalf of john carney, our lone congressman over in the house, and whee wholeheartedly think thank chazz pour his service to the state of delaware. he's improved the qieft for visitors from all over the world. we wish him and sue and their family many happy successful years to come. one of the things that chazz has done is --. mr. reid: may i make a unanimous consent request? would my friend yield for a unanimous consent request? mr. carper: i'm be happy to yield. mr. reid: i appreciate my friend from delaware's courtesy. he and i have been together for 31 years. and i also appreciate my -- i

wanted to make sure that senator collins was on the floor when i did this. mr. president, i withdraw my motion to proceed to calendar number 236, h.r. 2304. the presiding officer: the motion is withdrawn. mr. reid: could i ask the chair what the pending business is before the body. the presiding officer: s. 815 is now the pending question. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid: it's probably buried in some of that stuff up there. or maybe you don't have it.

mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the jiend senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 815 a bill to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i want the record to reflect also that senator jeff merkley is on the floor who has been instrumental in allowing us to get to the point where we are. i ask unanimous consent the manned friday quorum be waived. i ask unanimous consent the motion to recommit and the pending amendments to the

underlying bill be withdrawn, the reid of nevada amendment 2020 be wrawnd, no points of order be in order, that the senate proceed to the vote on the prpk toomey amendment sludge to a 60 affirmative vote threshold, the substitute amendment be agreed to, the senate proceed on a motion to invoke cloture on s. 815 as amended, the time until 2:00 p.m. -- 1:45 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, that at 1 45:00 p.m. all postcloture time be yielded back and the bill read a third time and vote on passage of the bill as amended. finally if cloture is not invoke i be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i appreciate everyone's cooperation. this is how we should legislate. work together. this is something we've done

together and i appreciate everyone's work on this. it's not been easy for anyone, not everybody is satisfied but a lot of people are satisfied. i now ask unanimous consent that we proceed now to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak up to 10 minutes each until 7:00 p.m. tonight. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. carper: if i could just conclude and i ask unanimous consent that my remarks appear in the record as if there is no interruption. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. carper: we struggle in the federal government to pay for things, at the state level to have the revenues to pay for the kinds of services that our citizens want. one of the -- one of the things i especially admired this the work done by chazz hawkins is a growing reliance over time to invite people, could be young people, could be retired, maybe not, students, senior

citizens, but people who would like to volunteer some of their time to help in our national parks. and it would be interesting to be able to look at the number of volunteer hours that we've amassed or been amassed over the years in service in our national parks and compare that on a per capita basis with the rest of the country but i think we stack up pretty well. we want to stretch every dollar as far as we can, one of the things we've done in our state in no small part because of chazz's leadership is to invite volunteers to come in to help out to make our parks better than they were before and to benefit from that by feeling they've helped to accomplish something really good for now and for a long time in the future. with that, mr. president, i yield back my time and unless the gentlewoman from maine is asked to be recognized i'll make a note -- i'll note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i ask unanimous consent proceedings under the equal be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. collins: before the senator from oregon leaves the floor, i just want to thank him for his leadership on this bill. he did pick up the mantle from our dear late colleague, senator ted kennedy. he had worked on this issue in his home state, senator merkley had, before coming to the senate, and we have worked very closely together as this bill has been on the floor. he's been very fair, open-minded, and although we were not able to work out agreements on everything as i would have hoped, i do believe that there was a good-faith

effort that was evident in the passage of senator portman's amendment, and i'm really excited that tomorrow we will be reaching final passage, and the senator, senator merkley, deserves an enormous amount of credit for his leadership. so i just wanted to thank him while he was still present on the floor and to also tell him how much i appreciated his kind words earlier today. thank you, mr. president. and, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senior senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask that proceedings under the call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. collins: thank you, 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're wrapping up the work on this bill for me to pay tribute to some very valuable individuals who worked very hard on this bill, and that is the members of the staff on both sides. and i want to particularly commend three members of my staff: john kaine, katie brown, and betsy mcdonald who have literally worked night and day to try to work out amendments,

procedure, to work with a wide variety of staff on both sides of the aisle. our staff are often the unsung heroes of this institution. and in this case, i was receiving e-mails from my staff last night at 1:46 a.m., giving me the latest. and i just want to publicly thank them and the floor staff on both sides and the help committee staff, everyone who was involved, but particularly the three members of my staff: john, katie and betsy who literally have devoted countless hours to this bill. and i know they will be very happy when we reach final passage tomorrow. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. this past monday i visited a senior center in youngstown, ohio and met with seniors and others talking about the -- what they hear as threats to social security. they hear some of the wise people in this town, if you will, some of the people in on television rand the political pundits and people on the newspaper editorial boards say we need to restructure entitlements or reform entitlements and that scares them because they don't get really specific. they obviou often in those stats

about reforming entitlements don't scratch down to people saying it and the reporters asking them questions don't really scratch beneath the surface and say, what does that really mean? it usually means cutting social security benefits. but more that have in a second. i spoke with gloria currently living in subsidized housing. she has lived on social security since her h.u.s. death. her benefits barely cover the cost of housing and food. she told she would not know what to do, to be able to get along in her life. we owe it to our children and grandchildren to deal with this nation's deficit. that means everything from eliminating farm disirks the direct payments that we're doing in the farm bill. senator thune and i wrote the language do that. it means closing the carried-interest loophole for wall street hedge fund managers and eliminating the tax loophole

for oil companies and stopping the idiotic practice of encourage, enticing companies through the tax code to invest overseas. so if you shut down a plant in steubenville or toledo and move it to she hasn't to wuhan, china tax credit. i see, because of social security and medicare, a number -- hundreds of thousands, millions of americans get to spend more time with their children and grandchildren because of social security and medicare. 45 years ago before medicare, 48 years ago, half of america's seniors did not have health insurance. today 99% have t l we know that means people live longer, healthier lives. not just they get to see their grandchildren, which is to the pleasure and delight of almost

