Floor Statements

Madam President, the Senate is not in order. No one can hear.

I thank Senator Stabenow not only for her statement, but she has talked a lot about people she meets in her State and they say to her: Senator, all we want is a fair shot. Before Senator Stabenow leaves the floor I wanted to say I hear the same thing at home as well. When it comes to insurance all people want is a fair shot at affordable insurance. That is why we are here today. We are here to celebrate the fourth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.

I say for the record, we have millions of reasons in California to say thank you for the Affordable Care Act, and I will go through some of the numbers. We have exceeded our goals. We have

now signed up 1 million, and that is 300,000 over our goal. We now know President Obama has extended the signup period for those who are signing up on the national exchange. We are not sure yet whether California is going to extend its time. Anyone within the sound of my voice--those in California--need to know that we have not yet extended the time, so join the millions of Californians who have signed up through the exchanges.

Let's be clear: This is a real partisan battle. The House Republicans have been bragging about the 54 times they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but I have to tell them before they vote again to tear this law down and vilify this law for the 55th time: Pay attention to the people in my State and all over the country.

I will go through the math of what is happening here. In addition to the 1 million people in California who have signed up on the exchange, we have 400,000 young adults who are staying on their parents' insurance policies and 1.8 million people on Medicaid. When I say we have more than a million reasons to say thank you for this law, we really do.

I have some other numbers to add to this. Eight million Californians now have access to free preventive care, including mammograms, birth control, and immunizations; 16 million Californians with preexisting conditions, such as asthma, cancer, and diabetes are guaranteed coverage--including 2.2 million children. California seniors and people with disabilities are saving money on prescription drugs--350,000, thanks to the work we did to close that doughnut hole, and 12 million Californians have new insurance protections and no longer have to worry about hitting annual limits on their health care.

I say to the Republicans: Wake up and see what is happening in your communities. Don't take my word for it. Listen to some of my Californians:

Just got my Obamacare Covered CA insurance plan. I'm

ecstatic. Saving $400 a month.

Another Californian said: ``Loving my new health coverage, way to go California.''

Another person wrote:

Just paid my first premium for Covered CA healthcare. A 42%

reduction for a nearly identical plan.

Bobby Dutta from Sacramento writes:

I was being crushed by the heavy burden of health insurance

premium costs. I had a PPO plan with Anthem Blue Cross and

was paying $1,324 per month for a family of two. Now, for a

comparable plan through ACA, my premiums are $61 per month.

Earth to Republicans: People are saving so much money because of the Affordable Care Act. They are getting peace of mind. Why would Republicans want to repeal a law that is helping so many people in California and across the country? I have never seen a law so vilified.

Today I went back to the Congressional Record--and I want to share this with Senator Murphy, who has organized this today. I thought this was the only law Republicans vilified, but I went back to take a look at when Social Security was debated and passed.

In 1935, on the floor of the House during the debate on Social Security, a Republican Congressman from Ohio said:

This is compulsion of the rankest kind.

That was how he talked about Social Security. He called it rank.

Do not be misled by the title. The title says ``Old Age

Benefits.'' Shame on you for putting such a misleading and

unfair title on such a nefarious bill. Old-age benefits?

Think of it! What a travesty! . . .

Another Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania said:

. . . security for the individual, whether worker or aged,

will be a mockery and a sham if . . . [we] allot to our

people the role of puppets of a socialistic state . . .

Doesn't this sound familiar? If you do anything for people, Republicans will call you a socialist. They call Social Security socialist.

He says:

We cannot provide a sense of security by programs for the

destruction of wealth . . .

That is how he described Social Security. Listen, people pay into Social Security. It is an insurance plan. People pay premiums for their health care.

I have to say it: The Republicans are vilifying the Affordable Care Act just as they vilified Social Security and they vilified Medicare.

Let's look at what Republicans said about Medicare. In 1965 a Representative from Missouri said:

. . . we cannot stand idly by now, as the Nation is urged

to embark on an ill-conceived adventure in government

medicine, the end of which no one can see, and from which the

patient is certain to be the ultimate sufferer.

I say to my colleagues: This is unbelievable. In 1965, the Republicans said that government medicine, which they called Medicare, even though you have a private doctor, would lead to patients suffering. If you ask patients who have Medicare now if they like it, they love it. Even the rightwing tea partiers who came to Washington had signs that said: ``Hands off my Medicare.'' The Republicans vilified Medicare.

How about another one? A Republican from Wyoming had this to say about Medicare:

I am disturbed about the effect this legislation would have

upon our economy and upon our private insurance system . . .

In 1995, Dick Armey, the Republican House majority leader, said that Medicare is ``a program I would have no part of in a free world.''

I want people to understand that when the Republicans vilify the Affordable Care Act, they are doing exactly what they did on Social Security and Medicare. They were on the wrong side of history then and they are on the wrong side of history now. And, of course, Newt Gingrich said Medicare was ``going to wither on the vine.'' Well, it would, if Republicans controlled this place.

Senate Majority Leader Dole said in 1996, ``I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.''

Folks, there is a big difference between the parties. When you see the Republicans start to vote again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, that is what they wanted to do to Social Security and that is what they wanted to do to Medicare. We stopped them then, and we will stop them now. All they want to do is repeal all of these great benefits that are helping millions of people, and I say to them: Enough already. Enough. Work with us. Let's make sure everyone in America has that sense of security that they can handle whatever health impacts hit their families.

I thank my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of two dedicated public servants, California Highway Patrol officers Juan Gonzalez and Brian Law. Officer Gonzalez and Officer Law were tragically killed in the line of duty while responding to an automobile accident in Kingsburg, CA.

A graduate of Tulare Union High School and California State University, Fresno, Juan Gonzalez joined the California Highway Patrol in 2008, the culmination of years of hard work and the realization of a goal that he had held since he was 5 years old. He worked for 2 years in San Jose before transferring to the Fresno area in 2010.

A Marine and Air Force reservist, Brian Law also graduated from the California Highway Patrol Academy in 2008 and worked in Alameda County for the CHP for 5 years before transferring to Fresno last year.

Officer Gonzalez and Officer Law first met as cadets at the California Highway Patrol Academy, where they became good friends. In 2013, they teamed up as partners in the CHP's Fresno office.

Those who knew Officer Gonzalez fondly remember him as a trusted colleague and friend who was committed to his career and family. His determined spirit, unique laugh, and camaraderie will be missed.

Officer Law was an avid sports fan with an engaging personality whose willingness to help others and passion for law enforcement helped him to become a respected member of the California Highway Patrol. Above all else,

Brian is remembered as a devoted family man.

Officers Gonzalez and Law dutifully served the people of California with honor and valor. Their service and dedication epitomize the best ideals of law enforcement, and I send my heartfelt sympathies to their families, friends and colleagues--especially Maria, Officer Gonzalez's mother, and his sister Sandra; and Rebecca, Officer Law's wife; his stepdaughter Lauren; son Brandon; daughter Samantha; father Denis Law; mother Judy Doty; and sister Carol Law-Stetson.

They will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Sergeant Tom Smith, a 23-year veteran of the Bay Area Rapid Transit, BART, Police Department, who was an exceptional law enforcement officer, a devoted and loyal friend, and most of all a dedicated family man. Sergeant Smith was tragically struck down on January 21, 2014, becoming the first police officer in BART's 42-year history to be killed in the line of duty.

Tom Smith was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, the youngest of three brothers who all became police officers and the first to pursue a career in law enforcement. Joining the BART police at age 19 as a cadet, he rose through the ranks, serving as a field training officer and a K-9 handler before becoming a detective and eventually reaching the rank of Sergeant, where he led BART's detective unit.

Colleagues remember Sergeant Smith as an experienced and respected leader who was passionate about his work. It was through his job that he met the love of his life, Kellie, a BART police officer with the K-9 unit. Married in 2001, Sergeant Smith and his wife have a beautiful 6- year-old daughter, Summer. His friends remember him as a devoted husband, father, and brother. When he was not on duty he spent as much time as he could with Kellie and Summer, his brothers Patrick, a Newark police officer, and Edward, an Alameda County sheriff's deputy, and his brother-in-law Todd, a Hayward police officer.

Tom Smith dedicated his life to his family, his community, and his country. His dedicated and courageous service will not be forgotten. On behalf of the people of California, whom he served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Madam President, I was unable to attend the roll call vote on passage of H.R. 3370, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield 2 minutes?

I thank the Senator from Iowa for his generosity spirit, and I rise in strong support of the bill.

Since 1990 this important block grant has helped States provide vouchers to our low-income families to help them afford quality childcare programs. We all know how important that is.

With over 70 percent of moms in today's workforce, it certainly is a critical issue for our children and their families and for our economy.

I have been involved in this issue both when I was a young mom and now as an older grandmother. Childcare can be very expensive. The average low-income family spends over 32 percent of their income on childcare every month and about the same for their rent. They don't have much left over. It is very difficult. In California we have almost 6 million children whose parents are working, and in our State we were able to help over 100,000 children through this very important program.

I commend the sponsors of this bill, the HELP Committee, for the great work they have done. I have a couple of amendments, and I will finish in just a moment.

