Floor Statements

Mr. President, as the holiday season draws close, millions of Americans are shopping online for clothes, toys, and other holiday gifts. But alarmingly, at the same time, convicted felons, domestic abusers, terrorists, and other dangerous people are able to go online and just as easily shop for something else: guns.

Studies have shown that thousands of firearms are bought and sold online every year. Many of these sales exploit loopholes in the background check laws designed to keep our communities safe. Under current law, an individual buying a gun at a brick-and-mortar, Federally licensed firearm dealer must pass a simple and quick background check to make sure that, among other things, they haven't been convicted of a felony, or aren't a domestic abuser, or haven't been adjudicated to be dangerously mentally ill. Department of Justice statistics have shown that Brady background checks have blocked more than two million instances in which a dangerous individual attempted to obtain a deadly weapon. But a significant loophole in this law is now well known: felons and other prohibited persons can simply go to a ``private seller,'' as opposed to a licensed dealer, and buy a gun without a background check.

It has been estimated that as of September 2013, about 67,000 firearms were listed for sale online from private sellers. Many of the people buying guns from these sellers have no intention of committing any sort of crime and would easily pass a background check. But as a disturbing new report recently released by Mayors Against Illegal Guns makes clear, all too often, the Internet serves as a black market where dangerous individuals can get their hands on weapons. According to this report, 1 in 30 would-be firearm purchasers on www.armslist.com has a criminal record that legally prohibits them from purchasing or owning a gun.

This means, according to the report, that more than 25,000 guns of almost any kind may be transferred to prohibited persons through www.armslist.com in any given year. At any time, a convicted felon can log on and purchase a military-style weapon from a ``private seller.'' For example, one ``private party'' listing on the website touts a military-style semiautomatic rifle as the ``World War III special,'' and boasts that the weapon can ``provide rapid defensive fire when needed.'' Such a weapon has no sporting purpose. It is designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Should it really be available for anyone to purchase, at any time, without a background check?

This leads to dangerous and sometimes tragic outcomes. For example, the report cites a man from North Carolina who, earlier this year, posted an ad on the Web site seeking to purchase a military-style assault rifle specifically from a private seller. The investigation found that this prospective buyer had previously been convicted of several felonies, including robbery with a dangerous weapon, and would have failed a background check. In another case, Zina Daniel of Wisconsin obtained a restraining order against her husband which legally prohibited him from purchasing a firearm. Days later, the husband bought a semiautomatic handgun from a dealer through armslist.com, and went to find Ms. Daniel at her workplace. There, he used the weapon to murder her and two others, injure four more, and kill himself.

Had these individuals been confronted with a simple background check at a brick-and-mortar gun shop, they may have been turned away. Why should a purchase from the online marketplace be any different? Study after study, conducted by organizations across the political spectrum, have shown that around 90 percent of the American public supports the enactment of background checks on all gun sales. The vast majority of our constituents agree that wherever someone is buying a gun--at the shop around the corner, from the Internet, from a gun show, or even from the back of a van in a dark alley--they should be able to prove that they can pass a simple and quick background check.

We must not wait until the next unstable individual buys a deadly weapon online and turns it on our communities. We should act to protect our families, our neighbors, and our loved ones. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass background check legislation to shut down the online black market for illegal firearm purchases. It's just common sense.

Mr. President, I yield myself 6 of my 10 minutes.

One of the issues we address in this bill is the problem of sexual assault in the military. Too many of the men and women who volunteer for our military to serve and protect us are victims of sexual assault and other misconduct. That is deeply offensive to our conscience and a stain on an honorable institution.

The bill that was reported by the committee includes groundbreaking new measures to reduce sexual assault and misconduct. On a bipartisan basis, members debated and approved more than two dozen measures related to preventing sexual assault and to delivering justice for the victims of these crimes.

The bill that we approved, and which is now before us, would provide sexual assault victims a counsel, a lawyer, who works not for commanders, prosecutors, defense attorneys or a court but for the victim. It includes strong new protections for victims that are designed to combat the No. 1 problem we have in preventing assaults and dealing with perpetrators: the fact that many assaults remain unreported to authorities. Of great importance, the committee-reported bill for the first time makes it a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to retaliate against a servicemember who reports a sexual assault.

It also requires that the Department of Defense inspector general review and investigate any allegation of retaliation against those who make communications regarding sexual assault or sexual misconduct.

Our bill includes important criminal justice system reforms, including reforms on how commanders respond to sexual assaults. Our bill includes a requirement that commanders who become aware of a reported sexual assault immediately forward that information to criminal investigators. It eliminates the consideration of the accused's character from the factors a commander should weigh in deciding whether to prosecute a sexual assault allegation. It restricts the authority of commanders under Article 60 of the UCMJ to set aside court-martial verdicts in cases involving sexual assault and other crimes. It requires that a decision by a commander not to prosecute a sexual assault complaint undergoes an automatic review by a higher command authority, in nearly all cases a general or flag officer. In the case where a commander's decision not to prosecute contradicts the recommendation of his or her legal advisor, that automatic review is conducted by the service Secretary. The committee-reported bill also makes clear that we expect and demand that commanders will use their authority to rein in this problem by fostering a climate of zero tolerance toward sexual misconduct and one in which servicemembers believe they can come forward to report cases of sexual assault.

These important reforms were the product of the work of almost every member of the Armed Services Committee. The desire to remove this stain from our military is bipartisan and it is strong.

Despite widespread bipartisan agreement on significant reforms, one significant issue of dispute remains. This is the question of whether military commanders should retain their authority to prosecute sexual assaults.

Senator Gillibrand proposed in committee, and proposes again here on the floor, to remove our commanders' authority to prosecute. Along with a strong majority of the Armed Services Committee, I opposed Senator Gillibrand's proposal, which was defeated on a bipartisan 17-9 vote. I oppose it for a simple reason: I do not believe its passage would strengthen efforts to end military sexual assault and other misconduct, and in fact I believe it could weaken those efforts.

The Gillibrand amendment would uproot major portions of the military justice system and require the establishment of a parallel justice system within the military. Our top military lawyers have told us that the amendment leaves large gaps and unexplained issues that could make the new system unadministrable and bog it down in litigation.

Despite those problems, if I believed that the proposed amendment would remove more sexual predators from the ranks and put more of them behind bars, or lead more victims to report sexual assaults, I could support it. But the evidence we received in our committee shows the opposite.

First, we learned that military commanders are more likely, not less likely, more likely, to prosecute sexual assaults than military or civilian lawyers. The committee heard from many commanders, at all levels, that they see important value in sending cases to court-martial even if a conviction is not a slam-dunk. But we have more than the assurances of commanders. We have hard data. Over the last two years, in nearly 100 sexual assault cases which civilian prosecutors declined to prosecute, military commanders stepped in and took the case to court. Trials are complete in 63 of those cases, resulting in 52 convictions an 83 percent conviction rate. Those victims would not have seen justice if a military commander had not stepped in where professional prosecutors declined to act. The evidence before us indicates that commanders are ready to prosecute these cases, and that removing their judgment and replacing it with career attorneys will result in fewer prosecutions of these cases.

