Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is not often the Senate has a chance to go back and fix a grievous error that occurred in our history, and that error occurred in 1999 when a good and qualified man was defeated in the Senate for a position on the eastern district court of the Federal bench in Missouri.

At that time there was an attack on Ronnie White for being soft on crime. The record, as it stands today, flies in the face of that assertion.

At the time of his defeat, he had voted to uphold the death penalty almost 70 percent of the time. In fact, in his career on the Missouri Supreme Court, being the first African American appointed to the Supreme Court, he voted with the majority on death penalty cases 90 percent of the time.

This is a mainstream jurist. This is not someone who is outside of the mainstream. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed his nomination. That is why he is considered in the State of Missouri as an iconic leader in the legal community. He went back to Missouri, was the chief justice in the Supreme Court after he was defeated on the floor of the Senate, retired from the Supreme Court, and has gone on to be an established and respected lawyer in the St. Louis community-- frankly, part of many big cases, especially the appellate work, because he served on both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

I think Ronnie White handled what happened to him with as much character as could possibly be required of any individual. I look forward to finally righting the wrong and allowing Ronnie White his well-deserved place on the Federal bench.

I ask all my colleagues to support the confirmation of Ronnie White.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate Hugh McVey on his retirement and to thank him for his many years of leadership and service to the field of labor. For over 40 years, Hugh has been a champion of workers' rights and has fought tirelessly to improve the lives of Missouri's workers and their families. It is my pleasure to honor him today.

A native of St. Louis, MO, Hugh comes from a working family of 11 children. His family's strong labor background encouraged him to get involved. His uncle Duke was president of the Missouri AFL-CIO for many years until Hugh succeeded him in 1999. Hugh considered his father and uncle his closest friends and respected their advice and support.

Hugh attended Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. While there, he became involved with the operating engineers and was the group steward and later chief steward for Local 148 out of Collinsville, IL. He then became the business agent and assistant business manager for the same local.

After his time with the operating engineers, McVey worked for Union Electric, now Ameren, for 23 years and joined Operating Engineers Local 1148 in 1974. In 1997, Hugh relocated to Jefferson City, when he was elected executive vice president of the Missouri AFL-CIO. In 1999, he was elected President, and served for 17 years before his retirement this July.

During Hugh's tenure as president of the Missouri AFL-CIO, the organization was instrumental in advocating for the union rights Executive order, the Affordable Care Act, and the ``Made in Missouri'' jobs package. Hugh's effective leadership shaped the Missouri AFL-CIO into the outstanding organization it is today. As president, Hugh continued to attend local meetings and listened to workers' concerns. He effectively recruited candidates for local offices and worked with legislators on pending legislation that would impact the worker. Hugh considers the labor movement his life's work, never a job. Hugh is completely dedicated to ensuring that workers get a fair day's pay and reasonable benefits. His passion to help working families is unparalleled.

Hugh and his wife Peggy have three daughters: Megan, Maureen, and Colleen. I know they will enjoy the opportunity to spend more time with him.

It is my pleasure to honor my friend Hugh McVey today. His dedicated leadership has improved the quality of the workplace for Missourians. He has touched the lives of many, and improved the quality of our community at large.

I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating and honoring Hugh McVey.

Madam President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the life of Sheila Lumpe, who passed away on June 4, 2014. Sheila was a much-loved member of the St. Louis community. Sheila has left a legacy of public service that will always be cherished, and St. Louis will not be the same without her.

Sheila was born in Strinestown, PA and graduated from high school in Indiana where she had moved as a young girl. She attended Indiana University to study political science and met a fellow student, Gus Lumpe. They married and moved to St. Louis in 1965. Sheila served 17 years in the Missouri House representing University City, a suburb of St. Louis. After she retired from the house, the Governor named her the State's chief utilities regulator and she served 6 years on the Public Service Commission. She was a member of the Missouri Humanities Council board of directors and received numerous awards and honors.

With four children enrolled in University City schools, Sheila became involved in the Parent Teacher Association. In 1973, the school board was divided over integration and Sheila's husband Gus encouraged her to run for a seat on the board. Sheila won and spent 8 years on the school board. When her neighbor gave up his house seat to run for Lieutenant Governor, Sheila ran for his seat and won.