Senator Burr and I have proposed amendment No. 2809, which simply ensures that all childcare programs on Federal facilities, such as military bases, conduct the same comprehensive background checks the bill already requires of childcare providers on State land. So it is like a little bit of an oversight that was left out.

So we make sure if there is a childcare center on Federal lands--and, by the way, there are many--it is taken care of. Unfortunately, we have had experiences of all kinds of assaults on Federal lands, and I don't need to go into that.

Amendment No. 2810 would help more parents afford quality childcare by increasing the child and dependent care tax credit from $3,000 to $6,000 per child, and making it refundable.

I do hope we all support the underlying bill, and I thank the Senator from Iowa for his generosity.

Mr. President, we know all Senators care deeply about their constituents and their families. If any one of us saw danger looming, we would do everything in our power to save them. Yet in the face of irrefutable scientific agreement, the Senate does nothing to make sure polluters pay for the carbon they emit, which would move us toward a clean energy economy and away from catastrophic climate change.

Yes, there is money, big money, behind the polluters. Yes, those polluters are raging against us with layers of lies. Yet and still the environment which used to be a bipartisan issue has turned truly bitterly partisan, but we cannot and we must not and we will not give in because it is our job. We must preserve our environment for our people, which is pretty basic.

The deniers have given in to the power of wishful thinking, just as those defending cigarette addiction did.

To those who would say let China lead, I say this is shameful. In China 1.2 million people died in 2010 from air pollution. That is a fact, not a fantasy. America doesn't sit around and wait for someone else to protect the health and safety and the quality of life of our people. It is wrong. So I am so proud tonight to stand with my resolute colleagues as we fight back against those polluters who would put their self-interests ahead of the salmon we have sworn to protect.

Thank you.

Mr. President, it was with great interest that I listened to my friend. I suppose we are making progress. He used to call climate change a hoax, and he did not say that. So maybe he is moving in our direction.

But I also want to point out, he says we are going to be talking to ourselves. I am happy to report that I just learned of two petitions, one that has 65,000 signatures calling on us to act and another that has 30,000 signatures calling on us to act, and the night is young.

Now, my friend from Oklahoma----

Mr. President, if the time is taken off their time, I am happy to yield.

That is wonderful. I am so happy you did not use hoaxes, and maybe there is a way for us to come closer together on this issue. But let my say this: People are listening. People care. Because when 97 to 98 percent of the scientists say something is real, they do not have anything pressing them to say that other than the truth. They do not have any other agenda. They do not work for the oil companies.

I will tell you, as chairman of the environment committee, every time the Republicans choose a so-called expert on climate, we have tracked them to special interest funding, those 3 percent. They know where their bread is buttered. I am sorry my friend left. I guess he could not stand to hear the truth. So I will put that truth into the Record.

I do not know how my Republican colleagues can continue to deny that climate change is happening. One would think they could see it out their window, because as my colleague says: Oh, there was such cold weather. That has been predicted by the scientists, extreme weather. Here is the U.S. Global Change Research Program, their National Climate Assessment draft: Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades. We have seen heavy downpours, more severe droughts, and some extremes.

At the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works climate change briefing, Dr. Marshall Shepherd, president of the American Meteorological Society, and a director of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Georgia, said:

Climate change is increasing the probability of extreme

events, and in some cases maybe strengthening their intensity

or increasing their frequency. We are loading the dice

towards more Sandy or blizzard-type storms.

So when my friend says: The planet is not warming; it is cold, we all know it is not about the weather. It is about the climate. It is about the long term--and, yes, we are going to see these extreme weather conditions.

I would say that when my friends call us alarmists, that is ridiculous. We are trying to do our job. We are not scientists. We are not doctors either, for the most part, but we want to make sure people have health care coverage. We are not scientists, but we want to protect our people from the ravages of climate.

I would ask my colleague Senator Schatz would he like me to go another 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 2 minutes? It is up to him. I can withhold. I am going to be here for quite a few hours.

Absolutely. Will the Presiding Officer tell me when I have used 3 minutes and then I will yield the floor at that time.

We just heard 45 minutes from my friend Jim Inhofe, whom I have a very friendly relationship with but who I think is a dangerous denier, a dangerous denier in the face of 97 percent agreement among scientists.

He talks about international groups. I wish to talk about the National Academy of Sciences. Here is what they said: ``Levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in earth's atmosphere are exceeding levels recorded in the past millions of years.''

That is our own National Academy of Sciences. I guess if we went out and asked the public do they support the National Academy of Sciences, I think it would come in at 90 percent, and the other 10 percent would say, I will get back to you.

Then we have more from the National Academy:

Climate change is occurring. It is very likely caused

primarily by the emission of greenhouse gasses from human

activity.

They go on:

Human activities have increased greenhouse gas

concentrations in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, the main

greenhouse gas, is emitted by human activities and it has

risen almost 40 percent over the past 150 years.

So when you hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand and deny this, how about the U.S. National Climate Assessment? This is the United States of America, our experts:

Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable

recordkeeping began. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4

feet by 2100.

That is dangerous. We have already seen it happening. I could go on, and I will come back, but I will conclude with this. I am, in my concluding remarks, going to tell you about every incredibly prestigious scientific group that has warned us about climate change: The joint world science academies' statement, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Biological Scientists, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, the Botanical Society of America, the Crop Science Society of America, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Soil Science Society of America, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union----

I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

The Geological Society of America. All I can say is, to come down here and accuse the Democrats of being alarmist, when all we are trying to do is protect the health and safety of the American people, of their families and future generations, is extreme while we are in the mainstream.

I yield the floor.

I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership. We are now 30 minutes behind, so I would take up to 30 minutes, and then I will be followed by Senator Franken.

Madam President, I have been on this floor since early this evening and it is very clear that deniers are standing with 3 percent of the scientists while we Democrats who are here tonight calling for action are standing with 97 percent of the scientists.

As I mentioned before, every time the Republicans call a so-called expert to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I track their path and they seem to be tied to the oil industry or to major polluters. That is just a fact. I am going to talk a little bit later about what has happened and why this suddenly has become a bitter partisan fight. It never used to be. It never used to be, but it is and it is wrong.

No one party can put together the votes needed. We have to share responsibility and that is critical. People have said to me, the press: What is the point of this all-nighter? I said, very simply: The Senate Climate Action Task Force, which has membership of getting toward 30 percent of the Senate, we want to wake up the Congress to the fact that time is running out. We have to act now. We have to do everything we can legislatively in every way.

The good news--and there is some good news which has nothing to do with the Senate. It is all bad news for the Senate, frankly. But the good news is that we have a President who gets this and who is moving forward with a climate action plan. I am sorry to say every step he takes we have people trying to repeal what he is doing. So far we have beat back those naysayers and those voices of the polluters.

One of the major functions of the Senate Climate Action Task Force is not just rallying around the scientists and calling attention to climate change, but it is clearly to play defense when we see attempts to roll back the President's plan.

We have already seen a CRA, which stands for congressional review act, that is in the works to overturn what the President is trying to do to clean up coal-fired plants before they even finish the rules. Senator McConnell is talking about a race to repeal it before it is even put into place. I do not understand this--well, I understand it, but it is wrong.

We have to stand up for our families. As I said in my earlier remarks, if you saw any member of your family or any one of your constituents standing in the wake of a disaster, say an oncoming car, you would do everything in your power--everything in your power--to save that constituent or that family member.

We are facing an out-of-control problem here with our climate. It is out of control. If we do not wrap our arms around it, we will have catastrophic warming. It has already started and it will lead to horrible pain and suffering whether it is heat waves and deaths. We have already seen it in Europe. Colleagues from New Mexico and Colorado have already talked about horrible floods and fires. I can tell you more about fires in my State.

I have never seen anything like it. We have seen drought. All of this was predicted by the scientists back in the early nineties. I cannot believe that is 20 years ago that they told us. I think we have proven the point that deniers are standing with 3 percent of the scientists and every major scientific organization has warned us to act.

One of my colleagues, Senator Inhofe, came down and said: Oh, it is snowing. It is cold. It is called extreme weather, and it is what was predicted. The vortex up in the Arctic, we are feeling the impacts of a weakened jet stream. We are seeing these terrible temperatures in an extreme fashion hit the lower 48 States, some of which have never had it before. We have seen with our very own eyes snow in places such as Atlanta, people stuck on highways. No one knew what to do because it has never happened before. I think we have made the clear case.

I say to my colleague Senator Schatz, who has worked so hard with Senator Whitehouse to put this together, we have proven the point. I believe that we stand with science in the mainstream, and our colleagues--most of whom have not come to the floor to debate us--are standing with the extreme and, frankly, the special polluting interests. Now, after they get done with denying, they have a fallback position, and they say: Well, even if you believe there is climate change, we should not act until China acts. Since when does the greatest country on Earth sit back and allow China to lead us out of a climate change impending disaster? Since when do we cede that authority?

I want to talk about that. All you have to do is take a look at China to see what happens to a country that throws the environment under a bus. Let's take a look at some of the people in China and what it looks like. These are people on their bicycles. You can't see anything around them. They have masks on. We are going to wait for China to lead us out of the climate change problem? I don't think so.