all grandparents, it also means they get to impart their wisdom and knowledge and values to their grandchildren. margaret meade once said that whicwisdom is passed to grandchildren, from grandchildren to grandchild. they makes for a richer society. because of these two social security programs, we're a richer, better country as a result. today 63 million americans receive social security benefits. my state, it's 2 million. let me give you a couple of stafts. because this is really a moral question of what we do with our retirement system. two-thirds of seniors, social security is more than half their income. in my state and the senator from new hampshire is sitting here and the senator from connecticut, not much different, no state is much different from this. social security provides that are than half of the income for about two-thirds of seniors. for more than -- get this, force more than a third of seniors, social security provides

essentially 90%, all of their income. for one-third of seniors, without social security, they would have zero or close to zero income. it lists 15 million americans out of -- it lifts 15 million americans out of poverty. in my home state of ohio, almost half of seniors would live in poverty. improving social security's adequacy is the best way to address social security's crisis. that's why i'm working with senator harkin and begich and hirono and senator schatz on strengthening social security. my colleagues usually mean -- strengthening social security means we make cuts in benefits and that cuts in benefits can be raising the retirement age it can be something called th p.i.- the chained c.p.i., which is cutting the social security cost-of-living adjustment. it can mean some type of means adjustment, so people get less

if they are a little wealthier. but each is a cut to social security. the debate here seems to be not how do we make seniors' lives better, when a third of seniors on social security get almost all their income from social security and they're not doing that great with medicare either. some of the co-pays and deductibles and all that. some get some help that way. but the debate shouldn't be about how -- all about cutting social security, which it really is, this whole strengthening -- we got do strengthen social security, the way they talk about t we've got to reform entitlements, worry about the sustainability. and i do worry about them. but the fix is not to debate cutting these programs and giving these seniors less. and as you know, mr. president, presentations -- defined pension been are less than they used to be. fewer people retiring now have defined pension benefits unless they have a government job or good union job. fewer and fewer have retirement

benefits. and fewer people are able to save money, because we know in the last decade, savings rates have gone down because incomes, while the wealthy have gottemoeller enbetter and better and better, profits have gone up and up and up and up, productivity in the work force has gone up and up and up, waingz have decoupled with that, haven't kept up. that means that people are saving less. so the original social security was you'd have social security, you'd have a pension and the third of the three-legged stool is you had savings. well, now the savings and the pension, whether it's 401(k) or defined pension, is -- is -- are less than they used to be. so social security's more important. so why are we even discussing the whole idea of cight social l security. that's why our legislation -- we need a fairer cola to start with. it would formulate the consumer price index for the elderly, that calculates the cost of living adjustment not the way it does now. a 40-year-old in the workplace, it calculates it based on a 70-year-old who's retired april. 40-year-old in the workplace has a very different set of expenses

for their standard of living than does a 70-year-old. obviously the 40-year-old spends less on health care, on the average, than the 70-year-old on the average spends on health care so we should calculate the cost of living adjustment that way. that's not what so many people in -- in this country -- so many people in this body want to do. mr. president, there's just something about a bunch of members of congress who have good salaries, who have good taxpayer-financed health care making decisions to cut social security and cut medicare. so i'll close with this because i know senator shaheen was scheduled to speak and i won't take much longer. but i hear these self-appointed budget hawks who -- most of whom won't be relying -- almost none of whom colleagues here will be relying on social security to make ends meet in their retirement, and i take a back seat to nobody in what we do about budget cuts because i've been involved with a lot of colleagues on both sides of the aisle on how we deal with this budget deficit. but when i hear these self-appointed fiscal hawks, these so-called wise men -- and they're mostly men -- talking

about how we need to -- to reform entitlements, just scratch a little deeper. ask them what they mean by that? they'll probably say, well, we can't sustain this. what do you mean by that? they'll probably say, we need structural reform. what do you mean by that? ask them the question, what do they really mean, and their idea almost always is either raise the retirement age or cut benefits in some ways, cut the cost of living adjustments, something. i'll close with this. if that same hall i was attending in youngstown, i was there three years ago althoug an hall. a woman stood up and said i have two jobs, both $9, $10-an-hour jobs. i've worked all my life. i'm 63 years old. i've just got to find a way to stay alive until i'm 65, just for another year and a half, so i can have health insurance. imagine that. this is a woman living right on the edge. she -- she won't have much from social security. she has no savings. she just wanted to stay alive

until they got health insurance. that's why it matters so much what we do on social security, why it matters that we protect medicare, really protect medicare, not protect it by privatizing it. and it really matters why we protect social security and not strengthen, quote, unquote, the program by cutting the benefits. that's why our work matters. that's why it's so important that we pass the harkin-begic harkin-begich-hirono-schatz-bron bill. mr. president, i yield the floor to the senator. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask consent that the period for morning business be until 7:00 p.m. for debate only. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. mr. president, almost 50 years ago, congress passed the civil rights act. this landmark legislation prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and gender in employment, housing and public accommodations. many of us in the senate remember the passage of that

legislation and many of us, unfortunately, saw firsthand the painful examples of legally sanctioned discrimination that existed before the civil rights act. i grew up in a state where i went to segregated schools. i can remember the separate drinking fountains and going to the movie theater where if you were an african-american, you had to sit in the balcony. these practices were wrong and they ended because of the civil rights act. well, this week the senate has the opportunity to extend our national quest for equal opportunity for all by passing the employment nondiscrimination act. this legislation simply prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of