I had the distinct honor of serving with Sheila in the Missouri General Assembly, where her tenure was marked by excellence and community involvement and where I learned important lessons about public leadership from her. Sheila became the first woman to lead the powerful House Budget Committee and nearly became the first woman speaker of the House.

Sheila fought tirelessly for women's rights, equal pay and universal health care. She helped Planned Parenthood retain funding while in the legislature. Her legislation to expand health care for children passed the year after she left the legislature. Shelia was a role model to not only female legislators, but all legislators. She was regarded highly by everyone she interacted with, including those with very different views.

Sheila retired from the Public Service Commission and public life in 2003. She devoted herself to taking care of her husband, who passed away in 2009 from Alzheimer's disease. Sheila also passed away from Alzheimer's disease. She is survived by her three sons Abraham, Nathan and Andrew; daughter, Karen, and six grandchildren.

Sheila left an indelible and permanent mark on St. Louis and will be fondly remembered and dearly missed. Sheila's life and commitment to others serves as an inspiration to me and to all Missourians. I have lost a friend and mentor and our State has truly lost a leader and a hero.

I ask that the Senate join me in honoring the life and legacy of Sheila Lumpe.

Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of S. 2450, a bill I have proudly cosponsored that would make critically needed reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs. As we all know, revelations from whistleblowers, reports from the Government Accountability Office, an internal review by the VA, and an interim report from the VA's inspector general, an independent watchdog, have all revealed problems within the VA that have caused the system to fail many of our veterans. This is simply unacceptable.

As the daughter of a World War II veteran, I understand the extraordinary debt we owe to the men and women who have served this Nation in defense of our freedoms. I thank my colleagues, Senator Sanders and Senator McCain, for working to forge a bipartisan bill to address some of the most serious shortcomings in the VA health care system that have been identified in recent weeks. The bill would provide for greater transparency at the VA by requiring an independent assessment of the scheduling system used at every VA medical center, along with the staffing levels and workloads at each facility. It would also task the VA inspector general to identify on an annual basis the health provider occupations with the largest staffing shortages, which will give both the VA and Congress a better understanding of the Department's needs. In order to address what has been identified as a shortage in health care providers within the VA, the bill would expand opportunities for veterans to seek care outside of the VA system, including allowing veterans who qualify to seek care at Department of Defense health facilities. The bill would also empower the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to immediately hold senior VA officials accountable if they have failed to do their jobs.

The credibility of the VA has taken a serious blow, and it will take years for the Department to regain the trust it has lost among veterans and among the American people. My strong support for this legislation is based on my belief that it will make critical and fundamental changes to the VA that will result in significant improvements to the quality of care our veterans receive and their ability to access that care. The VA is facing significant challenges, but with the passage of this legislation the Senate is taking an important step in helping to restore trust in a system that has provided tremendous care for generations of veterans. Our Nation's veterans deserve no less.

Without objection, all time is yielded back.

The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Rosemary Marquez, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona?

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the outstanding work of Concerns for Police Survivors C.O.P.S. for 30 years of dedicated service to the families of America's fallen law enforcement officers.

Suzie Sawyer founded the organization 30 years ago as a small grief support organization. In 1993, the organization relocated to Camdenton, MO, where it has grown to serve over 30,000 surviving law enforcement families from all over the United States. The organization now has 50 national chapters and a multimillion dollar yearly budget that is used to host annual seminars, retreats, and provide resources for the surviving families and coworkers of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

I thank Suzie Sawyer for her dedication to this important cause, and I thank C.O.P.S. for 30 years of providing invaluable support to grieving law enforcement families and coworkers.

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

Mr. President, I very rarely am motivated to come to the floor simultaneously with current events, thinking that it is important to reflect and learn as much as possible about a subject before one begins to orate about it on the Senate floor. I am making an exception, however, because of the extraordinarily heinous acts that have occurred in the country of Nigeria.