The evidence is that when victims do come forward, their reports are properly investigated, and when commanders are presented with the facts, our commanders do their job. They often send cases to trial even when professional prosecutors hesitate to do so. So why would we want to take that authority away?

Second, the supporters of this proposal have argued that it will increase victims' willingness to come forward. They do not provide any data to support the assertion that victims will be more willing to come forward in a system that is less likely to bring them justice. Why would victims feel more confident in a system that is less likely to aggressively prosecute these crimes?

The Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, which was established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and has looked in depth at the experience of our allies on this issue, reported last week: ``We have seen no indication that the removal of the commander from the decision making process has resulted in an increase in reporting and there is nothing in the experiences of our foreign Allies that suggests adopting their systems as a model will have any impact on the reporting of sexual assaults.''

I believe the contention that this amendment would increase reporting stems in many cases from a fundamental misunderstanding of how sexual assaults are reported. One member of the Senate, in announcing his support for taking away commanders' authority to prosecute, said: ``To me, it's as simple as this: Should you have to report to your boss when you've been abused or when you've been a victim of a crime?''

Well, of course you shouldn't have to. And in the military, you don't. There are many different avenues by which a member of the military may report a sexual assault. Reporting it to your commanding officer is only one. Victims can report an assault to civilian police, to military criminal investigators, to a health care professional or to a sexual assault response coordinator. The Gillibrand amendment does not affect any of those reporting channels. Its only effect is to change what happens once an assault is reported and investigated.

Supporters of this proposal have argued that our allies have adopted changes to their military justice systems along the lines they propose, and that these changes have better served sexual assault victims. What this argument ignores is the fact that our allies' decisions have not been aimed at protecting sexual assault victims. In fact, with allies such as Canada and Great Britain, commanders' authority to prosecute was removed not out of concern for crime victims, but out of concern for the rights of the accused. I have yet to hear anyone argue that the problem with our handling of military sexual assault is that it is too tough on perpetrators. Yet that has been why allied militaries removed the decision to prosecute from their commanders.

Perhaps the most basic reason to oppose the amendment of the Senator from New York is that it removes a powerful tool from those who are indispensable to turning around the problem we have. Our military commanders are the indispensable tool to turn around this problem. I have met at length with several groups of retired military women.

I specifically chose to meet with retired military personnel to ensure that they would be free to speak their minds. These women--all of whom have seen cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the course of their military careers--told me the problem is not commanders. The problem is a military culture, they told us, that tolerates excessive drinking and barracks banter that borders on sexual harassment or crosses that line. The problem is there is a failure to recognize the existence of servicemembers who appear to be good soldiers but in fact are sexual predators, and a culture that values unit cohesion to such an extent that those who report misconduct are more likely to be ostracized than respected. None of these problems are unique to the military, but they are exacerbated in the military by the frequent rotation of military assignments, which can make it easier for predators to hide.

The military has a unique tool for addressing this problem: commanders who can bring about changes in command climate through mandatory training and by issuing and enforcing orders that are not possible in a civilian environment. That is what they did in addressing racial discrimination and in ending don't ask, don't tell. That is what they can and should do here. Weeding out sexual predators and the climate that makes it possible for them to hide is an essential ingredient in any solution to the sexual assault problem. The military women whom I met with over the summer told me that our commanders are in the best position to make that change.

Weakening the authority of commanders will do serious damage to their ability to accomplish this change. All of us seek the strongest, most effective response to the plague of military sexual assault. The amendment Senator Gillibrand proposes will not strengthen our response. The evidence before us shows it will, in fact, weaken our response by removing the decision from the hands of commanders.

We have two dozen historic reforms in our bill, but a number of Senators, led by Senators McCaskill and Ayotte and Fischer, have continued to work on policies to strengthen our response to the military assault problem. This has resulted in the amendment they have proposed.

Their amendment would ensure that the duties of special victims' counsels include advising victims on the advantages and disadvantages of prosecuting a case in the civilian or military justice systems, giving victims a greater voice in where a case is heard. It would require that performance evaluations of commanding officers consider their success or failure in creating a command climate in which victims can report sexual assaults without fear. It would require command climate assessments of any unit in which a servicemember is the victim of a sexual assault or is accused of committing one. It would give the victims of sexual assault who leave the military the ability to challenge the terms or characterization of their separation or discharge. It would prohibit introduction as evidence during judicial proceedings a sexual assault defendant's general military character-- the so-called

``good soldier defense.'' In other words, the fact that a defendant happens to be a good troop would no longer be allowed as evidence that he or she did not commit a sexual assault. These reforms are aimed at the problems we do have that is, at rooting out retaliation against victims, and providing victims better support--and not at a problem we don't have--that is, the decisions our commanders make relative to prosecution of these crimes.

I will conclude by saying that these additional reforms in the McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer amendment are significant additions to what is in the committee bill, and I support them. What I cannot support--and what I hope the Senate will not support--is legislation that will remove from our commanders the authority to combat this problem. The real, strongest tool to combat this problem is the ability to send a matter to a court-martial.

We cannot strengthen our efforts to prevent sexual assault by reducing the likelihood of prosecutions. We know from history and from the facts that is the result of taking this decision away from the hands of the commanders. We know of the 100 cases where other authorities, civilian authorities, have decided not to prosecute but where the commanders then decided to pursue it anyway. That is just within the last 2 years, and we do not know of any cases that go in the other direction.

We cannot strengthen our efforts to prevent sexual assaults by reducing the likelihood of prosecutions. We cannot strengthen our efforts by weakening the authority of our commanders to act against sexual assault. Commanders were tasked, again, with making those monumental changes in military culture, from combating racial discrimination in the 1950s to ending don't ask, don't tell in 2011. If we are to accomplish the change in military culture that we all agree is central to combating sexual misconduct and sexual assault, commanders are essential. We cannot fight sexual predators if we make it more difficult to try and convict them. We cannot hold our commanders accountable for accomplishing that needed change in culture if we remove their most powerful weapon in the fight.

I yield the floor.

Is that a unanimous consent request?

Of course, while reserving the right to object--I will not, but I will say this. I can't tell everybody in this body how disappointing it would be if we do not finish this bill tomorrow or Friday, because the issue is this, and we all ought to face it: There is only 1 week left where both the House and the Senate are going to be in session. If we don't finish this bill this week, there cannot be a conference report; and then, for the first time in 52 years, there will not be a Defense authorization bill in the absence of some miracle.

I would plead with our colleagues, let us vote on this amendment. The alternative was a list of 13 amendments which we were willing to then move to. That wasn't satisfactory. We have got to do this a step at a time, and we have done it that way before. We can't even get cleared amendments agreed to where both sides have cleared them into a manager's package.

If Senators want to vote tomorrow or Friday against the cloture motion because their amendments haven't been reached, they are free to do so. That is plenty of ``leverage,'' which I guess is the currency around here, tragically. But I plead--and Senator Inhofe and I have worked so hard on this bill and I think he feels this same way--we need to get this bill finished this week or else we are not going to get a conference report.