the employment nondiscrimination act and i -- i give great credit to jeff merkley for sponsoring this legislation and for pushing for it. i was proud as governor of new hampshire 16 years ago to sign legislation making new hampshire only the 10th state in the country to include sexual orientation in its antidiscrimination laws. that state legislation went further than the bill before the senate this week. it not only covered employment, but it covered housing and public accommodations as well. at the time, both the new hampshire senate and house were controlled by republicans and yet the bill passed both bodies with large bipartisan majoriti majorities. because it was not seen then as a partisan issue. including sexual orientation in new hampshire's antidiscrimination laws was just one more step forward in new

hampshire's long history of promoting civil rights. no one in america should be hired or fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. now, i realize, as we all do, that no law can erase prejudice. prejudice will continue to exist after the employment nondiscrimination act becomes law. but that's not the issue. the issue is whether it's acceptable as a matter of law in the united states to hire or fire someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity. when we declared our independence from great britain back in 1776, our founders stated, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. " of course i woulequal -- are d equal."

of course, i would add "women" to that. but equality under our law is part of our national creed. we have the opportunity this week to take another step forward in advancing equal opportunity for all. let's pass the employment nondiscrimination act with a very strong bipartisan majority. i hope we will do that. i hope we will do it this week. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, i rise for a moment the day after elections all over the country to pay tribute to a great georgian. yesterday, november the 5th, 2013, the city of sandy springs elected a new mayor by the nay e of rusty paul. but he was elected to replace an outstanding citizen of our state and a real representative of what it's about to be a good citizen in georgia. for 30 years, she chaired a committee called the committee on sandy springs, from 1975 until 2005. that committee was a committee of community members in an unincorporated area who wanted to have their own city, their own government and they wanted to privatize government.

they tried for 30 years to get the state legislature, 20 of those i was a part of that legislature, to approve a municipal charter for sandy springs. finally in 2004, the legislature did and in 2005, it was ratified by the voters of sandy springs and the voters of the city of atlanta. and sandy springs became a city. because eva had chaired the committee to make it a city for 30 years, she was selected as first mayor and served in that capacity for eight outstanding years. a city that was a typical urban sprawl, suburban sprawl city. she turned into one of the prettiest places in georgia. butte tied the streets, put in streetscapes, easements for beautification. today we have a beautiful linear park on the most major road that calls through sandy springs, a linear park where people are able to enjoy park and have a buffer from the highway and yet improve traffic flowing through that community. that's just one of many things she did in innovative ways to

make it a better community. eva is a great citizen. she has a wonderful husband, three great children, six great grand-children but her seventh grandchild is the city of sandy springs. she birthed it, she led it, she grew it and at the end of this year, she will leave it as its mayor but she will always be their leading citizen. so i rise today on the floor of the senate to pay tribute for eva galambuos. and then leading it to become what she always hoped it could be, a great city, the city of sandy springs, georgia. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. isakson: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: skilled that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for up to eight minutes followed by senator baldwin. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for enda, the employment nondiscrimination act. this bill is about basic fairness and it's really about the golden rule -- treating others as you would like to be treated. every single american should have the right to earn a living

and provide for his or her family without fearing discrimination in the workplace because of who they are and whom they love. americans like marty edwards, an assistant vice president at the first national bank of grandbury, texas, whose story was recently featured in "the advocate." marty was passed over for promotions at work despite a very strong 11-year history at the bank. when he asked for an explanation from his vice president and human relations department, he was told that the workers who had received the promotion were -- quote -- "a better fit for the image we are looking f for." now, marty edwards had been hired by the bank right out of college. he formed his professional identity there. he was moving up the ladder until he came out as a gay man. when edwards asked whether his sexual orientation was the main reason he had been denied

promotions, the bank executive vice president demanded his resignation. edwards refused, and then he was fired. now, marty edwards' story is sadly not unique. between 15% and 45% of lgbt people have experienced discrimination in the workplace or harassment in the workplace as a result of their sexual orientation. 26% of transgender people report having been fired from their job because of their gender identity, and 90% report experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination. mr. president, our fellow citizens need enda. i was here when enda was voted on so many years ago when it was a ted kennedy bill, and we department make it then, but i think we're going to make it now, because americans know that enda is the right thing to do.

as a matter of fact, 80% of americans assume there already is a law prohibiting discrimination against this community. but more than half of americans still live in states where it's perfectly legal to fire a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender american just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. so that's why we need this bill. there are many states where there is no protections, and this bill would make sure the protections are nationwide. 70% of the american public supports enda. according to "the washington post," public support ranges from a high of 81% in massachusetts to a low of 63% in mississippi. so it's clear that this support cuts across party affiliation and gender -- generational gaps. whether you're a democrat, a republican, an independent, whether you're libertarian,

whether you are young or old, americans overwhelmingly support this bill. the american people are basically giving us a message. this is a no-brainer. we shouldn't have to fight about it. we should just vote for it. that's why i was just so dismayed to read that house speaker boehner said that he would not support enda, and his reason was it will increase litigation. now, does the speaker really think that lgbt americans who have families to support and bills to pay would rather pursue frivolous lawsuits than earn their pay in a workplace free of harassment and discrimination? and here's what's really, i think, disingenuous about that. republicans do not suggest that all the other groups covered by the civil rights act are filing frivolous lawsuits. in other words, all the rest of americans who are protected because of their religion, because of their color, because

of their creed. speaker boehner says they are not filing frivolous lawsuits, and he doesn't want to repeal the civil rights law for those people. good. but then why does he think that the lgbt community is going to file affirmative rust lawsuits? i have to say evidence shows that what essaying is false. the speaker ignores the fact that the government accountability office issued a recent report showing that in the 22 states that ban sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace -- quote -- "there were relatively few employment discrimination complaints based on sexual orientation and gender identity filed." unquote. so, in other words, there is not a problem with frivolous lawsuits being filed by the lgbt community in the states that have protective laws. that's because lgbt americans are woven into the fabric of our