I went to China on a very interesting trip with Leader Reid a couple of years ago. We were there for a good 10 days. We really saw the country. It is fascinating. There are a lot of interesting things going on there with transportation and so on. We never saw the Sun--never.

One day the Sun was behind the smog, and the guy who was with us said: What a beautiful day.

I said: No, it is not. This is terrible.

We went to the American Embassy. They have a measuring tool that tells them how dirty the air is in China. It is a hazardous duty post. People who were there with their kids were told not to go out because it was too dangerous. China has hazardous levels of pollution and toxic emissions which have had very harmful effects on the Chinese people.

We are supposed to wait for China to clean up carbon pollution? I don't think so. According to a scientific study from the Health Effects Institute, outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010 alone. This is not fiction; this is fact.

We have voices on the Republican side of the aisle who are begging us: Don't do anything on carbon pollution until China acts. Air pollution was the fourth leading risk factor for deaths in China. The threat is expected to get worse.

Urban air pollution is set to become the top environmental cause of mortality worldwide by 2050--ahead of dirty water and lack of sanitation. It is estimated that up to 3.6 million people could end up dying prematurely from air pollution each year, mostly in China and India. Think about that. Yes, we will hear our colleagues say China and India too.

I represent a very large and great State with a population of 38 million people. We are on the cutting edge of a clean environment. We are tackling carbon pollution. We are seeing great jobs being developed in solar, wind, and geothermal. We are going to have one-third of our electricity generation come from clean sources by 2020. I am so proud of my State. The special interests came in there and they tried to repeal all of our laws that had to do with cleaning up carbon pollution, and the people--even though they were faced with millions of dollars in oil company ads--said no.

So the people who say this isn't real, we have already disproved that. I put out the names of every possible organization. If you ask the American people about those organizations, they would say: We respect those organizations. So that is out.

Then they say: Wait for China. That is out. In January the U.S. Embassy issued warnings to China's citizens that the air quality in Beijing was so bad it exceeded the upper limits of its measurements, and the exposure to fine soot was many times above what the World Health Organization considers hazardous. They call it an ``airpocalyse.'' It forced the Chinese Government to close highways because the visibility was so bad.

This goes on in cities across China. A woman looked out her window in Harbin and said: ``I couldn't see anything outside the window, and I thought it was snowing.'' Then she realized it wasn't snow; it was dangerous toxic smog. That is what the people are living with. They are beside themselves. They walk around with masks. They can't go out. They are suffering and dying. And this is the country that my colleagues say we ought to wait for before we tackle climate change? You have to be kidding me. This is an embarrassment. Citizens of Harbin can see only 10 yards in front of them because small particle pollution soared to a record 40 times higher than international standards.

By the way, the cost of environmental degradation in China was about $230 billion in 2010 or 3.5 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product.

We know that Superstorm Sandy cost us about $60 billion. One storm cost $60 billion. So when you talk about the economic impact of putting a price on carbon polluters who are polluting this country, put that into the context of what happens if you let them continue polluting. Superstorm Sandy--we all lived through it. We all saw what happened.

I have seen the fires in California. We have seen them in New Mexico and Colorado. We know the costs that come from those fires. We have seen the drought. The President was out there. Thank God he came out there to give some money. Do you know that our ranchers were destroying their cattle, killing their cattle because there was no feed? The President went out there and made sure that emergency help was delivered so they could buy feed for those cattle.

When people say it is going to cost a lot to solve climate change, I beg them to think about the costs if we do nothing. Look at China. They did nothing about clean air, and they are paying the price with premature deaths, lost productivity, and people who are miserable.

Here is the thing: We learned a long time ago that stepping up to an environmental challenge pays off. Decades ago, the United States experienced damage and degradation--tremendous damage--to our environment. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio was on fire, massive air pollution hung over our cities, and lakes were dying from pollution. The American people demanded action. Guess what. We didn't wait for China or India or anybody else to act. We came together as Democrats and Republicans and said: This isn't appropriate.

President Nixon helped on the environment, President George Herbert Walker Bush helped on the environment, Jimmy Carter helped on the environment, Bill Clinton helped on the environment, and Barack Obama is helping on the environment. But now it has become a partisan issue.

The Clean Air Act goes back to 1970, and it was strengthened in 1990. Since 1990, the United States has cut fine particulate emissions. Those are the emissions that get into your lungs and cause all of our problems. Since 1990 we have cut those particulates by 57 percent because Democrats and Republicans came together. Now Republicans want to repeal all of that, but we won't let them. Fine particulate emissions is what is making the Chinese people sick.

In 1976 there were 166 days when health advisories were issued in southern California to urge people with asthma and other people with lung sensitivities to stay indoors. That was in 1976. The American people said: No, no, no; this isn't right. The people of California said: This is terrible. There were 166 days where I couldn't go out and breathe the air and take a walk and take my kids out.

Thanks to the action taken by Democrats and Republicans who worked together to pass the Clean Air Act and carry it out, the number of smog-related health advisories in 2010 in southern California dropped to--drum roll--zero days. So anyone who stands here and says, ``Oh, this problem is too big. I can't wrap my arms around it. China and India have to act,'' no, no, no, that is not America.

We have brilliant people in this country with great technological skills. Many of our States--and I am so proud of my State--have the latest technologies to clean up the air and water, make cars fuel efficient. My friend Senator Feinstein spoke about fuel efficiency in cars, and I am so pleased we have done that. President Obama is now applying it to trucks.

We are literally saving lives because we know outdoor air pollution causes cancer. We know that. Let me tell you what the National Climate Assessment--that is our country--is saying about climate change:

Climate change threatens human health and well-being in

many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather

events, wildfire, decreased air quality, diseases transmitted

by insects, food and water . . . Some of these health impacts

are already underway in the U.S.

Clearly we have proven tonight that we stand with science. We are not scientists, but we are humbled before the science.

We know our Nation has shown great leadership in the environmental movement for years. We started this back in the 1970s when that river caught on fire and we said: What are we doing to our planet?

We should not and we must not wait for other countries to act. We must take action now, and that is the purpose of the Senate Climate Action Task Force. I am so proud of my colleagues who are here tonight and who go to those meetings every Thursday. Ed Markey is leading us in meetings on Tuesdays, which is the clearinghouse. The clearinghouse is more of a think tank where we bring in the experts. We listen and question them. On Thursdays we meet with the task force. Members of the task force speak to the Democratic caucus.

I say to Harry Reid, if he is listening, how much I appreciate his leadership on this issue. He has seen some of the horrible impacts of climate change in his great State. His State has leaders in alternative clean energy. They are moving away from coal and toward clean energy. They are creating good-paying jobs.

When we put a price on carbon, the dirty industries start to pay for the pollution they are causing, and that will move us toward clean energy. When we move to clean energy, we will see a tremendous difference in the amount of carbon pollution in the air, and we will be able to avert the most dire predictions for climate, which is 7 degrees Fahrenheit. We don't want to see that for our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren because that will literally change the face of the way America lives.

We have it in our hands. Tonight we are saying: Wake up, Congress. Please, wake up. To my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, who is my friend, who said: You guys are just talking to each other; good luck, good night, I respond: I am proud to say more than 100,000 people have so far signed petitions calling on Congress to act, and this is just early in the evening. We are going to be going another almost 11 hours.

To Senator Whitehouse and Senator Schatz I say thank you for organizing this. It is a little like herding cats, getting us all here, but it is working. It is working because Senators here get it. They know they are going to be here for a finite time, and when we get a challenge such as this, we stand up to it. We find the solutions and we fight for them, and we fight for the people of this great Nation.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield before we hear from my good friend.

Mr. President, I thank also everyone who made this evening possible, and I want to say to my co-chair of the Climate Action Task Force, Senator Whitehouse, what a privilege it is to work with him, as his passion on this runs deep; to Senator Schatz, who, from Hawaii, is witnessing climate change in real time, just as so many of us are who are from coastal States.

I am so looking forward to hearing Senator Tom Udall, and I am not going to quote him but I hope he will say what he said in front of the environment committee when he was a new Member. He called attention to what is happening in the West, and all one has to do is read the papers to see the suffering that is going on.

So I also want to say, because time is wasting here, that this was something that I think has caught on, that has caught the attention of people. I can tell you that well over 100,000 people--well over that-- have signed various petitions calling on Congress to wake up.

I am under no illusions that our colleagues on the Republican side watched us. So let's be clear. Senator Inhofe said before he left: You are talking to yourselves, and I took great offense at that because the vast majority of the American people understand climate change is real. There is no doubt about it, no more doubt than people have that cigarettes don't cause cancer. We know this is a fact. And for us to close our eyes to this fact is closing our eyes to the people we represent and about whom we care.

Again, my deepest thanks to all the staff in the entire building. To all my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse informed me we are about to hear from the 30th Senator. That is incredible. Thirty percent of the Senate is participating.

I yield back my time, again, with my deepest thanks. There is more to come from the Climate Action Task Force. We are just getting started. We will have lots more. The next time we do something, we will engage a lot of other folks as well.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I thank Senator Gillibrand for her extraordinary leadership.