Mr. President, I have a very brief statement I will now make, and I thank the Senators from Maryland and Maine for allowing me to do this. I ask unanimous consent that the very brief statement I am going to make not count against morning business.

Mr. President, later this morning the Senate is going to resume consideration of S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I will have a full statement to make on this legislation later today. However, I would like to take just a moment to talk to my colleagues about where we are on the bill and how we would like to proceed.

Last night, the majority leader asked for unanimous consent to bring up side-by-side amendments on subjects that we know we need to debate and vote on--military detention at Guantanamo and sexual assault and misconduct in the military. Each amendment and side-by-side was to be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Unfortunately, there was an objection to this request. As a result of that objection, the majority leader filled the amendment tree on our bill.

Now we are in a position where we are going to need the cooperation of all Senators to get this important bill passed, as we must, in the limited time available to us before Thanksgiving week in order that we will have time to go to conference, get a conference report, and bring that conference report back to the House and Senate.

It remains our intention to bring up and vote on as many relevant amendments to the bill as possible, and I know the Republican manager, ranking member Senator Inhofe, shares this objective. Toward this end I expect there will be further attempts later in the day to reach a unanimous consent agreement on the first amendments to be brought up, and that will be a repeated unanimous consent request that was offered last night for those first two amendments.

It is also our intention to clear amendments, as we have always done on this bill. I urge our colleagues, if you have amendments, to file them, bring them to us, so we can try to clear them. The majority and minority staffs of the Armed Services Committee are working hard. We hope to have a first package of cleared amendments ready for consideration later today, and we will continue to go through that process during the week.

Finishing this bill is going to be a very difficult task. We have managed to do it for the last 51 years, and I am confident, with the cooperation of all Senators, we will be able to do it again this year. We must for the sake of our troops, their families, and our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time until 4 p.m. be for debate only, with the time being equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Madam President, I hope Members will now come down and debate, particularly if we can start off again with the legislation on Guantanamo. There will be two amendments here. One will be an amendment by Senator Ayotte and the other one would be an amendment by myself, with Senator McCain. It will be a Levin-McCain amendment. I hope those who are interested in this subject particularly would come down between now and then and we can perhaps even reach a vote on Guantanamo, the two amendments, side-by-side, even later this afternoon. That is the goal. It is not part of the unanimous consent proposal, but that would be a goal.

I know my friend from Oklahoma and I are able to work things out most often, and we will try to figure out a way to hopefully get to a vote on two amendments which I think everybody agrees, not on the outcome of the vote, but agrees need to be debated and resolved.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma because he has said what needs to be said here, which is that we welcome amendments being brought to the floor. We will do our best to try to clear those amendments, which means obviously consulting with not just the sponsors but potential opponents to try to see if we can work things out. On this bill we have always been able to work out amendments, sometimes as many as 100. We need to have votes on this bill, but we also can clear amendments. We work together on a bipartisan basis to do that.

I join in his request that Senators who have amendments get them to us to see if we can possibly work them out. We simply must finish this bill this week. The timetable is such that if we are going to finish this bill, as we have for 51 straight years, we have to get this bill to conference. That, in and of itself, will take a week. Then we have to bring the conference report back, if we can reach an agreement on it, to both Houses, and that will take as much as a week as well under the rules, so we really need the cooperation of every Member of this body.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on behalf of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we are pleased to bring S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, to the Senate floor. The Armed Services Committee approved the bill by a 23-3 vote on June 13, making this the 52nd consecutive year our committee has reported the Defense Authorization Act.

The strong bipartisan vote for this bill in the Armed Services Committee continues the tradition of our committee, where our Members have continued to come together to support the national defense and our men and women in uniform. I thank Senator Inhofe for the major contribution he has made to this process in his first year as the ranking Republican on the committee.

This year's bill would authorize $625.1 billion for national defense programs, the same amount as the President's budget request. Unless the Congress acts to modify or eliminate the sequestration required by the Budget Control Act, however, this amount will automatically be reduced by $50 billion, leaving the Department of Defense with far less than it needs to meet the requirements of our national military strategy.

U.S. forces are drawing down in Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in Iraq. However, the real threats to our national security remain and our forces are deployed throughout the globe. Over the course of the last year, the civil war in Syria has become increasingly destructive, North Korea has engaged in a series of provocative acts, Iran has moved forward with its nuclear program, and Al Qaeda affiliates have continued to seek safe havens in Yemen, Somalia, North Africa, and elsewhere.

It is particularly important that we do what we can to sustain the compensation and quality of life our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. Toward this end, our bill, No. 1, authorizes a 1-percent across-the-board pay raise for all members of the uniformed services, consistent with the President's request; it reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active- Duty and Reserve component military personnel. It does not include Department of Defense proposals to establish or increase health care fees, deductibles, and copayments that would primarily affect working- age military retirees and their families. It authorizes $25 million in supplemental impact aid to local educational agencies with military dependent children and $5 million in impact aid for schools with military dependent children with severe disabilities, and provides funding for the Department of Defense STARBASE Program. It enhances the Department of Defense programs to assist veterans in their transition to civilian life by improving access to credentialing programs for civilian occupational specialties.

The bill also includes funding needed to provide our troops the equipment and support they need for ongoing combat, counterinsurgency, and stability operations around the world. For example, the bill funds the President's request for $80.7 billion for overseas contingency operations. It authorizes $9.9 billion for U.S. special operations command, including both base budget funding and OCO funding. It authorizes nearly $1 billion for counter-IED efforts, beginning to ramp down expenditures in this area while ensuring that we make investments needed to protect our forces from roadside bombs.

The bill fully funds the President's request for the Afghan Security Forces Fund to train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan police, growing their capabilities so we can complete the transition of security responsibility as planned by the end of 2014.

It reauthorizes the use of DOD funds to support a program to reintegrate insurgent fighters into the Afghan forces and into Afghanistan. It authorizes the Secretary of Defense--upon a determination from the President that it is in the national security interest of the United States--to use up to $150 million of amounts authorized for the Coalition Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to support the border security operations of the Jordanian Armed Forces, and it extends global train-and-equip authority, section 1206, through 2018 to help build the capacity of foreign force partners to conduct counterterrorism and stability operations.

The bill before us addresses major issues that are of particular importance to the Department of Defense, relative to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the problem of sexual assault and misconduct in the military.

As to Guantanamo, this bill would provide our military with needed flexibility to determine how long we need to detain individuals now held in the Gitmo detention facility and where else we might hold them. For a number of years now Congress has enacted legislation eliminating this flexibility and requiring that we continue to hold all Gitmo detainees regardless of costs and whether it is needed in our national security interest. The existing legislation has made it more difficult to try detainees for their crimes and nearly impossible to return them to their home countries.

For example, even if we have a strong case that a detainee has committed crimes for which he could be indicted and convicted in a Federal court, the existing law makes it impossible to try him there. Even if we have determined that a detainee poses no ongoing security threat to the United States, we cannot send them back to his home country unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to six stringent conditions. Even if the individual is likely to die without advanced medical treatment, we cannot remove him from Gitmo for the purpose of receiving such treatment.