workplaces, our communities and every other facet of our american life. so this bill is about granting them the just and fair protections they deserve so that they can live their lives and contribute to our economy without fear of losing their jobs because of who they are or whom they love. it's the moral thing to do, and it makes good business sense. a majority of fortune 500 companies have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination policies in place, and recent polling shows us that a majority of small businesses do, too. so i have to say in the states where we have these laws, people are happy with it. people are so happy with it that they think the whole country already passed a law. and so how could the speaker get up and now say he is opposed to it and it's because that they will be filing frivolous lawsuits? it's a madeup straw man, if i

might say. the state of california and many of our cities enforce these policies well, and the economy benefits. as apple c.e.o. tim cook wrote in "the wall street journal" -- quote -- "those who have suffered discrimination have paid the greatest price for this lack of legal protection, but ultimately we all pay the price. if our co-workers can't be themselves in the workplace, they certainly cannot be their best selves. when that happens, we undermine people's potential, we deny ourselves and our society the full benefits of those individual talents." and i want to thank tim cook, the c.e.o. of apple, for those progressive thoughts. employers know that they will be the most competitive when they hire and retain the best people and folks will apply for and strive to keep their jobs if they know that a company only considers their qualifications for the job and the results of their hard work, nothing more,

nothing less. i believe my colleagues will do the right thing and pass this bill. i want to say to my colleague jeff merkley -- he is not on the floor right now -- he has really pushed hard for this vote, and i want to thank senator harry reid, our leader. there are many other bills that compete for attention, and i think it was very important because what could be more important than protecting our people, protecting our sons and daughters, protecting all god's children, and that's what enda does. so i think we're going to see a very good vote on this bill tomorrow, but really it ought to pass by 80, 90, 100 votes because it's a very simple idea. everyone should be treated fairly. everyone should be treated equally. and this nation is at its best when we do that. i thank you very much. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. president. and i would ask unanimous consent that following my remarks that the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse, be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i have come to the floor again to talk about the employment nondiscrimination act known as enda. this is a bipartisan effort to advance uniquely american values -- freedom, fairness and opportunity. it's about freedom, the freedom to realize our founding belief that all americans are created equal under the law. it's about fairness, about whether lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender americans deserve to be treated just like their family, their friends, their neighbors, their fellow workers. and it's about opportunity,

about whether every american gets to dream the same dreams and chase the same ambitions and have the same shot at success. on monday this week, 61 senators, including seven republicans, voted to support opportunity and fairness, and today we agreed to a republican amendment that would strengthen the bill. bipartisan support for the employee nondiscrimination act is growing as we head towards a vote on passage tomorrow. i would urge all of my colleagues to join us and vote for this important legislation. now, i have seen firsthand the progress that we have made in recognizing that fairness and opportunity are not partisan issues. they are core american values. when i served in the house of representatives, i worked with

congressman barney frank on the employee nondiscrimination act. we had many conversations with members with varying political, personal and religious beliefs. at times, it was a difficult debate and there were many disagreements. however, the tone of the debate here on the senate floor has been remarkably dignified and cordial. this has been true throughout the senate debate. in fact, i was pleasantly surprised as a member of the help committee that the committee markup of this bill took only a little over five minutes. i had been prepared to be in our markup for hours. this dignified tone of today's debate in committee and here on the floor reflects the progress that our nation has made in recognition of fairness and

equality. my home state of wisconsin was the first state in the nation to add sexual orientation to its antidiscrimination statutes. at the time, back in 1982, only 41 municipalities and eight counties in the entire united states offered limited protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. wisconsin's efforts to pass the nation's first sexual orientation antidiscrimination law were supported by a broad spectrum of supporters and advocates. it was a bipartisan coalition, including members of the clergy, various religious denominations, medical groups, professional groups. the measure was signed into law in wisconsin by a republican governor, lee sherman dreyfus,

who based his decision to support the measure on the success of municipal ordinances providing similar protections against discrimination. since wisconsin passed its statute back in 1982, 20 states and the district of columbia, representing nearly 45% of the population of the united states of america, have passed similar antidiscrimination measures. 16 states and the district of columbia also protect their citizens on the basis of gender identity. however, 76 million american workers have to contend with a very ugly reality. it's the reality that in more than two dozen states, it is legal to discriminate against lgbt employees, and that is simply wrong, and this

legislation seeks to right that wrong. but we don't just want to live in a country where our rights are respected under the law. we want to live in a country where we are respected for who we are, where we enjoy freedom and opportunity because that's who we are as americans. the change in law that we work for this week and today can add up to incredible progress in our lifetimes. this generation can be the one in which we fulfill the promise of freedom and equality for all, in which america finally becomes a place where everyone's rights are respected at work and every family's love and commitment can be recognized and respected and rewarded under the law. finally, i would like to

recognize my senate colleagues, the ones with whom i have worked to advance this bill, the employee nondiscrimination act. senators merkley and kirk and chairman harkin and senator collins, your tireless efforts have led us this close to the finish line with regard to this bill. without naming all of them, i also want to thank my colleagues who have taken the time to join in our effort to bring cloture and bring this debate before the body, the ones who have taken the time to sit down with me and my colleagues and talk through this issue so that we might answer their questions and move it ahead. it means a lot, and i think this is an important place that we have reached.