Today you will hear two things: One is to support both bills, which I believe

we should do, and one is an attack on the Gillibrand bill, which for the life of me I do not understand. I am not going to filibuster Senator McCaskill's bill because I think it is important. I am not going to filibuster Senator Gillibrand's bill because it is the one opportunity to bring about the change that the survivors of rape and the survivors of sexual assault are pushing for.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of 45 organizations that are supporting the Gillibrand bill.

So when people stand here and start attacking that bill and saying how awful it is, I want them to remember just a few of the organizations that stand with Senator Gillibrand: the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America--do you want to listen to the bureaucrats or do you want to listen to the people who know what is going on--the Vietnam Veterans of America; the Service Women's Action Network; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the National Congress of Black Women, Inc.; the YWCA. There are 45 organizations.

I have a very strong message for colleagues: Do not filibuster justice. Do not filibuster the Gillibrand bill. Do not filibuster the McCaskill bill. My goodness, these women deserve an up-or-down vote on their bills. And the only reason I think some are forcing a filibuster on the Gillibrand bill is they know we have a majority. Just how strong it is we will find out. But what a sad day, when 17 women in the Senate support both approaches--17 of the 20 women--that we are facing a filibuster on the Gillibrand bill. Do not filibuster justice. It is pretty simple. You are going to hear a lot of words from politicians like me. Fine. But I think it is important to listen to the words of the victims and find a little humility--stories of victims such as Amando Javier, who served in the Marine Corps in 1993. He was brutally raped and physically assaulted by a group of fellow marines. Ashamed and fearing for his life, he kept his rape a secret for 15 years. Do you know what it is like to keep a secret such as that, to suffer the pain and humiliation for 15 years.

When he finally found the courage to share his story with a friend, he decided to write it down. I want you to listen to his words:

My experience left me torn apart physically, mentally and

spiritually. I was dehumanized and treated with ultimate

cruelty by my perpetrators. I was embarrassed. I was ashamed.

I didn't know what to do. I was young at the time, and being

part of an elite organization that valued brotherhood,

integrity and faithfulness made it hard to come forward and

reveal what happened.

Well, here we are two decades later and no one has been held accountable for that heinous crime. And it goes on. I appreciate Senator Paul reading what happened to one of his constituents. But you will hear the voices of the status quo in this body, and let me tell you, they are in great company, the voices of the status quo, the ones who are filibustering the Gillibrand bill. Let me tell you some of the voices of the status quo--and notice this: They are Republicans and Democrats.

Dick Cheney said in 1992: ``We've got a major effort underway to try and educate everybody . . . let them know that we've got a zero- tolerance policy.''

Secretary Bill Perry: ``For all these reasons, we have zero tolerance for sexual harassment.''

This has been going on for 20 years, and that spirit is being continued right here today from those who want to filibuster the Gillibrand proposal.

Secretary Cohen: ``I intend to enforce a strict policy of zero tolerance.''

Secretary Rumsfeld: ``Sexual assault will not be tolerated.''

Secretary Gates: ``I have zero tolerance.''

Secretary Leon Panetta: ``We have no tolerance for this.''

Secretary Hagel: ``These crimes have no place in the greatest military on earth.''

Words are swell. Who can argue with these words? But let's look at where we are today in terms of what is actually happening on the ground. I say to the voices who are standing in the way of an up-or- down vote on Kirsten Gillibrand's bill: Look at these facts. There were 26,000 cases of sexual assault in the military in 2012, and 1.2 percent of them have been prosecuted. This white circle represents the 26,000 cases. This thin sliver in green that you can barely see represents the amount that was prosecuted. Do you know what happens to these folks who get out? They continue their activities either in the military or on the streets of our cities, our counties, and our States. Yet these voices of the status quo in this Senate will tell you ``oh my goodness, we cannot make this change'' even though 45 organizations, including the Iraq and Afghanistan fighters, are telling us to do so.

Here is the deal. This is another way to look at it. There were 26,000 estimated sexual assaults in 2012. We have a 90-percent problem--90 percent of these cases go unreported. Guess what, folks. Are you surprised they are afraid to go to their commander, those of you who are supporting this status quo? Just ask them. Do not listen to Senator Gillibrand or to me. We are not in the military. The people who are in the military are telling us, begging us, along with every organization that stands for the survivors: Please change it.

Now I ask you, if there was a rape in your office in the Senate and somebody upstairs yelled and screamed and you went up there as a Senator, what would you do? Would you decide whether the case ought to be prosecuted or would you call the police? Would you call the experts?

I do not think CEOs ought to determine whether a case of rape should be prosecuted. Do you? I don't think so. Yet that is what you are supporting here with the commander who knows all the players. Suppose he goes out to drink with the perp, knows him well, thinks he is a great fighter. I know Senator McCaskill is trying to fix these problems around the edges--fine--but let's get to the heart of the matter.

In summation, we can continue the 20 years of baloney and not make the change that needs to be made under the important Gillibrand bill. What we do is we say we are keeping this in the military, but we are allowing the experts to make the decision. That is fair to the accuser, and that is fair to the accused. As a matter of fact, we have people supporting us because they believe it is fair to both sides, not just the accuser.

So let's not filibuster justice. Do not stand here and say how you care about this and then filibuster the Gillibrand bill because you will be judged on that vote. If you have problems with the details of the bill, vote against the bill but do not filibuster justice.

This is a chance we have, an opportunity we have. Yes, it will be revisited over and over because these problems, if we do not make these changes, are going to continue. Today is an amazing moment in time that we could come together and allow an up-or-down vote on

the Gillibrand proposal. We wouldn't be filibustering justice, and I think we would bring some needed change--needed change, Madam President, that all the leading named organizations I have put in the Record endorse. I hope we will stand with those victims, stand with those providers, and stand with those advocacy groups and be humble and not say we know better than they.

Thank you very much, and I thank Senator Gillibrand.

Mr. President, I was very interested in listening to both my colleagues, Tom Harkin, who I thought was very passionate about the need to understand that when people do pro bono work, as Justice Roberts did, or they work for an organization, as our nominee did making the case a jury was perhaps tainted, that that not be used against them. I think he was passionate. I think Senator Collins makes a good point. I do wish to say she is totally right. The IRS should never, ever be used politically. We have gone through that in our lifetime, and it is absolutely wrong. I agree. But I also wish to point out that any organization taking big tax deductions which cost people money, but they are political--whether they are on the left, the right or the center--have to stop what they are doing too. I think she points out it is a careful balance.

We also don't want Members of Congress to intimidate and harass the IRS. That is wrong and a very careful balance. I look forward to looking at her bill to see if this oversight commission is something free from politics. That, to me, is the key. IRS should never be used politically.

I rise in strong support of the Military Justice Improvement Act. I am so proud to stand with 17 of the 20 women Members of this Senate on both sides of the aisle and with a large number of colleagues from both sides--a majority--to fight for real change in the way our military addresses the epidemic of military sexual assault.

When one is in Washington for a while--and I have been in Washington for a while. Thanks to the good people of California, I was elected to the House in 1982 and took my seat in 1983. I have seen this issue get worse and worse. The issue of sexual assault in the military is not new. Unfortunately, it is decades old.

It was 23 years ago that dozens of women and men were sexually harassed and assaulted in the halls of a Las Vegas hotel during the Tailhook Association's annual convention. The 1991 Tailhook scandal focused a national spotlight on the issue of military sexual assault, and then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney declared after it was over a zero tolerance policy.

I have to be completely blunt with everybody who may be listening to this. The fact is, after Tailhook and all of these promises from everybody, I thought we would never see this epidemic grow as it has. I thought we stopped the epidemic of sexual assault in the military because it was heinous to see what they did when everyone said it would be over.

Let's take a look at how many Secretaries of Defense made a pledge. We will start from the bottom and work our way up to the top.

Secretary Cheney in 1993 said:

Well, we've got a major effort underway to try to educate

everybody, to let them know that we've got a zero-tolerance

policy where sexual harassment's involved.

So a real commitment from then Defense Secretary Cheney.

The next year it was Secretary William Perry. In 1996, he said:

For all reasons, therefore, we have zero tolerance for

sexual harassment.

Then it was Secretary William Cohen. In 1997, he said:

I intend to enforce a strict policy of zero tolerance of

hazing, of sexual harassment, and of racism.

Now we move to Donald Rumsfeld in 2004:

Sexual assault will not be tolerated in the Department of

Defense.

These are beautiful words. But I say to those listening: Nothing has stopped this epidemic--Democratic or Republican Secretaries of Defense, it doesn't matter.

Then Robert Gates, who served both Republican and Democratic Presidents, what did he say.

This is a matter of grave concern. I have zero tolerance

for sexual assault.

Leon Panetta, under President Obama:

We have absolutely no tolerance for any form of sexual

assault.

I take sexual assault allegations very seriously. We have

no place in the military for sexual assault.

Currently, Secretary Chuck Hagel, under President Obama:

It's not good enough to say we have a zero tolerance

policy. We do.

But what does it mean? How does it translate into changing anything? I want to know.

These crimes have no place--no place--in the greatest

military on earth.