As a result, the legislation we have on the books has reinforced the impression held by many around the world that Guantanamo is a legal black hole where we hold detainees without recourse. This perception has been used by our enemies to recruit jihadists to attack us, and it has made our friends less willing to cooperate with us in our efforts to fight terrorism around the world.

The Gitmo detention facility is not only a recruiting tool for our enemies, but it has become an obsolete white elephant that costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It can no longer be justified based on the rationale for creating Gitmo in the first place.

One dozen years ago, the Bush administration started sending detainees to Gitmo in large part out of a desire to avoid the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts and ensure that detainees would have no legal avenue to appeal their convictions. Whether one supported that approach, that argument all but disappeared in 2008 when the Supreme Court ruled in the Boumediene case that Gitmo detainees would be treated as being inside the United States for the purpose of habeas corpus appeals.

Instead of recognizing that the Gitmo detention facility is no longer needed, however, we have enacted legislation which makes it virtually impossible to move detainees anywhere else, ensuring that the facility will remain open whether it is needed for particular detainees or not. The current law prohibits the transfer of any detainee to the United States for detention under the law of armed conflict or trial before a military commission or in civilian court and includes unduly burdensome certification requirements that make it extremely difficult to transfer detainees back to their home countries.

The basis for these legislative obstacles appears to be the fear that returning Gitmo detainees to their home countries or transferring them to the United States would pose an unacceptable threat to our national security. However, we have brought numerous terrorists to the United States for trial and incarceration without adverse effect to our national security.

In just the last 3 years, for example, we have brought three foreign terrorists into the United States for trial. The first is Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, who has been convicted in Federal court and remains in Federal custody without incident. The second is Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, who pled guilty in Federal court and remains in Federal custody without incident. The third is Ahmed Ghailani, a Gitmo detainee who was convicted in Federal court, received a life sentence, and remains in Federal custody without incident.

Moreover, our military has routinely detained individuals on the battlefield in Afghanistan and then exercised the discretion to transfer them to local jurisdiction or to release them. If we can trust our military to make these determinations on a day-to-day basis, we should be able to trust them to make the same determinations at Gitmo.

The risk that any of these detainees could once again engage in activities hostile to our interests around the world has been substantially reduced by the rigorous procedures our military has instituted to review individual cases and ensure that appropriate protections are in place before transferring any detainee back to his home country.

These procedures have resulted in a dramatic decline in the so-called recidivism rate over the last 5 years. While more than 160 Gitmo detainees released by the Bush administration are known or suspected to have engaged in activities hostile to our interest after their transfer or release, only 7 detainees released by the Obama administration--less than 10 percent of the total--are known or suspected to have engaged in such activities.

This rigorous review process would be codified by the provision in our bill

which would require that the Secretary of Defense determine, prior to transferring a Gitmo detainee, that the transfer is in our national security interest and that actions have been taken to mitigate any risks that the detainee could again engage in any activity that threatens U.S. persons or interest.

It is time for us to move past the fear that our country somehow lacks the capacity to handle Gitmo detainees and allow our military to address the transfer of detainees in a rational manner based on the facts of each case.

As to sexual misconduct, this bill includes the most comprehensive legislation targeting sexual misconduct and assault in the military ever considered by Congress. Our committee adopted more than two dozen separate provisions and a host of historic, significant reforms addressing sexual assault and prevention. In particular, the bill makes it a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to retaliate against a victim who reports a sexual assault, and it requires the DOD IG to review and investigate any allegation of such retaliation.

Our bill establishes the expectation that commanders will be relieved of their command if they fail to maintain a climate in which victims can come forward without fear.

Our bill requires service Secretaries to provide a special victims' counsel to provide legal advice and assistance to servicemembers who are victims of a sexual assault committed by a member of the Armed Forces.

Our bill amends article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to limit the authority of a commander to overturn a verdict for rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and other serious offenses.

Our bill eliminates the element of the character of the accused from the factors to be considered in deciding how to proceed with the case.

Our bill requires commanding officers to immediately refer any allegation of a sexual misconduct offense involving service members to the appropriate investigative agency.

Our bill requires that the sentence for service members convicted of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy or an attempt to commit one of those offenses, include, at a minimum, a dismissal or dishonorable discharge.

Our bill requires that all substantiated complaints of sexual-related offenses be noted in the service record of the offender.

Our bill eliminates the 5-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for certain sexual-related offenses.

Our bill codifies a prohibition on military service by individuals convicted of sexual offenses.

Some have argued we should also change the military justice system by removing commanders from their current role in deciding what cases should be prosecuted and instead place that authority in the hands of military lawyers. However, the testimony before our committee showed that commanders, far from being reluctant to prosecute sexual offenses, are more likely to prosecute those offenses than civilian or military lawyers.

Further, removing authority from commanding officers would distance them from these cases and make them less accountable, making it more difficult for them to take the steps needed to protect victims from peer pressure, ostracism, and retaliation. While taking authority away from the chain of command would indeed be a dramatic change, this change would actually afford the victims of sexual assault less protection and make it less likely that sexual assaults will be prosecuted than the current system.

For this reason, we adopted an alternative approach that will better protect victims. Our approach is to require a commander who receives an allegation of sexual assault to either prosecute it or have it automatically reviewed by his or her commander--almost a general or flag officer--and if a commander chooses not to prosecute against the advice of legal counsel, the case receives automatic review by a service Secretary. This approach will enable commanders to continue an aggressive approach to prosecuting sexual offenses while ensuring against the unusual case in which a commander might decide not to pursue a case that could be successfully prosecuted.

An important part of this problem is the underreporting and inadequate investigation of sexual assaults. There is still inadequate reports for victims of sexual assaults. There is also a problem with retaliation, ostracism, and peer pressure from victims. Underneath it all remains a culture that has taken inadequate steps to correct this situation. In the end, getting this right will require sustained leadership by commanders who can be held accountable for conduct in their units. It is more difficult to hold someone accountable for failure to act if we reduce his or her authority to act.

We want commanders fully engaged in the resolution of this problem and not divorced from it. Throughout our deliberations on this issue, we were guided by a single goal: passing the strongest, most effective measures to combat sexual assault by holding perpetrators accountable and protecting and supporting victims. We believe our bill does that.

Our country relies on the men and women of our military and the civilians who support them to keep us safe and to help us meet U.S. national security objectives around the world. We expect them to put their lives on the line every day, and in return we tell them we will stand by them and their families, that we will provide them with the best training, the best equipment, and the best support available to any military anywhere in the world.

As of today, we have roughly 1.4 million U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving on Active Duty--with tens of thousands engaged in combat in Afghanistan and stationed in other regional hotspots around the globe.

While there are issues on which Members may disagree, we all know we must provide our troops the support they need. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world, and most important of all, it will send an important message that we as a nation stand behind them and appreciate their service.

I look forward to working with all of our colleagues to pass this vital legislation and again would urge all of our colleagues who have amendments to bring them to our attention so we can try very hard to clear amendments which can get support on both sides of the aisle and which have no strong objection.