as we prepare for the final vote tomorrow, i wish that every senator could stand with us and vote for fairness and opportunity. while we might not meet that high mark, i do hope that it's a very strong vote. passing this bill with a strong majority will show america that the united states senate believes in a future that is more equal, not less, for all americans. thank you, mr. president. and i would yield my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i had the opportunity while i was waiting my turn to speak on the floor to hear both senator boxer and senator baldwin and i want to commend both of them for really excellent and eloquent remarks, and to thank senator

baldwin for her courage and conviction and i also know that my dear colleague in the house, representative david cicilline is watching this vote very carefully and we hope that we will make him and senator baldwin and so many people around this country proud when we take this vote up tomorrow. i'm here today for what is now the 49th straight week in which the senate has been in session to urge that we wake up to the effects of carbon pollution on the earth's oceans and climate, to sweep away the manufactured doubt that so often surrounds this issue and to get serious about the threat that we face from climate change. when i come to the floor i often have a specialized subject. i talk about the oceans and how it is -- they're affected by

constitution. or i talk about the economics around cawngs or i talk -- carbon pollution or i talk about the faith community's interest in carbon pollution. today i want to talk about the role of the media all of this. we count in america on the press to report faithfully and accurately our changing world, and to awaken the public to apparent mounting threats. our constitution gives the press special vital rights so that they can perform this special vital role. but what happens when the press fails in this role? what happens when the press stops being independent, when it becomes the bedfellow of special interests? the latin phrase who will watch the watchmen themselves becomes

then the question. the press are supposed to scrutinize all of us. who watches them when they fail at their independent role? i want to speak about a very specific example, the editorial page of one of our nation's leading publications, "the wall street journal." "the wall street journal" is one of america's great newspapers, and there is probably none better when it comes to news coverage and to reporting. it is a paragon in journalism. until you turn to the editorial page, and then you step into a chasm of polluter sludge when the issue is harmful industrial pollutants. when that is the issue, harmful

industrial pollutants, this editorial page will mislead its readers, will again the scientific consensus, it will ignore its excellent news pages actually reporting, all to help the industry, to help the campaign to manufacture doubt and delay action. as i've said before, there's a denier's playbook around these issues. we've seen the pattern repeat itself in the pages of "the wall street journal" on acid rain, on the ozone layer, and now most pronouncedly on climate change. and the pattern is a simple one. deny the science, question the motives, exaggerate the costs. call it the polluting industry 1-2-3. let's start in the 1970's when scientists first warned that

chlorofluorocarbons or c.f.c.'s which were commonly used as refrigerants and air owe policy propellants could break down the earth's strat atmospheric ozone layer and increase human exposure to ultraviolet rays and cause cancer. as outlined in a report this is when "the wall street journal"'s editorial page embarked on what would become a persistent pattern. foreign for more than 25 years the editorial page doggedly presented editorials devaluing science and attacking any regulation of c.f.c.'s. january, 1976 an editorial proclaimed the connection is only a theory and will remain only that until further efforts are made to test its validity in the atmosphere itself. may may, 1979, an editorial said that scientists still don't

know to what extent, if any, mankind's activities have altered the ozone barrier or whether the possibly harmful effects of these activities aren't offset by natural processes, thus it now appears, the editorial page continued, all the excitement over the threat to the ozone layer was founded on scanty scientific evidence. march, 1984, we read on the editorial page that concerns about ozone depletion were based on -- quote -- "premature scientific evidence. rather, they say, new evidence shows that the ozone layer isn't vanishing after all. it may even be increasing. march, 1989, an editorial scald for more research on the, quote, questionable theory that c.f.c.'s cause depletion of the owe zone layer and implored scientists to, quote, continue to study the sky until we know enough to make a sound decision

regarding the phasing out of our best refrigerants. again, deny the science. predictably, they also attacked the motives of reformers. a february, 1992 editorial stated it is simply not clear to us that real science drives policy in this area. and playbook three, they warned that action to slow ozone depletion would be costly. a march, 1984 editorial claimed banning c.f.c.'s would -- quote -- "cost the economy $1.52 billion in forgone profits as well as over 8,000 jobs." an august, 1990 editorial warned that banning c.f.c.'s would lead to increased costs. he ited ad it costs 30 times as

much and will itself be banned by the year 2015. the economy will have to shoulder at least $10 billion to $15 billion a year in added refrigeration costs by the year 2000. a february, 1992 editorial warned that accelerating the phaseout of c.f.c.'s almost surely will translate into big price increases on many consumer products. well, despite the protests of the woodges' -- "the wall street journal"'s editorial's page we actually listened to the science and we action. we protected the ozone layer and we protected the public's health and the economy prospered. what about all those costs that they claimed? looking back, we can see that action to slow ozone depletion in fact saved money. according to the e.p.a.'s 1999

progress report on the clean air act, -- quote -- "every dollar invested in ozone protection provides $20 of societal health benefits in the united states." one dollar spent, $20 saved. the journal's response? silence. they just stopped talking about it. so on to acid rain. in the late 1970's, scientists began reporting that acid rain was falling on most of our northeastern united states. guess what. again at "the wall street journal" editorial page out came the playbook. they first questioned the science. they increased the link between increased burning of coal and acid rain concluding that existing data are not conclusive and more studies are needed. in september, 1982 the editors

told us that scientific study as opposed to political rhetoric points more and more to the theory that nature, not industry, is the primary source of acid rain. nature is the primary source of acid rain. september, 1985 journal editorial claimed the scientific case for acid rain is dying. in june, 199, the editorial page awrgsd that we needed to wait. always needing to wait, for science to understand to what extent acid rain is man made before enacting regulations. during that same period "the wall street journal" editorial page also smeared the motives declaring the efforts was driven by politics, not science. in ?ul july, 1978 they wrote consistent with number two on the playbook, as the acid rain story continues to develop, it's becoming increasingly