I think it takes everyone's breath away in the United States of America that a terrorist organization--Boko Haram--would attack a secondary school in northeastern Nigeria and kidnap 200 girls. Most of these girls are not that much younger than my daughters. These were young women who wanted nothing more than to get an education. We are now told these terrorists have proudly proclaimed they will enslave these young women, they will sell them as slaves. They are proudly taking credit for this despicable and inhumane act.

I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins for organizing a letter to the President to urge him to include Boko Haram in the United Nations Al Qaeda sanctions list. I thank the other Senators who introduced the resolution we passed this afternoon condemning this attack. But we have to do more.

It concerns me, honestly, that this is occurring in a country where the leader not too long ago signed into law a measure that anyone entering into a homosexual relationship can be imprisoned for up to 14 years. In this same country we have a terrorist organization capturing young women and enslaving them for dollars to be child brides, proudly proclaiming that it is a sin for these young women to want to get an education, that this action was necessary to purge them of their sins and marry them off.

I understand it takes all kinds of people to make up this great world. I understand there are all kinds of beliefs. But it is very hard for me to get my arms around the notion that there could be any faith that would believe kidnapping young women by the hundreds and selling them as indentured slaves to men could ever be part of any kind of faith that we should recognize. These are not people of faith; these are heinous criminals. I believe our country should look at them as archenemies of who we are as a nation and what we stand for as a government.

The name of this organization means ``Western education is a sin.'' Respect for young women is not a sin. Wanting an education is not a sin. The opportunity to better oneself is not a sin.

These incredible crimes that have been committed should not go unanswered, and I think it is incumbent on our Nation, with the great resources we have, to make sure we send the appropriate message to the world that this is Al Qaeda and this is our enemy--not just to our values and our way of life but, importantly, an enemy to innocent young women.

I wanted to come to the floor to make this statement because I cannot imagine how the parents of these young girls must be feeling and how helpless the feeling must be. I can only hope and pray that the Government of Nigeria realizes this is a moment of truth for them. Will they stand up to this kind of extremism that is not faith? They do a disservice to their professed faith by these actions. Can this country stand up to them, can we help them stand up to them and, most importantly, can we do anything to save these young women?

When I go to bed tonight I will, in my faith, thank God for my family and my children, and I will also ask for prayers for these young women in hopes they can be rescued, that they can be reunited with their desire to get educated, and that their families will not have to spend days wondering if they will ever see their children again or if their children will even survive.

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

Madam President, every once in a while it is probably healthy for all of us to sit back for a moment and reflect on why we are here. What is the Senate supposed to be about? Why do we come to the Senate? Why did our Founding Fathers lay out a Constitution that had these branches of government?

In the branch of government in which we reside, we are called the legislative branch. So what is that about? I think what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do is to make our laws reflect the values and priorities of the American people.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a simple step toward making our laws reflect two of the most important values we have in the United States of America.

I guarantee you that if you walked up to any of my colleagues who intend to vote against this and said, do you believe in equality and justice, they would say, of course we believe in equality and justice.

Then why would you not support this legislation, because it is just that simple. We are just trying to make the laws of this country reflect the American ideals of equality and justice.

Well, they say, there are laws on the books.

Well, here is the deal. You cannot get justice if you do not have the facts. If the facts are a secret, a protected secret, then justice is always going to be elusive and equality is going to be something to which we give lipservice,

not something we will truly enjoy in this country.

So this is just a step to say to American business: Let's understand why two people doing the same job have two different levels of pay. Explain it to us.

What is so evil about that? What is so evil about expecting a business to be able to explain why a man and a woman with the same experience, the same credentials, and the same work output are paid differently. If there is a good reason, then there is no litigation, there is no rush to the courthouse. But if there is not a good reason, that is where that justice comes in. That is where a woman has an opportunity to go into the hallowed halls of our courts--the envy of the world, I might add--to have a fair shot at justice.

The notion that someone can be fired for trying to get the facts about their own compensation, the notion that retaliation would somehow be embraced by my colleagues who do not intend to vote for this legislation I do not understand. I know they are trying to explain to the American people that this has something to do with us having a love affair with America's trial lawyers. I have never heard more rubbish in my life. It is not the trial lawyers whom we care about. It is the women. It is the single moms.

