Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013, or the ``CURB Act.'' This legislation is designed to help relieve the onerous regulatory burden on our Nation's job creators. When I ask employers in Maine what we need to do to help them add jobs, they tell me that Washington must reduce the cost and complexity of the regulations imposed on them. And this is not just a concern voiced by Maine businesses. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll of small business owners found that the vast majority are not hiring new workers right now, and more than half pointed to government regulations as one of the reasons why. The National Federation of Independent Business found the same when it polled its members last year. No business owner I know questions the legitimate role of regulation in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of employees and the public. But the public is not well-served by regulations that bury small businesses under a mountain of paperwork, driving up costs unnecessarily, and impeding growth and job creation. Proper regulation should be as efficient and simple as possible. At the very least, the benefits of a regulation should exceed its costs. Unfortunately, the burden of Federal regulations continues to grow. Right now, Federal agencies are at work on nearly 2,500 new rules, at least 229 of which affect small businesses. One hundred thirty-nine are major rules, costing more than $100 million each. These rules will go on top of a pile of regulations now measured in the millions of pages. Year-by-year, this pile of pages gets ever deeper. In the 1970s, the Federal Register, the compilation of Federal regulations, added some 450,000 pages. In the first decade of the 21st Century, more than 730,000 pages were added--a rate of 73,000 pages per year. The pace continues to accelerate. On average since 2010, the Federal Government has added more than 80,000 pages to the Federal Register each year. This cannot continue. We are not in the fifth year of an economic ``recovery'' that has produced tepid economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment. The red-tape that is strangling our job creators is one of the chief reasons our economy has not fully recovered, and why millions of Americans still cannot find jobs. If we want to get our economy moving again and get Americans back to work, we must get serious about streamlining and reforming our regulatory system. The CURB Act is designed to do that by requiring Federal agencies to take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. It does this in four ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices; second, by requiring agencies to follow ``good guidance'' practices; third, by helping small businesses avoid unnecessary penalties for first-time, non-harmful paperwork violations; and fourth, by implementing reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act proposed by our former colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. Let me explain each of these provisions in further detail. First, as a general rule, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect costs regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. The CURB Act would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order. Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' Let me explain why this is necessary: After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so-called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements. In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. The CURB Act would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin. Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses do not have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. The CURB Act directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply does not make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure. Fourth, as I mentioned, my bill also includes reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. These reforms would build on the RFA by expanding its requirements to include guidance documents and indirect costs, in a manner consistent with what I have already described. In addition, the reforms to the RFA would allow small businesses to challenge burdensome rules when they are proposed, instead of when the rules have become final, which is often too late. Finally, these proposed reforms would put teeth into the RFA's requirement that agencies review their rules for possible savings at least once a decade. The bill directs each agency's Inspector General to notify the head of the agency if a rule has not been reviewed in the time required. Once this notification is received, the agency has 6 months to conduct the required review. If it fails to do so, the bill directs the IG to notify Congress, triggering the recission of one percent of the offending agency's personnel budget unless Congress intervenes. Before I close, I want to note that many Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, have offered serious regulatory reform proposals for our consideration in recent years. Indeed, even the President's own ``Jobs Council''--before it was disbanded--stressed the need for regulatory reform, and put forward ideas consistent with many of the proposals I and other Members of this body have submitted as legislation. Last session, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under the leadership of then- Chairman Lieberman and myself, held a series of hearings on regulatory reform. But the Senate as a whole did not act on these proposals last session, or dedicate any time whatsoever to their consideration. I am hopeful this session will be different, and room will be made on the Senate's agenda to consider regulatory reform. As we do so, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach I have proposed in the CURB Act.