apparent that politics, not nature, is the primary force driving the theory's biggest boosters. "wall street journal" editors also consistently opposed plans to address acid rain because of cost concerns. number three in the playbook. a june, 1982 editorial warrants of the imments cost of controlling sulfur emissions. a freshman for acid rain would cost upwards of $100 billion. these claims were made even as the evidence mounted against their position, even as president reagan's own scientific panel said that inaction would risk irreversible damage and, of course, the cost equation of "the wall street journal" editorial page was always totally one-sided, always the cost to clean up the pollution, never the cost of

the harm that the pollution caused. that's the industry playbook, faithfully spouted through the editorial page of "the wall street journal." one, deny the science, two, question the motives, and three, exaggerate the costs. but we made undenial progress against acid rain despite the efforts of the editorial page and guess what, the journal editorial page suddenly reversed its tune. a july, 2001 editorial called the cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide fabulously successful, fabulously successful. noting that the program -- quote -- "saves about $700 million annually compared with the cost of traditional regulation and has been reducing emissions by four million tons annually."

on this occasion, when its effort had failed, the journal changed its tune. but up till then, it was still the industry playbook. deny the science, question the motives, exaggerate the costs. and now with carbon pollution running us to 400 parts per million for the first time in human history, the journal is using the same old polluter playbook against climate change. the journal's persistently published editorials against taking action to prevent manmade climb change. as usual, they when question the science. in june, 1993, the editors wrote that there is -- quote -- "growing evidence that global warming just isn't happening. in september, 1999 the page reported that -- quote -- "serious scientists called global warming -- quote --"one of the greatest hoasms of all time." in june, 2005, the page

asserted that the link between fossil fuels and global warming had -- quote -- "become even more doubtful." this is june, 2005, and "the wall street journal" editorial page is questioning whether there is a link between fossil fuels and global warming. a december, 2011 editorial said the global warming debate requires more definitive evidence. as usual, back to the industry playbook, the motives of the scientists were smeared. a december, 2009 editorial claimed that leading climate scientists were suspect because they -- quote -- "have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality and catastrophic imminence of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of god." and as usual, we heard the

tackling climate change, tackling carbon pollution would cost us a lot of money. in august, 2009 the editorial page warned -- quote -- "that a high co2 tax would reduce world g.d.p. a stragging 12.9% in 2100, the equivalent of $40 trillion a year. just last month, october 2013, the editorial board of the "wall street journal" warned that in the face of climate change, interventions make the world poorer than it would otherwise be. that same october 2013 editorial actually completed the full polluter playbook trifecta by also decrying the -- quote -- "political actors seeking to gain economic control and by questioning the science," saying

global surface teaches have remained essentially flat. they covered them all in just the one editorial. if only the editorial page writers at the "wall street journal" would turn the page to the actual news their own paper reports on climate change. a march 2013 article reported -- and i'll quote -- "new research suggestsagsuggests average globs were higher in the past decade than over most of the previous 11,300 years. a finding that offers a long-term context for assessing modern-day climate change." a piece from "the wall street journal" news in august 2013 revealed, and i'll quote again, "average global temperatures in 2012 were roughly in line with those of the past decade or so,

but the year still ranked among the ten warmest on the one hand record, as melting arctic ice and warming oceans continued to boost sea levels." which takes me to a particular fact about what carbon pollution is doing, and that is that our oceans are taking the brunt of the harm from carbon pollution, and it's time to stop looking the other way. but "the wall street journal" editorial page doesn't often address the effects of carbon pollution on oceans, perhaps because the changes taking place in our oceans are not a matter where the complexity of computer modeling leaves room for phony doubt to be insinuated. the oceans' recent changes from

our carbon pollution aren't projections. they aren't models. they are measurements, simple, unyielding measurements. we measure sea level rise with a ruler. its not complicated. we measure ocean tef temperature with a thermometer. we measure acidification on the ph scale, so they don't talk about that much at the wall street editorial painls. there's no room for phony doubt, so they look else w elsewhere. well, we have the right to expect independent media to teach about the threlts to our oceans and environment. what a difns good reporting can

make. exemplary and compelling story telling can and does influence our national conversation and inspire change. reporters fail when they give false equivalency to arguments on each side of the political speck trurnlings even though they're not equivalent. editors fail when they look at the science, look at the measurements, look at the real threats posed to our world and then fail to tell us the unvarnished truth. the story of climate change needs to be told. our oceans need a voice. it seems the big polluters already have one. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii.

ms. hirono: mr. president, i rise today to discuss the impact of sequestration on our country and economy. our military strength is directly supported by our economic strength as sequestration has done substantial harm to both. the senseless policy has put our military in a very bad position and undermines our national security strategies. in fiscal year 2013, the defense department's budget was reduced by approximately $43 billion due to sequestration, or raufly 8% cut -- a roughly 8% cut to each defense account. this has reduced necessary maintenance. our military leadership has been clearer about the impact of sequestration and numerous hearings before congress. all of the services have raised concerns about the budget control act's sequestration and the post sequester budget caps.