This has been a process which has worked for as many years as I have been here, and it is the only way we are going to be able to get a bill passed this week. Again, it is critically important that this bill pass this week or else there seems to be very little hope we could actually get a bill to conference and back to both Houses.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand the situation is as follows: that the time between now and 4 o'clock is under majority control, and then between 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock we have not resolved that issue as to who would control time; am I correct?

So there may be more time available between 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock.

Under the existing UC, the time between now and 4 o'clock is under the control of the majority, because the minority has used their time. At 4 o'clock, we have to enter into another UC--or we can do it now--deciding what the situation will be for the hour between 4 o'clock and the time of the vote.

Mr. President, I support the provisions in this bill relating to the Guantanamo detention facility, or Gitmo, and oppose the amendment to strike those provisions and to reinstate existing restrictions on the transfer of Gitmo detainees.

Gitmo is expensive, inefficient, damaging to U.S. international standing, harmful to our allies' ability to cooperate with us, and serves as a recruiting tool for extremists. It is not needed to secure people who should be detained and should be tried. There are other places for detention and for trial in front of a military tribunal. We don't need Gitmo to stay open at a huge expense in order to do that.

The bill before us makes long overdue fixes to our ability to transfer detainees out of Gitmo, provide our military with needed flexibility to determine how long we need to detain individuals now held at the Guantanamo facility, and where we should hold them.

For a number of years now, Congress has enacted legislation eliminating that flexibility and requiring we continue to hold all Gitmo detainees at Guantanamo whether or not it is in our national security interests to do so. The current law establishes an absolute ban on bringing any Gitmo detainee to the United States for any purpose, including detention, trial, incarceration, or even medical treatment. And it replaces the best judgment of our military and intelligence experts on the risk posed by an additional Gitmo detainee with a cumbersome checklist of requirements that must be certified before any detainee may be transferred overseas.

The current law makes it more difficult to try detainees for their crimes and nearly impossible to return them to their home countries. For example, even if we have a strong case that a detainee has committed crimes for which he could be indicted, convicted in Federal Court, the current law makes it impossible to try him. This is true even in cases where similar charges are not available before a military commission, making it impossible to try the detainee at Guantanamo. And it is true even in cases where the security risks in bringing the detainee to the United States would be nonexistent.

In 2010, the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force recommended 44 Gitmo detainees for possible prosecution. As a result in significant part of the legislated restrictions on transferring detainees to the United States for trial, however, we have had only 4 of the 44 plea bargains and no other successful prosecutions of those detainees.

Similarly, even if we have determined that a detainee poses no ongoing security threat to the United States, we cannot send them back to their home country unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to six conditions addressing issues such as the country's control over its own territory and its detention facilities and so forth. And even if the individual is likely to die without advanced medical treatment, we cannot remove him from Gitmo for the purpose of receiving such treatment.

In 2010, the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force conducted a rigorous interagency review and determined that more than half of the Gitmo population, including 84 of the 164 detainees currently at Gitmo, could be safely transferred overseas without posing a significant security threat. However, only two Gitmo detainees have actually been transferred using the certification provision since it was enacted at the end of 2010.

Under the current law, even if a detainee has been convicted or pled guilty and served his sentence, even if he has cooperated with us and provided us with useful intelligence, even if he has renounced all ties to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, even if he has been determined to no longer pose a threat to our national security, it is still extremely difficult to transfer or release a Gitmo detainee. That is why we still have detainees sitting in Guantanamo who have been cleared for transfer or release on multiple occasions by two different administrations over a period of almost a decade.

The current law has reinforced, as a result, the impression held by many around the world that Guantanamo is a legal black hole where we hold detainees without recourse. This perception has been used by our enemies to recruit jihadists to attack us, and it has made our friends less willing to cooperate with us in our efforts to fight terrorism around the world. For this reason, many of our top national security leaders spanning the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly told us of the harm that Gitmo causes to our national security.

First, with respect to transfers of Gitmo detainees overseas to their home countries or other countries, the bill would streamline the onerous certification procedures imposed by Congress and restore the ability of our military leaders to exercise their best judgment in determining whether detainees could be transferred abroad consistent with our national security. This provision would enable the Department of Defense to handle Gitmo detainees in the same way that it has handled other detainees in the course

of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan--by making case-by-case determinations whether it is in our national security interest to continue holding an individual.

Second, with respect to transfers of Gitmo detainees into the United States, the bill would reverse the one-size-fits-all ban that Congress has imposed on such transfers and permit case-by-case determinations of whether it is in our national security interest to transfer Gitmo detainees into custody inside the United States for detention and trial. This provision would restore our Nation's ability to use a key tool in the fight against the terrorist threat. That tool is prosecution of Gitmo detainees in Federal courts.

I have offered a side-by-side amendment with Senator McCain which requires the administration to develop a comprehensive plan and submit it to Congress before it could transfer any detainees to the United States under this provision. This plan would include a case-by-case determination of each individual held at Guantanamo where the individual is intended to be held, including the specific facility or facilities inside the United States that would be used and the estimated costs of any modification that may be needed at those facilities.

The side-by-side amendment would also clarify that Gitmo detainees would not gain any additional legal rights as a result of their transfer to the United States for detention and trial. In particular, detainees who are transferred to the United States would not gain any additional rights; would not be permitted to be released inside the United States; would not lose their status as unprivileged enemy belligerents eligible for detention and trial under the law of war; and would not gain any additional right to challenge his or her detention beyond the right to habeas corpus--which they already have at Guantanamo, as the Supreme Court has decided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor to our side-by-side amendment, the Levin-McCain amendment.

Guantanamo continues to be a damaging reminder of a failed U.S. strategy that sought to put captured terrorists beyond the reach of the law and the U.S. courts. A dozen years ago the Bush administration started sending detainees to Gitmo in large part out of a desire to avoid the jurisdiction of the United States courts and ensure that detainees would have no legal avenue to appeal their convictions. Now, whether or not one supported that approach, that argument ended in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Boumediene case that Gitmo detainees would be treated as being inside the United States for the purpose of habeas corpus appeals.

Instead of recognizing the problems with maintaining the Gitmo facility--the problems of extreme costs, and that it adds no additional security to what exists if these people are brought to the United States for military trial, as being held as prisoners under the laws of war, or for Federal court trial, even though all of that is still possible inside the United States--we have enacted legislation which makes it virtually impossible to move detainees anywhere else, ensuring that the facility is going to remain open whether we need it or not.

The result is that we are stuck with an expensive facility. And make no mistake, the costs of the Guantanamo detention facility are exorbitant. The Department of Defense has put the costs associated with Gitmo at over $400 million a year. That is more than $2.5 million per detainee. If we had any additional security as a result, it would be worth it. But we don't need Gitmo for additional security. These detainees can be held in the United States. They can be held for trial, they can be held according to the rule of law, and they can be held under the military as military detainees.

Now, $2.5 million per detainee is, by some estimates, 35 times the annual cost of housing a prisoner at a supermax security prison inside the United States. That does not include the more than $200 million in additional military construction requests that the Department believes it needs to spend to keep Guantanamo running in the coming years. I repeat: If this added to our security, it would be worth it. But it doesn't. We can bring these same people to the United States to be held as prisoners of war the way we did Italians and others during World War II. I had hundreds in my home State. If we added to our security by keeping Guantanamo open instead of just having a place which is used as a training ground and used as an argument for Jihad--but we can keep these people in the United States just as safely as Guantanamo in maximum security prisons or under the military jurisdiction with the same amount of security for the people of the United States at far less cost.