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013, or the ``CURB Act.'' This legislation is designed to help relieve the onerous regulatory burden on our Nation's job creators. When I ask employers in Maine what we need to do to help them add jobs, they tell me that Washington must reduce the cost and complexity of the regulations imposed on them. And this is not just a concern voiced by Maine businesses. Earlier this year, a Gallup poll of small business owners found that the vast majority are not hiring new workers right now, and more than half pointed to government regulations as one of the reasons why. The National Federation of Independent Business found the same when it polled its members last year. No business owner I know questions the legitimate role of regulation in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of employees and the public. But the public is not well-served by regulations that bury small businesses under a mountain of paperwork, driving up costs unnecessarily, and impeding growth and job creation. Proper regulation should be as efficient and simple as possible. At the very least, the benefits of a regulation should exceed its costs. Unfortunately, the burden of Federal regulations continues to grow. Right now, Federal agencies are at work on nearly 2,500 new rules, at least 229 of which affect small businesses. One hundred thirty-nine are major rules, costing more than $100 million each. These rules will go on top of a pile of regulations now measured in the millions of pages. Year-by-year, this pile of pages gets ever deeper. In the 1970s, the Federal Register, the compilation of Federal regulations, added some 450,000 pages. In the first decade of the 21st Century, more than 730,000 pages were added--a rate of 73,000 pages per year. The pace continues to accelerate. On average since 2010, the Federal Government has added more than 80,000 pages to the Federal Register each year. This cannot continue. We are not in the fifth year of an economic ``recovery'' that has produced tepid economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment. The red-tape that is strangling our job creators is one of the chief reasons our economy has not fully recovered, and why millions of Americans still cannot find jobs. If we want to get our economy moving again and get Americans back to work, we must get serious about streamlining and reforming our regulatory system. The CURB Act is designed to do that by requiring Federal agencies to take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. It does this in four ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices; second, by requiring agencies to follow ``good guidance'' practices; third, by helping small businesses avoid unnecessary penalties for first-time, non-harmful paperwork violations; and fourth, by implementing reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act proposed by our former colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. Let me explain each of these provisions in further detail. First, as a general rule, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect costs regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. The CURB Act would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order. Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' Let me explain why this is necessary: After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so-called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements. In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. The CURB Act would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin. Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses do not have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. The CURB Act directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply does not make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure. Fourth, as I mentioned, my bill also includes reforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA. These reforms would build on the RFA by expanding its requirements to include guidance documents and indirect costs, in a manner consistent with what I have already described. In addition, the reforms to the RFA would allow small businesses to challenge burdensome rules when they are proposed, instead of when the rules have become final, which is often too late. Finally, these proposed reforms would put teeth into the RFA's requirement that agencies review their rules for possible savings at least once a decade. The bill directs each agency's Inspector General to notify the head of the agency if a rule has not been reviewed in the time required. Once this notification is received, the agency has 6 months to conduct the required review. If it fails to do so, the bill directs the IG to notify Congress, triggering the recission of one percent of the offending agency's personnel budget unless Congress intervenes. Before I close, I want to note that many Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, have offered serious regulatory reform proposals for our consideration in recent years. Indeed, even the President's own ``Jobs Council''--before it was disbanded--stressed the need for regulatory reform, and put forward ideas consistent with many of the proposals I and other Members of this body have submitted as legislation. Last session, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under the leadership of then- Chairman Lieberman and myself, held a series of hearings on regulatory reform. But the Senate as a whole did not act on these proposals last session, or dedicate any time whatsoever to their consideration. I am hopeful this session will be different, and room will be made on the Senate's agenda to consider regulatory reform. As we do so, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach I have proposed in the CURB Act.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, thousands of Mainers are receiving notices that their health insurance is being canceled due to ObamaCare. This past weekend I talked with Mark Pendergast, the owner of a small landscaping company, who just found out that the premiums for his small business plan will jump by 54 percent next year due to ObamaCare. He can't pay that and stay competitive, and his workers can't afford it either. Their share of the premium will go up by $740 next year. Mark is worried they will simply drop their coverage and pay the fine instead. Mark and his workers are not the only Mainers hurt by ObamaCare. Mrs. Beatrice Logan of Cape Elizabeth, ME, emailed me to express her deep concern that her family is facing an increase in their deductible from $4,500 to $12,000. Moreover, she is being told that they may not be able to continue with the health care team at Boston's Children's Hospital that has provided a lifetime of excellent care to her 19-year- old son who has cystic fibrosis. Dave Eshelman of Falmouth told me that he and his wife are facing a more than 90-percent increase in their premiums. Having to spend an additional $5,000 a year for health insurance is no small matter to them at a time when they are struggling to start a small business. One of the major reasons I strongly opposed the Affordable Care Act was that there was nothing ``affordable'' about it. I predicted it would lead to fewer choices and higher insurance costs for middle income families and small businesses. Congress must work together to address the very real health care concerns of the American people and the budget realities we face. Repealing ObamaCare's poorly crafted and misguided mandates and replacing the law with a fiscally responsible reform bill that contains costs and provides more choices is the best path forward. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we are about to make history in this Chamber by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, more commonly known as ENDA. We will establish the principle that the right to work free from discrimination is a fundamental right of each and every American regardless of age, race, gender, religion, disability, national origin, and now, finally, sexual orientation. It has taken a long time to get to this day. More than 10 years ago I was proud to join a life-long champion of civil rights, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, as a cosponsor of ENDA. That was back in 2002. Over the years our country has rightly taken a stand against workplace discrimination in a wide variety of forms. It is past time we close this gap for our LGBT employees. The time to pass this bill has come. I thank Senators Merkley and Kirk for taking up the cause and for moving this bill forward. Senator Kirk, along with Senators Hatch and Murkowski, led Republican support for this bill during its consideration by the HELP Committee. I also acknowledge the work of the chairman of the committee Tom Harkin in bringing this bill to the floor. Other Senators who helped to improve this bill include Senators Portman, Ayotte, Heller, Hatch, and McCain, in their effort to draft strong antiretaliation language. Their amendment, which was adopted unanimously, improves this bill by strengthening the protections for religious institutions that are legitimately exempted under ENDA. I thank each of those Senators and others, such as Senator Flake, for their willingness to work with the sponsors and cosponsors of this legislation. Senator Toomey also has worked hard. Mr. President, all Americans deserve a fair opportunity to pursue the American Dream. ENDA is simply about the fundamental right to work and to be judged according to one's abilities, qualifications, and job performance. Much of corporate America has already voluntarily embraced LGBT protections because they know that doing so helps them attract and retain the best and the brightest employees. Nearly two dozen States have versions of ENDA. In fact, in my home State of Maine, it has been the law for nearly a decade. Simply put, ENDA is about fairness and workplace equality. Today, I am confident the Senate will affirm that principle and will say to everyone in this country the workplace is simply no place for discrimination.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Sergeant Lawrence A. Roukey, a native of Maine, was honored today for his exceptional service and sacrifice by the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, in a ceremony at DIA Headquarters. SGT Roukey was among four servicemembers honored and inducted into the DIA Patriots' Memorial located in the lobby at DIA Headquarters on Joint Base Bolling Anacostia in Washington, DC. The DIA Patriots' Memorial honors DIA employees who died in service to the United States in support of DIA's mission. As a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart, Sergeant Roukey has previously been recognized for emulating the highest values of selflessness, dedication, and courage. Let me illustrate how DIA described Sergeant Roukey's heroism and outstanding contribution on behalf of our country and why the agency is honoring him today. A member of the U.S. Army Reserve, Sergeant Roukey volunteered to serve during Operation Iraqi Freedom as a member of the security detail for the Iraq Survey Group mobile collection team that was conducting a critical field inspection in an anticoalition forces area. Under dangerous conditions, Sergeant Roukey and his squad mate provided protective security for personnel charged with inspecting a suspected weapons of mass destruction facility in Baghdad on April 26, 2004. Both soldiers lost their lives when a massive explosion occurred at the facility being inspected. Prior to rejoining the military as an Army Reservist in Maine, Sergeant Roukey served in the U.S. Army infantry in South Korea and Egypt. He was a respected teammate in the Reserves and at the Portland Post Office, where he worked as a civilian, and he enjoyed hiking and sharing stories about his family. It is fitting for the DIA and for all of us to honor Sergeant Roukey so close to Veterans Day, as well as all of the men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of America and American values, including our military intelligence professionals. Prior to today's ceremony, the memorial at DIA honored 21 individuals for their ultimate sacrifice. Now the memorial honors 25 individuals. Today we commemorate Sergeant Roukey and the other servicemembers honored with him, as well as all of those who have served under the flag of the United States of America.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I see the Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on the floor. I would inquire, through the Chair, how long she is seeking to speak. We were about to proceed to the consideration of the amendment that has been filed by Senator Portman and cosponsored by Senator Ayotte, Senator Heller, and Senator McCain. This is a rather complicated parliamentary situation. Then there is going to be a debate. If the Senator from Massachusetts is going to speak very briefly, I would withhold. If she is going to speak at length, then since we have Members on their way, I would proceed.

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

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. 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

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

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

Ms. COLLINS

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

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

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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.