in particular we have heard how these cuts undermine their ability to carry out the 2012 defense strategic guidance, or d.s.g. the d.s.g. outlines the strategic priorities of the department of defense. the d.s.g. flejts the input of a wide range of military stakeholders. the d.s.g. describes the security challenges we are likely to face as well as the resources needed to meet key mission requirements. the 2012 d.s.g. sets as a central goal the transition of a u.s. defense enterprise from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future challenges. the budget control act's cuts undermine that goal. as a result, the services will have to reduce personnel levels, delay our scrap necessary equipment modernization and acquisition and reduce training and readiness activities. in recent testimony before the

house of representatives, army general ray odierno noted that the army's personnel would shrink by 18% in the next seven years. this includes a 26% reduction in active army personnel, 12% reduction in army national guards, and a 9% reduction in the army reserve. in discussing these reductions, general odierno said, "in my view, these reductions will put at substantial risk our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat operation." end quote. while i hope that we will not have to engage in such an operation in the near future, this reduction in our capacity to do so is very troubling. in addition, navy admiral onon this greener expressed serious concern about cuts to operations and maintenance and inpvestment accounts. these cuts threaten the navy's readiness. he explained that the navy would likely have to cancel necessary

maintenance, which reduces the useful life of ships and aircraft. in addition, the navy's shipbuilding program could be seriously affected. this means a submarine, a literal combat ship, and a float-forward staging base could be on the chopping block. hawaii is home to the pacific command, whose area of responsibility encompasses half the globe. this enormous area of responsibility is home to some of the most dynamic and fastest-growing economies in the world. the asia-pacific nations are huge markets with growing middle classes of consumers for american goods and services. however, it is also home to some of the most serious security threats we face. it is an area where the u.s.'s economic, strategic and security interests face many challenges but also many opportunities. as part of our nation's

recognition that we need to engage more in this region, president obama has committed to a rebalance of our strategic forces to the asia-pacific. the chairman of the joint chiefs, general devincy, described this rebalance by saying, "it's about three mores -- more interest, more engage, and from the military perspective, more quality assets and quality interaction. " for the asia-pacific rebalance to provide the long-term benefits to our nation, we need to be fully committed. this requires the tran circumstance training, and support of u.s. military personnel and assets to the region. however, this important initiative is undermined by the budget cuts our military is facing. we cannot support regional peace and stability with insufficient resources and personnel. yet this is the reality if we fail to address planned budget cuts.

these are just some examples of how our ability to effectively protect u.s. interests and security are being impacted by the budget control act. we also know that reductions in defense spending impact the nation's economy. for example, department of defense employees across the country, including thousands in hawaii, have faced furloughs this year. and this is a paycheck for many -- and this is a pay cut for many families at a lieu time when they can least afford them. some will argue that all we need do is give the department of defense the authority to transfer funds between accounts. i strongly disagree. congress can decrease these cuts to national -- cang co address those cuts while also strengthening our overall economy. how can we do this? by eliminating sequester and funding the whole government at the level assumed by the senate's budget resolution. sequestration, like the recent government shutdown, were

self-inflicted wounds to our economy. the cutdown was like a sudden economic heartatafnlg but sequestration is like death by a thousand cuts to our national defense, our science and research enterprise and programs which our communities rely upon. i have spoken great deal about the impact of sequestration on our military. however, the substantial cuts sustained by our education, research and development, and infrastructure are equally as damaging. these are programs that support an educated and productive workforce, improve the flow of commerce and support those in our communities in the greatest need. just as a hollowed-out force will struggle to meet mission requirements, a hollowed-out workforce will struggle to compete in the global economy. these two things are tightly linked. that is why i urge my colleagues to support eliminating sequestration for both military and non-defense programs.

"the financial times" recently reported that the u.s. public investment has dropped to 3.6% of g.d.p. this is well below the 5% we have averaged since world war ii. these cuts not only undermine our long-term national security strategy but also our long-term competitiveness and economic growth. without a strong economy, we cannot sustain the investments we need in a strong national defense. according to macroecomonic advisors, spending cuts enacted since 2010 have reduced g.d.p. by .7 percentage points. this reduction has raised unemployment by .8% or 1.2 million jobs. the congressional budget office, c.b.o., recently reported that we could give our economy a significant boost by eliminating

sequestration. in fact, c.b.o. found that if congress had enacted legislation last summer to cancel the 2013 and 2014 sequester, the economy would have nearly one million more jobs by next year. our economy would also grow nearly a full percentage point faforts. to put this in perspective, without sequestration, our economy would be nearly back on track to where it was before the great recession. we all recognize that a strong economy is the backbone of our strength as a nation. in order to get back to full strength, we need to get more people back to work. the more people who are working, the more productive our economy is. this is not rocket science. the more productive our economy, the more opportunity there is for people to achieve the american dream. getting people back to work also means less people have to rely on safety net programs and more tax revenues coming in w.

without raising any -- coming in without raising any tax rates. by increasing revenue and reducing spending, we are helping stablize our fiscal situation. a robust economy ensures that our nation at capacity to meet our commitments and support our vital priorities. this means that we don't have to choose between a strong national defense and investment in education, infrastructure, and innovation. we can and must do both. the place to start is with ending sequestration and revising the budget control act caps. this modest policy change will pay dividends for our economy and, in it un, both strengthen our national security. i yield back the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

you the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. hirono: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered, the sanders amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the committee reported amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the committee reported title amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening -- intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of calendar number 234, s. res. 268. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 234, s. res. 268, a resolution condemning the september, 2013, terrorist attack at the westgate mall in nairobi, kenya, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. hirono: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, november 7, 2013, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders

be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of s. 815, the employee nondiscrimination act, under the previous order, and that the first-degree filing deadline be 10:30 a.m. and the second-degree filing deadline be 11:30 a.m. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: there will be two roll call votes at 11:45 a.m. tomorrow and a third roll call vote at 1:45 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

of the nondiscrimination act. >> madam president, i firmly believe that no one should be subject to unjust discrimination. i support the basic premise. which is people should be judged by the experience, their qualification, and their job performance. not by their sexual orientation. bottom line is people shouldn't be able to be fired just because they are gay. the legislation currently before the body will create the level playing field and ensure employment opportunities are available to all. it doesn't mean it's a perfect bill. it should be improved. my amendment seeks to ensure that the legislation designed to promote tolerance of another kind. religious liberty is an