We are all facing sequestration. It is undermining the readiness of our Armed Forces, requires risky reductions in force structure, and makes it likely we are going to have to cancel or severely curtail vital modernization programs. We cannot afford to spend $500 million a year on a program that doesn't make us more safe.

The basis for the legislative obstacles to moving detainees out of Guantanamo appears to be the fear that returning Gitmo detainees to their home countries or transferring them to the United States would pose an unacceptable threat to our national security. But history has shown that we bring numerous terrorists to the United States for trial or incarceration. It has had no adverse effect on our national security. These prosecutions have resulted in hundreds of convictions on terrorism-related charges without apparent adverse effect to our national security. As the Attorney General wrote to Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy last week, terrorist prosecutions in Federal courts have been ``an essential element of our counterterrorism efforts'' and ``a powerful tool of proven effectiveness.''

In the last 3 years, we have brought three foreign terrorists into the United States for trial. We brought Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, who has been convicted in Federal court and remains in Federal custody without incident. The second is Ahmed Warsame, who pled guilty in Federal court and remains in Federal custody without incident. The third is Ahmed Ghailani, who was convicted in Federal court, received a life sentence, and remains in Federal custody without incident. Again, there have been hundreds of convictions in this country of persons connected to terrorism in Federal courts.

Our military has routinely detained individuals on the battlefield in Afghanistan and then exercised their discretion to transfer them to local jurisdiction or to release them. If we can trust our military to make these determinations on a day-to-day basis for detainees in Afghanistan, we should be able to trust our military to make the same determination for detainees at Gitmo.

The rigorous review process which is codified by our bill's provisions requires the Secretary of Defense to determine, prior to transferring a Gitmo detainee, that the transfer is in our national security interest and that actions have been taken to mitigate any risk that the detainee could again engage in any activity that threatens United States persons or interests.

The provisions in this bill will get us past our fear that we cannot securely handle Gitmo detainees in this country. It would allow the Secretary of Defense to authorize Gitmo transfers to the United States for detention and trial if doing so is in the United States' security interests. This bill will restore the President's ability to choose the most effective tool--whether that is military commissions or Federal courts--to bring these Gitmo detainees to justice.

In conclusion, I urge our colleagues to support the Guantanamo provisions in the bill, vote for the Levin-McCain-Feinstein side-by- side amendment, and oppose the effort to reinstate the counterproductive and costly restrictions in current law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield the time between now and 4:00 to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I am going to make a unanimous consent proposal which I understand has been cleared.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion to recommit be withdrawn; that the pending Levin amendment, No. 2123, be set aside for Senator Ayotte or designee to offer amendment No. 2255 relative to Guantanamo; that the amendment be subject to a relevant side-by-side amendment, which is No. 2175, from Senators Levin, McCain, and Feinstein; that no second-degree amendments be in order to either of these Guantanamo amendments; that each of these amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Ayotte amendment No. 2255; that upon disposition of the Ayotte amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Levin-McCain-Feinstein amendment No. 2175; and that there be 2 minutes equally divided in between the votes.

I was going to say the time between now and 5 o'clock is equally divided, as I understand it, between the Senator from Oklahoma and myself.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2175.

I understand we have a Senator on the way. I suggest the absence of a quorum unless someone else wishes to be recognized. I ask that the time on the quorum call be equally divided unless someone else seeks to be recognized at this time.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the senior Senator from California.

Mr. President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the time of the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield an additional 5 minutes above the 4\1/2\ minutes to Senator Durbin. I understand if that means there is less time left than allotted to the other side, I would ask unanimous consent that additional time be used at 5 o'clock and the vote would then occur a few minutes after 5.

Is the Senator from New Hampshire available at 5 minutes to 5? If that is true, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify that previous UC request to provide 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois and the last 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from Secretary Hagel, Secretary Kerry, Attorney General Holder, and the Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this amendment is a Levin-McCain- Feinstein-Udall amendment. It clarifies that Gitmo detainees would not gain any additional legal rights as a result of their transfer to the United States for detention. Any Gitmo detainee who is transferred to the United States gains no additional legal rights. They also are not permitted to be released inside the United States. They do not lose their status as unprivileged enemy belligerents eligible for detention and trial under the law of war. If they are transferred to the United States, they gain no additional right to challenge their detention beyond the habeas corpus that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

I would hope this could be broadly supported.

Senator McCain.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds.

There are no additional rights for people brought to military detention in the United States than they have in Guantanamo. Nothing changes. There are no more Miranda rights here than in Guantanamo. If

they are in military detention, they are in military detention wherever it is.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alec Johnson, a legislative fellow detailed to the Committee on Appropriations, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

I ask unanimous consent that CDR Tasya Y. Lacy, a U.S. Naval officer, who is currently serving as Senator Shaheen's defense legislative fellow this year, be granted floor privileges during the duration of S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014. I also ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Maj. Nate Somers, a U.S. Air Force officer who is serving as a defense legislative fellow in Senator Cardin's office, for the duration of consideration of S. 1197.

Mr. President, the Senate is poised to pass legislation aimed at strengthening the safety of compounded pharmaceuticals and the security of the drug supply chain. It has been more than 1 year since the public became aware of what quickly became a far reaching fungal meningitis outbreak affecting citizens in 20 States, including my home State of Michigan. Following an investigation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, along with local health departments, it became clear the outbreak was caused by contaminated steroid injections produced by the now defunct New England Compounding Center, NECC, a compounding pharmacy in Framingham, MA. This tragedy brought a spotlight to bear on the opaque regulation of mass compounding pharmacies.

According to the CDC, over 750 people from across the United States were affected by tainted pain steroid injections produced by NECC. Victims numbering 264, more than one third of the hundreds made severely ill from contaminated injections, reside in Michigan. Sixty- four of the victims lost their life as a result of illness, including 19 Michiganians. While it is certainly important that we clarify Federal regulatory responsibilities to help ensure similar tragedies are not repeated in the future, we could have begun debate on a solution far earlier. A legislative response is surely long overdue.

Colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the Capitol have worked through this issue to produce a bill that will both strengthen Federal authority to regulate mass-compounding facilities and will lay the groundwork for a nationwide system to track prescription drugs. While not as far reaching as some may have initially intended, the bill we are considering does represent an important and necessary step forward and was unanimously passed by the House of Representatives in September.

It is important to draw a distinction, as this bill does, between so- called traditional compounding--where a pharmacist tailors a particular drug to meet the unique needs of a patient, such as removing a certain dye or altering the dosage level of an adult

medication to be suitable for a child--and the mass compounding of drugs for wholesale distribution. Compounding pharmacists have long been regulated by State boards of pharmacy. However, as was made clear in the investigation that followed the meningitis outbreak, NECC, a mass compounding pharmacy, was operating in a regulatory gray area where neither the State nor Federal Government took full responsibility for ensuring their facility and compounding practices were safe and sterile.