It is the women who have this sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach that they are getting paid less, that they are helpless because they can't get at the information. When they do, they have the entire burden of proof of showing that somehow they weren't inferior to their male colleagues.

There is absolutely no possible reason that any of us would be trying to help lawyers with this. It is their clients, guys; it is the women of America. It is the women of America who want the laws to reflect our values, equality, and justice. This is a simple step. It is nothing to be afraid of.

Frankly, the only thing anyone who opposes this bill should be afraid of is the wrath of American women across this country who are sick and tired of being told it is none of their business what their colleague is getting paid and: By the way, I don't have to explain to you why you make less even though your work output has been superior to your male colleagues. It is time and it is about our values.

I yield the floor.

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

I wish to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote this afternoon--hopefully this afternoon or, if not this afternoon, tomorrow--for a terrific man to be a judge in the Western District of the Federal District Court in Missouri.

As an old lawyer--too old--I find myself amazed that I have the opportunity to speak to the Senate about someone I have known a long time, about a lawyer I know very well. This is a man whose name is Doug Harpool. He is from Springfield, MO.

Back in the early 1980s he and I arrived as very young lawyers in the Missouri House of Representatives. I had the opportunity to get to know him well--his character, his integrity, his work ethic. I watched him, against tremendous odds and, frankly, some inappropriate pressure, fight for a first major attempt at ethics reform in the Missouri Legislature. His journey was sometimes a very lonely journey, but he had a pit bull kind of mentality about going after this important topic, believing that if a person is in public service, a person's standards must be high; believing that if one chooses--many times at less compensation--a path in the public arena, one has a certain duty to conduct oneself with integrity and the kind of character that could make others proud of their representation.

After his time in the Missouri Legislature, he went on to be a lawyer's lawyer. I don't mean the kind who says ``I am a litigator'' and never goes near a courtroom, and I don't mean the kind who says ``I handle serious cases'' and does nothing but shuffle paper, but, rather, a real litigant--somebody who is in the courtroom, by the way, on both sides of the table. This is somebody who helped clients who were suing people and helped people who were being sued.

He has worked with great regard as a practicing attorney now for many years. There is nothing better than being respected by one's peers, especially those whom one has battled because when we battle with someone, we see it all. We see what kind of a person we are up against and what tactics the other person is willing to use. We see a person's raw intellect and their ability to think on their feet. So when I started hearing from so many lawyers who were Doug Harpool's colleagues what a terrific choice he would be, I knew that what I believed about him was shared by so many others.

He will never be a judge who gets ``robitis.'' That is a serious disease which sometimes strikes Federal judges more often than other kinds because they are appointed for life. Practicing lawyers talk about judges who have robitis, which is a malaise that comes upon a judge who all of a sudden removes himself from the common people and that somehow makes him or her above the struggles lawyers are having, makes them above the problems clients are presenting in their courtroom. This is a grounded man. This is a man who will understand what it is like to litigate a case, why his judgments must be fair and also speedy, why he owes it to the litigants to actually read their briefs--not assign it to someone else, to thumb through and then make a decision based on a predetermined notion he might have.

This is someone who will take this work with the degree of seriousness it deserves and with the amount of compassion we all should demand.

I am so proud to be here urging his confirmation. I am confident he will be confirmed by a wide margin. But I am even more confident he will be the kind of Federal judge who will make me proud and all of Missouri proud for as long as he chooses to sit on the bench.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin.

Madam President, I rise, together with my colleagues Senator Graham and Senator Ayotte, and ask that the Chair advise when we have used 20 minutes of time. We are going to engage in a colloquy about this important decision that is in front of the Senate.

It is, in fact, with great humility that I come to this policy debate. I don't think anyone in the Senate has spent more time in a courtroom putting perpetrators in prison who have committed sexual crimes. I don't think anybody has spent more time with victims of sexual assault. There is an incredible amount of pressure that you feel when you walk into a courtroom knowing that victim has placed trust in you to bring the evidence forward, and I am forever marked by that experience. It is with that experience that I have become convinced that the policy changes that are being advocated will not work for victims.