We all agree with that. But here is what this shows you: Seven Secretaries of Defense, Republicans and Democrats, all these years--the first one being Dick Cheney in 1992--have all promised zero tolerance, and the problem of sexual assault in the military gets worse.

So Senator Gillibrand has issued a call to action. She has written a terrific bill, working with Republicans and Democrats, and we are getting a vote on the bill tomorrow--assuming we can break a filibuster, because there is a filibuster and we have to file cloture and we need a supermajority of 60 in order to get to an up-or-down vote.

So these promises to me ring hollow. I like so many of these people. I have worked with so many of them. They are good people. They care. But these words are hollow. We have to change the way we deal with sexual assault in the military, and that is what this vote is about tomorrow. But we have to break a filibuster.

Here is what has happened to those who have come forward: Instead of justice, sexual assault survivors have faced retaliation, revictimization, and further abuse. Instead of justice, survivors have been kicked out of the military while their attackers go unpunished.

I will share some deeply troubling statistics which speak to the scope of this problem: 26,000 cases of sexual assault occurred in the U.S. military in 2012 and 1.2 percent were prosecuted.

Mr. President, I know how deeply you care about this. You were responsible for protecting justice for the people of Connecticut. What if you had a range of cases and only 1.2 percent were prosecuted? I am sure you would admit that something was very wrong. Of course, your record speaks for itself.

The point I am making is this: How can anyone defend the status quo? Yet we have a group of people here in the Senate who are defending the status quo. Yes, they are making changes around the edges. I give them that, and I am very happy with that. But they are not getting to the root cause of the problem, which is who decides whether these cases go forward. Who is the decider? That is why the Gillibrand amendment is so critical.

So I want people to keep this chart in their minds. These are all the assaults. The number prosecuted is 1.2 percent. That means that of the estimated 26,000 sexual assaults, only 302 were prosecuted. Keep that in mind--26,000 sexual assaults in the military and only 302 were prosecuted.

Let me give another troubling figure. One in five female servicemembers reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact while serving in the military. One in five female servicemembers reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact while serving in the military. There is something wrong with the culture there. These women are putting their lives on the line, and what do they get for it? One in five is experiencing unwanted sexual contact. And by the way, many of the men are too. But we have this statistic we wanted to share.

What is this misconduct that these women--one out of five women--in the military are facing, unwanted sexual contact? This means they are experiencing rape, sexual assault, and unwanted sexual contact while serving in the military. But they don't report it because they are too scared, and that is why the Gillibrand bill is so critical, and that is why we need to make sure we defeat that filibuster--because you cannot and should not filibuster justice. Let's get an up-or-down vote. How many more women and men will become victims of these heinous crimes

before we take action? For 20 years the military has had to deal with this.

I am a fairly patient person. Before I got into politics, I was not a patient person. When I got into politics, I realized, yes, change takes time. You have to be patient, you have to work hard, and you have to make the case. You have to pile up your statistics. You have to make sure you have the facts and then take action.

But 20 years of doing nothing, 20 years of commitment from all of these people--Richard Cheney, William Perry, William Cohen, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary Gates, Secretary Panetta, Chuck Hagel; it doesn't matter whether they are Republican or Democratic--all saying the same thing; they are going to stop this heinous situation. And they don't because they cannot.

We need to listen to survivors--survivors who are going to solve the crisis of sexual assault in the military because they are going to speak up, and they have. Survivors are telling us that the only way to stop this horrible epidemic of sexual assault is to take the decision about whether to prosecute serious crimes such as sexual assault out of the hands of the commanders. Give it to the professional, trained military prosecutors outside the chain of command.

There are many people who misconstrue this. They think we are going to take it completely outside the military structure. That is not what we do. What we do is we say the professionals should deal with this. Right now you have to report to your commander. We never would allow a CEO of a corporation to make the decision about whether one of his or her employees should be prosecuted for rape. If something happened in our office and someone came to the Presiding Officer or to me and said: Something horrible has happened upstairs, and we think somebody raped someone else. We wouldn't decide whether to prosecute. We would go right to the police--right to the police. And that is what we are saying when supporting the Gillibrand amendment. We are saying these legal decisions should be made by independent, experienced legal experts so the decision to go to trial is a fair one, objective, and based on the evidence.

By the way, that helps all sides--the accuser and the accused. As a matter of fact, we have some people who are worried that the accused may not get a fair trial if we don't change things because there has been so much publicity about this.

There has been a defense advisory committee on women in the services that has advised the Secretary of Defense for over 60 years. That commission overwhelmingly supports this reform, arguing that the authority of commanders to decide whether to prosecute these cases ``poses an inherent conflict of interest.'' It is obvious. Of course it is a conflict of interest. If the commander is faced with a situation-- remember, we are talking about people who put their lives on the line. If the commander is in a circumstance where he does not want to lose one of these guys who is, let's say, a very good fighter, he has a conflict right there. He may be friends with the guy or the gal, whoever the accused is. We have to take this away from the commander and let them focus on what they need to do.

We have been told by many commanders that they would welcome this even though the top brass is quashing it and fighting hard against them. Why? Why are they fighting against this when for 20 years they have claimed they want to solve the problem? Let's listen to retired military officers such as LTG Claudia Kennedy, the first female three- star general in the Army. This is what she said:

If military leadership hasn't fixed the problem in my

lifetime, it is not going to be fixed without a change from

the status quo. The imbalance of power and authority in

commanders dealing with sexual assaults has to be corrected.

There has to be independent oversight over what is happening.

Then we have a situation where a woman was put up for a position. This is amazing. Dr. Jo Ann Rooney was nominated to be the Under Secretary of the Navy. She was asked:

In your view, what would be the impact of requiring a judge

advocate outside the chain of command to determine whether

allegations of sexual assaults should be prosecuted?

Mr. President, do you know what she said? This is what she said would happen if the Gillibrand bill passed:

I believe the impact would be decisions based on evidence

rather than the interest of preserving good order and

discipline.

And she is against the Gillibrand bill because she put good order and discipline over justice.

Then she said:

I believe this will result in fewer prosecutions and

therefore defeat the very problem I understand it seeks to

address.

Many of us have said we are not going to let a vote come up on this. We have been very open about it. She is complaining that if we pass the Gillibrand bill, the decision will be based on the evidence rather than on the good old boy system. I don't get it.

We need to listen to our allies, such as Israel, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia. They have successfully made this change.

I want to say very clearly that none of us in this body should filibuster justice. And I have a very strong chart here. I am going to keep this up: ``Don't filibuster justice.'' That is what we are facing. We have people who are going to filibuster the Gillibrand bill and not allow a vote on it, while they would vote not to filibuster the McCaskill bill. I say don't filibuster either of these bills. Vote yes on both. Both are good. But it is only the Gillibrand bill that will make sure the system that is resulting in a disastrous record of prosecutions and a disastrous record of people--90 percent of the people don't report. Isn't that true? Ninety percent of the people don't report because they are scared. These are men and women. If you don't report, you cannot have justice.

For over a year survivors of military sexual assault have been walking the halls of Congress and calling for these vicious crimes to be decided outside the chain of command. In other words, they support S. 1752. They don't want us to filibuster S. 1752. They don't want us to filibuster justice. These brave men and women deserve an up-or-down vote on the Gillibrand bill. They don't deserve the filibuster. That is wrong. They don't deserve two more decades of broken promises. We should be humble in their presence--humble in their presence.

You know, I hear people stand and say: Oh, this is terrible. It would be terrible. It would be awful.

Wait a minute. Why not ask the people who have been raped? Why not ask the people who survived that? Why not ask the people who did not report because they are frightened to death of the commander? We need to give these brave survivors what they deserve--an up-or-down vote on legislation that will fix our broken military justice system.

I want to tell a couple of stories if the numbers are not convincing enough. I want to put a face on it. This is the story of Stacey Thompson, who is a Californian. I stood next to her, and I literally held her hand when she first told the story publicly.

Stacey was drugged and brutally raped by a male sergeant in December 1999 while she was stationed in Okinawa, Japan. She did what she was supposed to do: She reported the rape to her superior. Her allegations were swept under the rug. Her attacker was allowed to leave the Marine Corps without ever facing trial. Do you hear what I am saying? He was allowed to leave the Marine Corps, where he went home and probably continued his activities of raping.

But what happened to Stacey? She became the target of a drug investigation, extending from the night of her rape because her attacker drugged her--drugged her that night and molested her on the ground. She was forced out of the Marine Corps with an other-than- honorable discharge. Stacey told me she still struggles with the emotional and psychological effects of being raped. She is fighting to have her discharge upgraded so she can access the benefits she earned.

So let me just synthesize this story. Here she is. She was raped. She was drugged. She was left on the ground. As a result of the drugging by her attacker, they began an investigation and she was drummed out of the military and denied any benefits. She is appealing, and she hopes to make progress on that appeal. Her accuser gets out of the military scot-free. Right?

I want to point out that half of the estimated 26,000 victims of military sexual assault are men, so I would like to share the story of Amando Javier.

Amando was serving in the Marine Corps in 1993 when he was raped and assaulted by a group of fellow marines. Ashamed and fearing for his life, he kept his rape a secret for 15 years.