The Drug Quality and Security Act aims to address this regulatory gray area by clarifying the responsibilities of the FDA with regard to the oversight of mass compounded pharmaceuticals. Specifically, it further defines the distinction between traditional compounding and compounding manufacturers that make large volumes of drugs without individual prescriptions.

Under this bill, mass compounding pharmacies can choose to register as outsourcing facilities that would be subject to new FDA regulatory oversight similar to that of other pharmaceutical manufactures. And, in an effort to provide patients with better information about compounded drugs, this legislation calls for detailed labeling of compounded drugs and directs the FDA to make available on their website a list of FDA- regulated facilities. Importantly, this legislation also will implement a new system for tracking drugs from the manufacturer to the pharmacy in an effort to ensure accountability at every step along the way. This new system will replace the current State tracing laws with a uniform standard and also will establish nationwide drug serial numbers to allow for efficient tracing.

While this legislation will not compensate those who have been harmed or bring back those who we have lost, I am hopeful it will help to ensure Americans are not faced with a similarly tragic, avoidable situation in the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting final passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, would the majority leader yield?

The majority leader has said we have to finish this bill this week. If we can't make progress on amendments that we agree should be called up and are important amendments--one coming basically from each side, even though there will probably be votes from each side for and against these amendments--if we can't make progress on these amendments where everyone seems to agree we ought to start moving, I am worried about the prospects of finishing this week. Frankly, I am worried anyway. I am very much worried. It has to happen. We have to finish this week or else we can't get to conference. We have to get to conference and then come back. So I hope that in the morning perhaps the majority leader might renew that unanimous consent request because the objection to it is going to make it less likely we can get our bill passed.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, my ranking member, the ranking member on

Armed Services, because I know how much he wants to get to this bill. I do not understand the objection that I know is not his personally but comes from his side. I do not understand how we are advancing this bill and advancing the cause of reaching debate on amendments on this bill by objecting to move to the amendments that I think everybody wants to debate. I do not understand how that advances any cause. I know this is not the approach of the Senator from Oklahoma. We have a very bipartisan committee.

Anyway, I will leave it at that. I hope in the morning we can find a way to do what I think everybody says they want to do, which is to begin an amendment process on this bill.

I want to end by again thanking him. He has not only had his personal health issue, but, as the majority leader and all of us know in this body, he has had a very tragic loss, and he is working very hard through that. We doubly and triplely appreciate his service to this body and his bipartisan work on the Armed Services Committee. It is invaluable. I don't want anything that I say tonight about being frustrated that we cannot start debate on two amendments that everybody wants to debate in any way to imply anything other than a very positive relationship that we have.

Mr. President, this Nation began not as merely a plot of land, or as a group of people united by language or ethnicity. It began with an idea: ``That all men are created equal.'' Our story since Thomas Jefferson wrote those words has been a story of progress toward honoring what has been called ``the immortal phrase.''

Today, this Senate can move our Nation one important step forward in honoring the truth of those words by finally passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. We can help ensure that no American is deprived of the opportunity to work--the opportunity to succeed--as all of us want to succeed merely because of sexual orientation or gender identity, just as we have acted to protect that opportunity against discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, national origin or disability.

This legislation is carefully crafted to protect the sincere religious beliefs many Americans hold. It embodies a simple but powerful American ideal: On the job, what matters is your work, not your gender or skin color or faith or your sexual orientation any other extraneous matter.

There may have been times in the past when the Congress pushed Americans into new and perhaps uncomfortable territory in the march toward equality. But today, the law lags public opinion in this area. Public opinion polls show that roughly 7 in 10 Americans believe workplace discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals should be against the law. In fact, they think it already is--according to one poll, 80 percent of Americans believe such discrimination is already a violation of Federal law. Support for ENDA is not confined to one region of the country--polls show that majorities in every State in the union support it. So, passage of ENDA is not some bold social experiment or engineering process. It is what the American people want and are ready for.

That is as true today as it was in 1996, the last time the Senate held a vote on this measure. Even then, a majority of Americans supported it, and just as it is today, it enjoyed the support of a diverse group of religious and business organizations. Then, as today, American businesses recognized that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is just bad business.

This is also not a partisan issue. This legislation is on the brink of passage here because members of both parties have shown principled leadership and dedication.

But the ultimate reason I have supported this legislation for decades now is not related to public opinion polls or endorsement letters from churches and corporations, though those are heartening and welcome. Simply, it is wrong to deny employment to anyone who can do the job, just because of their sexual orientation. ``All men are created equal'' means giving every American the opportunity to earn what their talents and dedication allow, to provide for themselves and their families. Denying anyone that right is at odds with the ideals on which this country was founded and on which it depends to this day.

I strongly support this legislation. I urge my Senate colleagues to support it, and upon Senate passage, I urge the leaders of the House of Representatives to recognize just how far behind the American people they have fallen on this issue, and bring the Employee Non- Discrimination Act to the House floor for a vote.

Mr. President, I am delighted to honor the contributions of a loyal and dedicated public servant, Mayor James Buck. In November, Mayor Buck will retire after 4\1/2\ decades of public service, 29 years of which he served as Mayor of Grandville, MI. Through his vision and tireless advocacy, Mayor Buck has helped to make sure this fine city continues to be a wonderful place to raise a family and for businesses to thrive.

Jim Buck began his career in public service as an appointed member of the Grandville Park & Recreation Board in 1968. Three years later, in 1971, he was elected to the Grandville City Council. After a successful stint on the city council, Jim was elected mayor of Grandville in 1984 and has gone on to serve eight consecutive terms.

Although the position of mayor of Grandville is part-time, Mayor Buck has always approached it as a full-time responsibility. He has devoted himself to his work as mayor and is visible at community events throughout the year. He is committed to economic and residential development, and has made decisions that have brought businesses and residents to Grandville. He has been a pillar of integrity and a consensus builder. Under Mayor Buck's stewardship, the City of Grandville has maintained sound financial footing despite immense economic challenges.

Mayor Buck is a firm believer that a strong sense of community is vital and improves the quality of life of its residents. Throughout his 45 years on the Grandville Park & Recreation Board, which he has chaired for decades, the city has created new trails and parks and revitalized existing ones. During his tenure, the Park & Recreation Board has turned Grandville's 4th of July Celebration into a major regional event and a beloved community tradition.

An avid tennis player, Jim Buck has enjoyed many successful years of competition, including at the Senior Olympics in recent years. He has been assistant coach to the Grandville High School tennis team for the last 17 years. This year, the team won the OK Red Conference and Regional Championships. It is no coincidence that Grandville has some of the best tennis courts of any city its size in Michigan.

A dedicated and visionary leader, Mayor Buck has not only been Grandville's strongest advocate but also an active civic leader on regional and State levels. He is an honorary life member of the Michigan Municipal League (MML), chair of the MML Foundation Board, member of the West Michigan Strategic Alliance and the long-time chairman of the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council.