In fact, it is clear that when these changes have been enacted other places, reporting has not increased. It is clear that right now we have more cases going to court-martial over the objections of prosecutors than the objections of commanders. Today there is a court-martial ongoing where a prosecutor walked away from the serious charges and the commander said go forward. There have been almost 100 cases over the last 2 years where prosecutors said this case is too tough and the commanders have said, no, we have to get to the bottom of it. We can't let the commanders walk away. We cannot let the commanders walk away.

There is nothing in the Gillibrand proposal that provides additional protection from retaliation.

I ask Senator Graham: If someone walks back into their unit after being victimized and the unit knows the commander has said this case is going forward, how would that contrast to walking back into his or her unit when the unit knows some lawyer in Fort Belvoir--hundreds of miles away--has said whether this case should go forward? I am trying to figure out how removing the commander provides any additional protection from retaliation to that victim.

I would say to Senator Ayotte, I am also struggling with some of the practical problems in this policy, and one of the things I can't figure out is why the amendment limits the ability to add any additional resources. It strictly prohibits the military from bringing additional resources to bear on this problem, which is counterintuitive to me. If the goal here is to do our very best job to protect victims, and the practical problem is we do not have enough of the level of JAG officers right now to set up these offices on a global basis, which means things are going to slow down because we don't have enough--I know the Senator from New Hampshire has been a prosecutor. Certainly there is nothing harder for a victim than justice delayed.

So in addition to it not increasing reporting, in addition to it not protecting from retaliation, in addition to removing commanders from their accountability, we also have some real practical implications.

We have hard data on that. In fact, I think that is one of the reasons, if we look at this quote:

I went into this thinking Senator Gillibrand's legislation

made sense, but when you hear the facts, it doesn't hold up.

That is an important quote, but even more important when we realize who said it. This is the woman who runs the National Center for Victims of Crime for our entire Nation. She heard 150 witnesses, representing many of the groups that have been referenced in this debate. She realized that when they looked at the data, our allies have done this, and not in one nation, after years of experience with changing the system, has the reporting increased.

The way we increase reporting is to give the victim a safe harbor, which we have done, to report outside the chain of command, and to have their own lawyer, and to make sure they have power and deference in the process, which we have done, along with the reforms, on which I am very proud to have worked with Senator Gillibrand.

I have great respect for the Senator's time and for working in the trenches as a military prosecutor in the JAG corps. I will tell my colleagues honestly, I am less concerned about the commanders than I am the victims. The Senator and I maybe don't see it exactly the same way in that regard. I believe there are commanders who deserve to be held accountable for their failure to act, for their want to sweep this crime under the rug throughout history, but I think we are handing the broom to the prosecutors at this point based on the data we have.

One of the things I wanted to go over and mention to Senator Ayotte is the systems response panel. I think it is important to understand-- the DACOWITS panel was mentioned. I want everybody to understand the difference between the DACOWITS panel and the systems response panel. The DACOWITS panel has been in place for years, and they took up this matter and heard no witnesses from the JAG corps. In fact, I think they heard two witnesses or three witnesses and two of them were me and Kirsten Gillibrand. They took no time to really go deeply into this very complex subject.

The systems response panel was created by Congress, and it was for the purpose of giving us their clear eye of

advice on the best way to deal with this problem in the military.

This is a majority of civilians and a majority of women who made up this panel. They heard 150 witnesses over months. They heard from all of the people who are advocating for the Gillibrand proposal. They heard from the JAGs. They heard from victim organizations. They came out overwhelmingly rejecting this proposal.

One of the most interesting members--and I will be honest; when I went to testify in front of this response panel, I was very worried that Elizabeth Holtzman maybe would not agree with me. She has a long history in Congress. She wrote the Federal rape shield statute. I assumed she would begin this process assuming that in the simple equation of victims versus commanders, I take victims. If only it were that simple. What the response panel figured out is that it is not that simple.

Judge Holtzman, the judge who wrote the decision overturning DOMA, said:

Just turning it over to prosecutors doesn't mean you are

going to get the results you are looking for.