When Amando finally found the courage to share his story with a friend, he decided to write it down. I would like to read some of his words at this time.

My experience left me torn apart physically, mentally, and

spiritually. I was dehumanized and treated with ultimate

cruelty, by my perpetrators. . . . I was embarrassed and

ashamed and didn't know what to do. I was young at that time.

And being part of an elite organization that values

brotherhood, integrity and faithfulness made it hard to come

forward and reveal what happened.

Now it is two decades later and no one has been held accountable for this heinous crime. The perpetrators are still out there able to commit these crimes again and again.

Ninety percent of the assaults are not reported. We think 26,000 is a conservative number. Think of how many perpetrators there are in the military, and then when they get out of the military they continue to commit these crimes.

I also want to share the story of Ariana Clay. Ariana graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and joined the Marine Corps. She deployed to Iraq in 2008. Following her return Ariana was selected to serve at the Marine Barracks in Washington, DC, which is a very prestigious post down the street.

At the Marine Barracks Ariana was subjected to constant sexual assault, and when she tried to report it to her chain of command, she was told to ``deal with it.''

In August 2010, Ariana was gang raped by a senior Marine officer and his friend at her home. Ariana bravely reported the assault, but a Marine Corps investigation determined she had welcomed the harassment because she wore makeup and exercised in shorts and tank tops.

Finally, the Marine Corps did court-martial one of her rapists but failed to convict him of rape. Instead, he was convicted only of adultery and indecent language.

Ariana's husband is a former Marine Corps officer. He joined her at the recent press conference about the importance of changing how the military handles sexual assault. Here is what Ariana's husband said:

The first step to addressing sexual assault in the military

is to remove its prosecution from the chain of command. It is

unfair to expect commanders to be able to maintain good order

and discipline as long as their justice system incentivizes

and empowers them to deny their units' worst disciplinary

failures ever happened.

That was from a former Marine Corps officer who said that the first step is to remove the prosecution of these crimes from the chain of command. So we now see the whole story, and we are going to go through these charts again.

Sadly, Senator Gillibrand's bill--which will finally take the prosecution of these assaults outside the chain of command, keep it in the military, and give it to the trained prosecutors--is being filibustered by my colleagues. Don't you think we should have a vote on justice without having to set up a 60-vote threshold?

I say to my colleagues--none of whom are here now, and I understand since it is very late--don't filibuster justice. If you want to vote against the Gillibrand approach, vote against it but allow us an up-or- down vote. Don't filibuster justice. That is wrong. Frankly, anyone who does that ought to lose some sleep over it. I will tell you, if we get very close--somewhere in the high fifties--this change is coming, so why not make the change now.

I will put these charts back up to remind everyone of what I said. These magnificent men and women in the military are innocent. They joined the military out of love and devotion to country. They put their lives on the line. One in five women is either getting assaulted or harassed and many men--50 percent of the 26,000 cases are men. Men have an even harder time of stepping to the plate and admitting this happened.

The commanders are making these decisions. They are choosing between two people in their unit. It is akin to a CEO determining whether he or she is going to prosecute a case for a Senator and saying: You know what. It is a he said, she said, and I will decide who is telling the truth. Wrong. That is not justice in America. That should not be justice anywhere on our streets, and it should not be justice in the military.

Look at that face. This is a woman who was destroyed. I stood next to her and had to hold her hand so she could actually get the words out. Because of Senator Gillibrand's bill, she is empowered to speak out. Because of a movie called ``Invisible War,'' which focused on people coming forward and telling the truth, she is empowered.

We have to change the way the military handles this or we are just a bunch of folks who come out here and sound great. No, it is time to change.

There were 26,000 cases of sexual assault in 2012. Of those 26,000 cases, 1.2 percent were prosecuted. This is an absolute disgrace on its face and anyone who will not make the changes required is accepting this because all they are doing is tinkering around the edges. It doesn't help because that is all we have done for years.

The moment of truth is coming in the Senate--and it is coming tomorrow around 2 p.m.--and Senators will have to stand here and decide if they are going to filibuster the Gillibrand bill and filibuster justice. They are going to have to decide that.

We have been listening to words and promises and baloney for 20-odd years. I was here all that time, so I know. I was here after Tailhook. Oh, this will never happen. Dick Cheney said: it will not happen. Then we heard from William Perry, William Cohen, Gates, Panetta, Chuck Hagel. I think they meant it when they said no more and zero tolerance, but they will not step up and support the change that needs to be made.

We made a lot of changes in the military. Many years ago they would not allow Blacks and Whites to fight side by side. Those days, thank God, are over. Gays in the military--oh, my God, that was going to be horrific and hurt morale. Thank God that is over. The military fought tooth and nail, day in and day out, and this is just part of the pattern. They protect the status quo.

Put this in your mind: There is no place for a filibuster when it comes to justice. If you don't like the Gillibrand bill, then vote no on it, but give us a chance to vote up or down. I am going to vote to allow a vote on the Gillibrand bill, and I am going to vote to allow a vote on McCaskill's bill.

I ask that the McCaskill people please join us. Let us have an up-or- down vote. Honestly, I know in my heart that these opportunities to make change don't come along very often, and this is our moment. We have all the facts on our side. We have every victims' rights group and every survivor group on our side. We know status quo is dangerous.

I just want to say about my colleague Senator Gillibrand how proud I am to stand with her. What an amazing Senator she is. She listens to advice from both sides of the aisle. Her bill reflects comments that were made by myself, Senator Paul, Senator Hirono, as well as other Senators on both sides of the aisle. People were so happy to sit and work with her and her staff.

Now we are down to the wire. To have people tell me to my face: Oh, yes. I am going to filibuster this because I don't like it--if you don't like it, then vote no, but give us a chance to vote up or down.

It is interesting because many of the same people who are going to filibuster this tell me they want to do away with the filibuster altogether. It is odd. They want to do away with it but not on this one.

We are at the moment of truth, and tomorrow Senator Gillibrand will lead us in the hour of time that we have. Senator McCaskill will offer her views of negativity on the Gillibrand bill. Senator Gillibrand will support both bills, as will I.

I truly pray tonight that people will think about this and will think about Stacey and the men and women who have come forward in such a difficult situation to open their hearts to talk about things that have been kept a secret for so long because they honestly think it will help bring about change.

If we don't allow a vote on that change, then I am afraid this Senate will not look very good when we awaken the next morning.

I thank the Presiding Officer, yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 95th birthday of Dr. John Kerner, an American hero, healthcare pioneer, and cherished doctor to so many families, including my own.

John Kerner was born in Portland, OR, and raised in Boston and San Francisco. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley and UCSF Medical School, serving in the ROTC while in school. In 1943, he was called to active duty and commissioned as a first lieutenant.

As a battalion surgeon and combat medic in World War II, Dr. Kerner served with great distinction on the battlefields of Omaha Beach, Saint-Lo, and Bastogne. Shortly after landing in Normandy, he delivered a breech baby at a combat aid station, saving the mother and her child. On another occasion, when a group of U.S. soldiers was nearly surrounded by German SS troops, Dr. Kerner and one of his medics drove straight through the lines to deliver medical supplies and care to the wounded.

For his valiant service in World War II, Dr. Kerner was awarded the Combat Medic Badge, two Bronze Stars, five Battle Stars, and a Presidential Unit Citation. In 2007, he was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He later recounted his experiences in a stirring memoir, ``A Combat Medic Comes Home.''

After the war, Dr. Kerner returned home to California, where he served

the women and families of the San Francisco Bay area as an outstanding OB/GYN and the medical community as a teacher and administrator. During his residency studies at UC San Francisco, he worked closely with Dr. Herbert F. Traut, who had helped to develop the Pap smear. Along with Traut, Kerner was instrumental in ensuring that women in the community had access to these critical screenings, which drastically reduced the instances of cervical cancer. To honor Dr. Kerner and his groundbreaking work, UC San Francisco established the John A. Kerner Distinguished Professorship in Gynecologic Oncology focusing on cancer research and patient care for women.

Dr. Kerner later became the founding director of the OB/GYN Department at Mt. Zion Hospital, where he taught the next generation of physicians and served as chief of staff before establishing his own private practice. My children are among the more than 2,000 babies that he delivered over the course of his career.

Dr. John Kerner has enriched the lives of so many, from the wounded of World War II who made it home thanks to his exceptional care and courage, to the women whose health he protected and whose babies he brought into the world, to the many doctors who now do the same because he taught them how. I am honored to salute him today in the Senate.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for his remarks, and I am going to utilize the same chart he had in a moment because I think it says it all. It was my colleague Mark Begich who first used this terminology--that our soldiers have paid for this benefit already and to get distracted by a discussion on how much to hurt children in order to restore these benefits is not worthy, in my opinion, of the men and women in uniform. So I am proud to stand up in support of Senator Pryor's commonsense bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 15 minutes.

Senator Pryor's bill is a restoration bill. It restores fairness and justice to our military veterans. It repeals the cuts to cost-of-living adjustments--we call them COLAs--for military retirees under the age of 62.