But more than the list of boards and commissions to his credit, Jim Buck is a man of his community. He works long hours attending events, meeting with residents, visiting schools, and listening to and appreciating the people of Grandville. He has created a standard of community engagement that will be an inspiration to his successors. Indeed, Mayor Buck has made a tremendous contribution to the lives of residents of the City of Grandville now and for generations to come.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated public service of one of the finest locally elected officials in Michigan, Jim Buck. He has dedicated himself to the betterment of his community. On behalf of the people of Michigan, I wish Jim and his wonderful wife, Kathryn (Kitty) Buck the very best for a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

I very much support the nomination of Alan Estevez to be Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

Mr. Estevez is a career civil servant who has served under Presidents of both political parties since 1981, when he started work at the Military Traffic Management Command. Over the last 30 years, Mr. Estevez has developed an expertise in military logistics, eventually rising to become the first career Federal official to hold the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, a position in which he provides civilian oversight for more than $190 billion of DOD logistics operations. He previously played a key role in reengineering Department of Defense transportation processes and in helping to address logistics deficiencies identified during Operation Desert Shield.

Mr. Estevez is the recipient of the 2010 Presidential Rank Distinguished Executive Award and the 2006 Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Award, two Office of the Secretary of Defense medals for Meritorious Civilian Service, and the 2005 Service to America Medal awarded by the Partnership for Public Service.

He is extremely well qualified for this position. I am pleased we have now achieved cloture so his nomination may be voted on at noon.

I don't know of opposition to him and his personal qualifications. I understand the debate over the helicopter issue. He is not the one who ordered nor can he reverse it. That issue is an issue which has been raised by a number of Senators, including the Senator from Texas. Senator Blumenthal has raised it in committee as well.

The letter that went out to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has not yet been answered. However, I have spoken to General Dunford about this matter, and I will have more to say about that when this issue is raised either on the Defense authorization bill or on some other matter.

For the time being, let me say simply that helicopter is a requirement which has been set by our generals, not by our Pentagon people, civilians. It is a top priority that the Afghans be supplied that helicopter because it is the one they have flown. The Army of Afghanistan has used that helicopter. So without getting into the merits of this, because this is left for a later time by the Senator from Texas, I am grateful the debate cannot be connected to the Estevez nomination, where it has no relevance, since he didn't accept the requirement nor can he reverse the decision. It will be set for a later time--hopefully, after the Senators receive the answer to the letter they sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I very strongly support the Estevez nomination and look forward to a confirmation vote, either by voice vote or rollcall vote, as necessary, at noon. I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Menendez, I ask unanimous consent that Christopher Landberg, a detailee from the State Department and the Foreign Relations Committee, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of the nomination of Jacob Lew.

Madam President, over the last few days there has been a lot of talk about negotiating, and there has been a lot of negotiating. That is good. Various Senators in small and large groups have been talking about how long a continuing resolution should be in effect, how much to extend the debt limit, among other issues, and surely it is important that negotiations take place. We Democrats have tried over 20 times now to move to a House-Senate conference so that we can discuss and negotiate our differences on a budget resolution. Regrettably, Republicans have refused to allow those negotiations to occur.

The underlying issue is this: While negotiations are underway, our government should be open and serving the American people. Democrats believe government should be functioning during negotiations. For that matter, we believe, because government performs important duties, it should always be open and functioning. While those negotiations are underway, we surely should not have the threat of a global economic meltdown hanging over our Nation.

The American people don't want the government to be shut down or for the United States to default on its obligations while negotiations take place--or at any other time, for that matter. No one knows how long the negotiations will take. In the meantime there are real hardships being imposed on the American people because of the shutdown. Vital public services are being impaired across all of government: Nutrition assistance for women and children, Head Start programs for school children, research grants at the National Science Foundation, badly needed repairs to our highways and bridges, among hundreds of other programs.

I think all of us agree that negotiations are more than desirable; they are essential. But the issue looming before us is not that. It is whether the government will be open and the threat of default will be lifted while we negotiate. Negotiations could last a while, so they should take place while the government is functioning. It is unconscionable that Americans are denied services and benefits while we negotiate.

It is also unacceptable that negotiations take place when one side has placed a bomb on the negotiating table and set the timer. Let me put it this way: If in the future I came to my Republican colleagues and said: As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am not going to allow the Defense bill to come out of the committee until the Senate raises taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans--something I very much favor--what would be the result? They would reject my ultimatum, and rightly so. Threats to do immense damage unless I get my way on an issue is plainly the wrong way to legislate and to get things done. Such threats just push people to dig in deeper on their positions.

The shutdown of our government is doing tremendous damage. We know the American people have suffered great harm because of the government shutdown, and we know the impact on our economy and the world economy would be severe if we default on our debt. Who in this Congress believes the government should remain closed while we negotiate? Who in this Congress believes the government should remain closed while we negotiate? Who in this Congress believes a default on our obligations is not damaging? Surely no more than a handful among us.

Cutting through all the fog and cutting through the talk of the talking heads is this point, which I believe is unassailable. There are a lot of differences in negotiations. People have different positions on different issues. But I believe this is an unassailable and undebatable point: The vast majority of the American people believe that while negotiations are going on, the government should be functioning and that we should not default on our obligations.

Sitting down together and discussing the many issues that our Nation faces is essential, but it is also essential we do so while the government is open and functioning and serving the American people.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, on November 3, the many friends and admirers of Ortheia Barnes will gather in Detroit to pay tribute to her remarkable life and career. ``Careers'' would actually be more appropriate in Ortheia's case, because this extraordinary lifelong Detroiter has excelled in multiple fields.

Some Detroiters know Ortheia as an entertainer. They have heard her voice accompanying Motown legends and recording stars such as Aretha Franklin, heard her powerful renditions of gospel songs or watched her sing during the annual Thanksgiving parade downtown or they have seen her in stage productions or local television programs.

Other Detroiters know Ortheia from her civic involvement. She is active in a host of charitable endeavors, from the American Cancer Society to Focus: HOPE, to programs that help people recover from addiction.

Some may know Ortheia from her political activism. She has long been active in Michigan elections, from city council to Senate, and she is an energetic advocate for the idea that every American, regardless of race or creed or color, is welcome and needs to be active in the political process.

If you do not know Ortheia as an entertainer or supporter of worthy causes, you know her for her faith. She has ministered around the world, not only sharing her faith but doing the good works that are so fundamental to it.

I am fortunate to know Ortheia for all the gifts she has given our community and in one more way: My wife Barbara and I have known her as a longtime family friend. Her family and ours have been linked through three generations, beginning with Barbara's and Ortheia's mothers. Ortheia herself briefly babysat our kids while she was in high school. We know how proud Ortheia's warm and wise mom Belle was of her daughter back then and of her growing pride as the multigifted adult Ortheia emerged.

When Detroit gathers on November 3 to celebrate Ortheia's birthday, the dress will be sharp, the music will be proud, and the stories will be many. Whether we know Ortheia from the

pulpit or the stage, from campaign strategy sessions or gatherings of family and friends, Detroiters admire her spirit, her energy, her dedication and her talent, and we thank her for all she has done and all she will do for our community and its people.