important part of the employment nondiscrimination act already. the underlying bill includes a significant exemption for religious employer. we have to make certain pursuit of enforcing it they are not subject to a different kind of disumtion and that is government retaliation. my amendment seeks to ensure that the government crnl penalize because it qualify z as exempt from the nondiscrimination requirement. it protects the church or religious charity or religious school by adverse action from the government on the basis of adhering to the religious tenant in a matter otherwise unlawful. in practical terms it means the government can't use activity protected bit religious exemption as a basis to deny religious employers government grates, contracts, or other benefit. it and therefore seeks to keep

the state from interfering in matter of faith. it does something else important too. it specifies several broad purposes related to addressing employment discrimination. my amendment adds the introductory section and explicit reference to the fundamental right of religious freedom. it establishes as a basic purpose that workplace fairness must be balanced against and made consistent with religious liberty. i believe the principles of religious liberty and nondiscrimination go hand and hand. we think about nondiscrimination we think about the great self rights movement. as we know the fight for tolerance goes back further than that. to the foundation of our republic. on my mom's side some of my and seesers were quakers. they came to the country in search of religious freedom. at first it was hard to find. member of the new sect were often persecuted. their view and practices viewed

to be unorthodox. sometimes they were imprisoned. their books were burned. some of the colonies didn't want them inside the borders. they knew a little bit about religious freedom and knew something about discrimination. and it was there experience and so many other groups of different faith that freedom of conscious a corner stone of our founding document. the first amendment begins, and i quote, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. end quote. religious freedom; therefore, is our first freedom. and the amendment that protects it is the first nondiscrimination law. any law that we pass that seems to prevent discrimination won't succeed if it doesn't protect religious liberty. the religious liberty protections aren't perfect. my amendment makes them better. and that's why i appreciate my colleagues giving this amendment the support it disperves. miami president, i'm looking

forward to the passage of this legislation with this amendment and again, i appreciate the work of the senator from maine and others on this. i yield back my time. >> ma'am president. >> the senator from maine. >> madam president, i rise to commend the senator from ohio for bringing forth this 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 for religious reason, 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 endata. that means that the business organization is entitled to compete for certain grants or contracts from the federal, state, or local government. that there cannot be the subtle discrimination against the employer for claiming the religious exemption legitimately coniferred upon the business under enda. i think that is really important. we don't want retaliation or to discrimination or unfair treatment on either side. and i really commend senator portman for coming forward with this amendment. i believe that it's consistent with the bill and that it strengthens the bill. i want to congratulate him for his initiative, and it's been a

pleasure to work with him, senator ayotte, and other members of the senate in support of this initiative. thank you, madam president. >> pakistan and i'm concerned about pakistan. i always want pakistan to overcome its dysfunction for pakistan's sake. i want good relations in the united states but it's not because out of -- just out of love or getting to the united states out of love for pakistan. pakistan has to understand and realize as a nation that no other nation can stretch you and make your size bigger than your neighbor. so india's size is an advantage to india. pakistan needs to get over one thing -- [inaudible] and be happy with security of india as long as it's not from india. pakistan has nuclear weapons, india has nuclear weapons. now pakistan needs to trade with everybody in the neighborhood.

address the economic dysfunction, put the 48% of school-aged children in school and make sure that pakistan's population doesn't continue to rise at a base that is much faster than the base of the economic growth. none of those things can be addressed just by building nation between an american military piers personality. >> the former ambassador to the u.s. on the painful history of pakistani-american relations. sunday night at 9:00 on "after words." part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. one of the things that has struck, in my mind, is how dallas has changed in general just from, say, the political standpoint. at that time, in the early 1960s and late '50s there was probably a much less balance political

climate here. perhaps a great deal the right side. in fact, i remember seeing publication in one of the two papers -- i forget which one whether it was the "times herald "somebody bought a full-page ad the day before president kennedy came with his picture and said "wanted for treason." when arlen sector who came down here represented warren commission, a junior counsel, one that quizzed me. after it was over with, he came out in the hall in parkland -- he was quizzing me about the entrance wound. no question about it thought it was an entrance wound. we have people who will testify they saw him shot from the overpass. we don't believe they are credible witnesses, and i don't want you to say anything about it. marking the 50th

anniversary of president kennedy's assassination. eye witness account from two of the doctors who treated president kennedy and lee harvey oswald. sunday at 3:00 p.m. part of american history tv on c-span 3. senior legal officers from the intelligence community testified monday about proposed change to nsa data collection and surveillance programs including one that collects data from the internal networking of private companies like googling. the panel testified at the meeting of the president's privacy and siflt -- civil liberty oversight board. >> good afternoon. i am going to start the first afternoon session. the topic is foreign intelligence surveillance. we are pleased to have as

theesses, james baker with department of justice, office of intelligence, and policy review. judge james carr, a senior federal judge of the united states district court and formerly a judge from 2002 2008. sillinger, a former doj attorney at the computer crime and electrical property section. i understand aychip you have brief prepared remarks so please go ahead and afterwards we will have as we did on the last panel last rounds of questioning. >> i would like to thank the board for inviting me that kerry gets truly an honor to be here an honor to be able to discuss these kinds of issues in this type of setting so i appreciate the opportunity. i have i have a couple quick comments really. the focus of our discussion is

on section 702 of the fisa amendments act and 215 of the usa patriot act and i would say while these are very important statutorily authorized initially reviewed warrantless surveillance programs involving the collection of canned occasions and communications related data with respect to many americans they are part of the story and i think that was discussed this morning in a panel that i was able to attend. in particular is the panel is aware the government conducts surveillance activities using a number of different authorities especially including outside the united states under 12333 and i would submit to the board as you are evaluating these issues you think roughly about them because the privacy issues you are confronting to pop up in different contexts and is another example with respect to telephone records, telephone calling