I see the Senator from Alaska just came in the Chamber, and I want to reiterate how much I appreciate his leadership. I say to Senator Begich, his analysis of this important restoration bill--restoring fairness and justice--was so right when he said our veterans have paid in full, and to get into some conversation of who do we hurt in order to pay these veterans is not worthy of our men and women in uniform. I want to thank him for his leadership.

Repealing these COLA cuts, well, that is the right thing to do. We are talking about men and women in uniform who have served our Nation bravely for more than 20 years. I have to say, as I stand up in strong support of the Pryor amendment in restoring these benefits to our veterans, I adamantly oppose the Ayotte amendment, which is hurtful to children, very hurtful to children, and I will get into that later.

When these veterans first put on the uniform and they promised to protect and defend our Nation, we made them a solemn promise to provide them with the care and benefits they earned. These men and women have sacrificed so much for us and, tragically, too many of them made the ultimate sacrifice.

In my State of California, we lost 892 service men and women in Iraq, and we have lost 411 in Afghanistan. We cannot break faith with those who put their lives on the line for our Nation. We hear about people who have served 4 deployments, 5 deployments, 6 deployments--I have heard of 10 deployments.

When this benefit was diminished as part of the budget deal, everyone knew we would have to move quickly and change it. We knew right away. That is what we are trying to do. We are not offering a slew of amendments on unrelated matters that hurt children and risk losing this very simple premise: that we honor our men and women in uniform.

We want a simple vote. Either you are for the vets or you are not for the vets. It is pretty simple. Thirty-five organizations are supporting this. We must recognize that when you attach unrelated amendments that have nothing to do with veterans, you slow down the bill. We all know that. It is a way to derail things.

Look what my friends tried to do on unemployment compensation--get us off on some discussion of how to pay for all that in an emergency situation with the long-term unemployed; and that rate is so high historically. Then we said: OK, we will play on your turf. We will agree. We will find a pay-for. We found a pay-for they said they liked. No. It was not good enough for them. We only got 59 votes. We needed 60. If anyone thinks that was not planned, I have a plot of land to sell you in a dump somewhere. Come on. We know how it goes around here. Don't tell me 59 and no more. Please. Those are games. This is not an issue we should be playing games about--restoring veterans' benefits.

So what we have in the Ayotte amendment is an amendment which demeans an entire population--an entire population. The amendment is antichildren, it is anti-immigrant, and it does not do one thing to help our veterans. But it will hurt some of our young DREAMers. We know the DREAMers. We have met the DREAMers--those children who came to the United States through no fault of their own, but now they want to contribute to our great society by staying in school and staying out of trouble. But yet the Ayotte amendment attacks the childcare tax credit, which impacts some of these DREAMers and which protects 1.5 million children from falling into poverty every year.

Honestly, this Ayotte amendment is so mean-spirited, so unnecessary, I just hope it is defeated soundly. The U.S. poverty rate is now the highest it has been in 20 years, with 22 percent of children living in poverty. Why would someone come down to the floor and attack children? Twenty-two percent of children live in poverty.

Low-income immigrant families who claim the child tax credit earn an average of $23,000 a year, and they use this tax benefit to provide for their children's basic needs, including food, rent, and clothing.

This tax credit, which Senator Ayotte would essentially take away from a whole group of people, is an incentive to do the right thing. These low-income families are working hard. They are earning money. But they need a tax break to help care for their children.

My Republican friends are always fighting for tax breaks for the top, top, top--for the top. What about the people struggling, who are working and earning $23,000 a year? Where are my friends on raising the minimum wage? So far I have not heard of their support. I hope they will change their mind. Where are my friends on giving unemployment insurance to those who through no fault of their own cannot find a job and who paid into that insurance system? Where are they? They are absent. They offer amendments they know are going to get us off track, distract us, and bring the bill down. But we are not doing it this time, I hope. I hope we will say no to the Ayotte amendment because it is an amendment that guts a very important tax break.

So let's be clear. To claim the child tax credit, which is what Senator Ayotte's amendment wants to weaken, families have to file taxes. So we are talking about tax-paying families. The child tax credit only goes to working people who earn money and pay payroll taxes, who pay State and local taxes, and any other taxes they may owe.

This Ayotte amendment is an outrageously disproportionate response to a problem the Internal Revenue Service is addressing. The IRS has implemented changes to improve enforcement. They are working with the Department of Homeland Security to make sure fake documents do not slip through the cracks.

Let me be clear. If a person commits fraud in this program, as in any other

program, we should go after that person. The law is on the books. I ask Senator Ayotte, look at the law. The law says: If you commit in any way fraud in the filing of this credit, and you are found guilty of a felony, you will be fined not more than $100,000--$500,000 in the case of a corporation--or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both.

So here we have a situation where if fraud is committed by anyone claiming this child tax credit, they can go to jail for 3 years and be fined $100,000.

But what does Senator Ayotte do? She takes a brush and she paints it all across America to immigrant families with children and says: We do not trust you. I think it is so offensive. It is not fair for law- abiding, tax-paying families to lose their child tax credit because of fraud that might be committed by a few.

I have worked with a number of my colleagues. They have identified billions and billions of dollars of tax-avoidance schemes in this country. We have corporations that use tricks so that they pay zero in taxes. I do not see Senator Ayotte--and I hope she will do this in the future--come down to the floor and rail against these wealthy individuals and corporations. No. She just goes after the weakest constituency--children. Children. Why should any of us attack children, literally take food out of the mouths of children? Why?

We need to keep our promise to the veterans, but we should keep our promise to the children. You do not say: I will restore one promise, but I will break another promise. We already have a law on the books: If anyone is guilty of fraud in this program, they go to jail for 3 years; they could be fined up to $100,000.

I just think it is so wrong. It is so wrong.

We can do this.

I wish to close by reading from Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice lobby. I know Senator Durbin has quoted this. I hope I am not being too repetitive, but her words ring to my heart.

Some of you know about Nuns on the Bus. These were nuns who saw the injustice in some of the budgets that came before the Congress. They went on a bus and they said: Please do not cut funds for the most vulnerable people. That is not America. We are already losing the middle class.

The Presiding Officer knows that 400 families are worth more in this country than 150 million Americans. I want us to think about that--400 American families are worth more than 150 million Americans. Surely we can do better than hurt our most vulnerable children as we aim to restore benefits to our veterans.

This is what Sister Simone Campbell says about the Ayotte amendment:

For a while now, kids--particularly those in immigrant

families--have been unfairly under attack in the Senate, and

the only plausible explanation is unconscionable: to score

political points.

This is Sister Simone:

Sen. Kelly Ayotte recently proposed variations of a plan to

strip away the refundable Child Tax Credit that now goes to

millions of children of taxpaying immigrant workers in low-

wage jobs. The proposal is misguided and antithetical to the

Gospel call to care for children and those at the margins of

society. It violates our long-held values as a nation, and it

should be rejected.

I have such respect for Sister Simone Campbell and the work of NETWORK because they do not just read the gospel and go to church and practice their religion, they live it. They live it. When they see things happening on this floor that hurt the most vulnerable people, they speak out. That is what Nuns on the Bus did. That is what Sister Simone Campbell says.

This is what she says further:

Ayotte says she understands families' needs, yet she wants

to deny a child tax credit to taxpaying immigrant families.

Actions speak louder than words, and her proposal hurts

families. Our political leaders should never place poor

children in the condition of competing with other vulnerable

populations for funds that help pay for food and other basic

needs.

Deliberately harming immigrant families goes against the

fundamental goodwill of Americans, including thousands of

people we met last year as our ``Nuns on the Bus'' traveled

6,500 miles across the U.S. to speak out for justice.

Throughout our journey, we stood with, prayed with, and heard

the stories of hundreds of immigrants who have long served

the needs of our nation.

Responsible leaders in Congress should look into their

hearts and reject proposals like this one . . . The political

tactic is not good for our economy or the wellbeing of our

entire nation--especially children who are the future of our

country. We are better than this.

As I sum up, let's go back to our other chart. Senator Pryor, Senator Begich, and a group of Senators, I believe including Senator Shaheen, Senator Hagan, and Senator Landrieu--I believe they are all on this proposal.

With their sacrifice, military retirees paid in full. They paid in full. And to offer amendments that have nothing to do with the subject matter but open an entire battle on immigrant families, who are working so hard, because there are some examples of fraud, just as there are examples of fraud in corporate America--unfortunately, there are examples of fraud all across America, including in politics. But I have to say that to go after the most vulnerable children and the most vulnerable families and try to convince this Senate that is something fair--I think it is off the mark. I hope we will reject the Ayotte amendment. I hope everyone will read what Sister Simone says:

The proposal to go after children is misguided and

antithetical to the gospel call to care for children and

those at the margins of society. It violates our long-held

values as a nation and it should be rejected.

I want to remind everyone that if anyone commits fraud in this society, I will be the first one on the floor saying: Go after them. We already have a law that is very clear. Anyone who commits fraud in connection with the child credit, the refundable credit, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $100,000--$500,000 in the case of a corporation--or imprisonment of not more than 3 years or both.

If the Justice Department or the IRS is not doing enough to go after this fraud, I have to say, let's call the folks in charge and let's tell them we want to make sure there is an effort. Write a letter. But do not say--because a few people are doing a bad thing and should go to jail for it, do not take your paint brush and paint every immigrant family who has dreams with this. This is an outrageous thing to do, especially to claim that you are not doing anything to hurt children and you are doing it to help the veterans. The veterans have paid in full.

Let's vote for the veterans--for the veterans and for the children. You vote for the veterans by voting for Pryor. You vote for the children by voting no on the mean-spirited Ayotte amendment.

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

Madam President, what is the order of business right now?

Madam President, I rise to talk about the absolute necessity to pass this unemployment compensation bill. We should do it because it is the morally right thing to do, it is the economically right thing to do. We have listened to our Republican friends, and even though they always said in the past: Do not worry about paying for it-- they passed it almost five times under George Bush without paying for it--now all of a sudden they say: Pay for it. We do pay for it in this bill. So I do not know what it is they exactly want.

They claim they are empathetic to people unemployed, the long-term unemployed, and we know that rate is very high--long-term unemployment--even though we have seen in the last, I guess, how many months, 8 million jobs--in about 46 months--but not everybody is fortunate to get those jobs. Clearly, we came out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, brought about by Wall Street. It happened under George W. Bush. We were bleeding jobs--bleeding jobs-- 700,000, 800,000 jobs a month. It was frightening. The GDP was contracting.

President Obama turned it around. I predict he will go down in history as one of the great Presidents because we were almost flat on our backs, and yet he acted. Luckily, we had a few Republicans who helped us pass that stimulus, which in my State made a huge difference and all over the country. It got us on our feet. We have made reforms that are very important.

I also have to say, the ``Bad News Bears'' on the other side--every day, negative stories and negative stories and negative stories about ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. I daresay, they ignore the millions and millions and millions of Americans who for the first time are able to get affordable health insurance. It is private health insurance, not a government-run system, except for the Medicaid part, which we expanded. The exchanges are private insurance.

They are able to afford it because the way we wrote the bill there are subsidies for the middle class on those exchanges, which is making it affordable for people. You should see the letters I get. I have read many of them and put them in the Record. People who had a preexisting condition, who never could get health care before, they write me they are thanking God--thanking God--that we passed that bill. Their kids, who were going to be thrown off their health care, are now on that health insurance until they are 26 years old. Being a woman is no longer an excuse to have your rates doubled and tripled. It is not a preexisting condition to be a woman anymore. If you have diabetes or you have had cancer, you still get your insurance. The insurance company cannot walk out on you just when you need it the most. Come on.

I say to my Republican friends, step up to the plate. Yes, we have kinks in the system. We knew that when we said: If you love your insurance, you could keep it--I admit, I should have said: If it meets the basic standards because we do not want people having junk policies. But we fixed that. The President has stepped up to the plate and fixed that.

So all they do is focus on the negative, while people are on their knees thanking God they have health care, many for the first time.

I am kind of stunned at it, really. I really am. We are ready, willing, and able to fix whatever glitches there are, and the President has been totally honest about the disastrous rollout. We

understand that. Despite that, we have millions and millions of people with new, affordable health care for the first time.

Now we look at extending emergency Federal unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed.

We did not act in December. That was a moral outrage. We did not have the votes. The Republicans are filibustering. We need to get 60. So 1.7 million Americans have lost their extended benefits since the end of December. In my home State, 276,000 people have lost their extended unemployment benefits. Think about it: 276,000 Californians. Some of our States have populations of 600,000, 700,000--276,000 people just in California.

What does that mean? It means they are suffering. It means their families are suffering. It means they are faced with disaster. It also means they cannot go down to the corner store, they cannot go fill their car with gas. They have all these problems and it trickles down through the community and the community is hurting. That is why we know our bill is so important, because it not only helps the individual, it helps the communities.

We know--we know--that GDP is, in fact, affected if we do not act. Last month my colleagues on the other side blocked a one-year extension of unemployment benefits, even after we offered to pay for it. We gave them votes on the amendments of their choice. We gave them everything they asked for. It is never enough. We had one Republican Senator, and I thank Mr. Heller, who voted for cloture last month.

I just hope my colleagues will listen to the people and support this extension. I would like to, for my remaining time, read to you some of the letters I am getting and emails I am getting from real people--real people.

This is Kristen from Chatsworth:

I am writing you to please continue to help get an

extension on unemployment.

After working over ten years in the clerical field, I was

let go and was on unemployment. I have been constantly

searching for jobs and after rejection after rejection I have

not given up. It is scary to hear that my claim will be up

after 26 weeks of unemployment. I do not know how I will make

ends meet if they do not extend unemployment.

I know I am not alone on this subject and millions are as

scared as I am. I have never been on welfare or any

assistance even being a teenage mother.

My friends on the other side are always talking about how if a teenager gets pregnant, she should have the child. Here is someone who did that. We should help this woman. We should help this woman.

Here is another one, Jay from Albany:

Please keep pushing for the unemployment extension. I am

one of those who were cut off in December. I'm 61, have 3

college degrees and am a Vietnam-era veteran.

This is a man who is a Vietnam-era veteran. He has three college degrees. This is what he says:

I am not a number or a lazy or stupid individual as some

Republicans would like you to believe. Those checks are our

only lifeline.

With several lay-offs in the last twelve years, the Dot.com

crash, and the worst economy of my life, I have sadly had to

run through my life savings and 401Ks.

Think about it, having to run through your life savings and your 401(k). Think about it, a veteran who put his life on the line for his country. He is insulted that the Republicans are intimating that he is lazy or stupid--his words. This is what this man writes--and then I am going to yield my time so my friend from Montana can add his eloquence to this--this is what he writes:

I have worked since I was 15 and fear I may be homeless

soon if I don't get those federal unemployment checks.

Listen to what he says:

I eat one meal a day . . . and I'm starting to feel quite

desperate. Please convince . . . your colleagues that this is

something we all paid into and desperately need now and not

in a month or two.

We are not receiving welfare checks, but checks we worked

for and earned. I know you have always stood up for your

constituents and those in times of need. I pray--

He writes:

I pray you are successful along with your fellow senators

and representatives.

This is Jay in Albany.

Jay, there are a lot of us here who are not giving up on this. Your voice is heard.

I have to close with this one thing because it is so important. Sylvia from Pasadena--this is how she talks about this:

I want to be a normal person again and talk with friends

and family about my day at work and what I achieved for my

company or the recognition I received from my boss. I am not

a lazy woman; I want and need to be a normal woman with a

fair chance at finding a job.

I want my government to be patient . . . and show some

compassion. Instead, I get Members of Congress calling me

names and making me feel ashamed for losing my job through no

fault of my own, and making me feel desperate because I don't

know how I will be paying my bills.

Sylvia writes to me:

Please don't give up on me Mrs. Boxer. I ask you to

continue to fight as I can still provide value to this great

country. . . . I believe I'm worthy of a little compassion

and not name calling.

These letters move me to tears, and I am not afraid to say it. I am not afraid to say it. Our friends wanted a short-term bill. That is what they have before them. Our friends wanted a pay-for. This is a pay-for they have agreed with. If they do not help us today--when I say ``help us,'' I mean help those who have written to all of us with their stories--they are turning their backs on the backbone of this Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, the act, calls for the Select Committee on Ethics of the United States Senate to issue an annual report not later than January 31 of each year providing information in certain categories describing its activities for the preceding year. Reported below is the information describing the committee's activities in 2013 in the categories set forth in the act:

(1) The number of alleged violations of Senate rules received from any source, including the number raised by a Senator or staff of the Committee: 26. (In addition, two alleged violations from the previous year were carried into 2013.)

(2) The number of alleged violations that were dismissed--

(A) For lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in which,

even if the allegations in the complaint are true, no

violation of Senate rules would exist: 19.

(B) Because they failed to provide sufficient facts as to

any material violation of the Senate rules beyond mere

allegation or assertion: 7.

(3) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry: 2. (This figure includes one matter from the previous calendar year carried into 2013.)

(4) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry that resulted in an adjudicatory review: 0.

(5) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry and the Committee dismissed the matter for lack of substantial merit: 1.

(6) The number of alleged violations for which the Committee staff conducted a preliminary inquiry and the Committee issued private or public letters of admonition: 0.

(7) The number of matters resulting in a disciplinary sanction: 0.

(8) Any other information deemed by the Committee to be appropriate to describe its activities in the previous year:

In 2013, the Committee staff conducted 12 new Member ethics training sessions; nine Member and committee office campaign briefings; 13 employee code of conduct training sessions; eight public financial disclosure clinics, seminars, and webinars; 28 ethics seminars and customized briefings for Member DC offices, state offices, and Senate committees; three private sector ethics briefings; and eight international briefings.

In 2013, the Committee staff handled approximately 8,073 telephone inquiries and 1,980 inquiries by email for ethics advice and guidance.

In 2013, the Committee wrote approximately 755 ethics advisory letters and responses including, but not limited to, 608 travel and gifts matters (Senate Rule 35) and 104 conflict of interest matters (Senate Rule 37).

In 2013, the Committee issued 3,246 letters concerning financial disclosure filings by Senators, Senate staff and Senate candidates and reviewed 1,760 reports.