And Elizabeth--this is what Elizabeth Holtzman said: ``Just turning it over to prosecutors doesn't mean you are going to get the results you are looking for.'' That is what Holtzman said.

Judge Jones: ``There is no evidence that removing the convening authority is going to improve any of the parts of the system.''

That is startling, this response, from a panel that looked at it over months, 150 witnesses, majority civilians, majority women. This is not a bumper sticker. It is not as simple as it sounds. I would never oppose anything that I thought was going to help victims or put more perpetrators in prison--ever. This will have the opposite impact that many of the advocates are indicating that it will.

Isn't it true that, in fact, our reporting is up?

One minute.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte.

Madam President, I will take a couple of moments at the close of this very difficult debate to express my deep respect to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand.

While many aspects of this debate have been hard, perhaps the hardest part of this debate has been that this disagreement on policy has overshadowed the amazing work so many have done this year to enact a different day in the U.S. military when it comes to sexual assault and victims of sexual assault.

When the Sun sets today, this body will have passed 35 major reforms in less than 1 year, making the military the most friendly victims organization in the world, giving victims more power, more leverage, holding commanders accountable, and holding perpetrators accountable. It will eliminate the ridiculous notion that how well one flies a plane should have anything to do with whether they committed a crime, professionalizing the process so that victims no longer endure a ridiculous amount of inappropriate questioning at what should be something like a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause, as opposed to some kind of rendering of questioning, torture to a victim who has come out of the shadows and is willing to go forward.

I know I can speak with confidence for Senator Gillibrand that she and I have walked lockstep on those 35 reforms. We have disagreed on one. I know in the future she and I will work very hard together to make sure our military does the right thing by victims and puts perpetrators where they belong--in prison--and out of the ranks of the military where they stain the good name of the bravest men and women in the world.

I thank all of my colleagues for their patience during this debate. I know this has been tough for everyone. But I stand with years of experience, holding the hands and crying with victims, with many victims, who have spoken to me and other organizations, knowing that what we have done is right for victims and right to hold perpetrators accountable.

I respectfully request that people support our amendment today and reject the one area of policy on which the great Senator from New York and I disagree.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the work of Gerard Grimaldi. Gerard has a long history of public service in Kansas City, stretching back to his time serving as an aide to Senator Tom Eagleton and later as an aide to Congressman Alan Wheat. More recently, since 2001, Gerard has ably served as vice president of health policy and government relations for Truman Medical Centers. Everyone who knows Gerard respects him, and everyone who gets to work with him considers themselves lucky.

A few years ago, I asked Gerard to serve as my nominee on a volunteer community advisory panel for the Bannister Complex in Kansas City, MO. This opportunity required a significant time commitment from Gerard-- time he would normally spend with his beautiful wife and four lovely children--to serve on a panel which offered Gerard no personal or professional benefit. Not only that, but this panel was created to help facilitate constructive community dialogue around some sensitive issues in a very heated environment. But, true to his background as a public servant, Gerard didn't hesitate when I asked him to volunteer.

Gerard not only served on the community advisory panel for over 3 years, but he also was the chair of the panel, heading a diverse group of community leaders. This panel worked diligently to facilitate constructive community input and to help ensure transparency by government agencies involved in the Bannister Complex environmental cleanup and redeployment efforts. The work Gerard and the panel did was successful and has now come to an end.

In the course of my adult life, I have been fortunate to meet many outstanding public servants--men and women who exemplify leadership and a genuine desire to contribute to the greater good. Of those public servants, Gerard is one of the best. I am proud that he is a Missourian, and I am honored to be able to recognize him here today.

I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating and honoring Gerard Grimaldi for his exemplary public service to Kansas City and the great State of Missouri.

Madam President, as we come to the end of 2013, I wish to pay tribute to a friend and a stellar long-term staff member of mine, Nichole Distefano. Nichole left my office earlier this year to pursue an exceptional opportunity with the Environmental Protection Agency. She spent more than 6 years as an indispensable member of my Washington, DC, staff and was an exceptional member of staffs of mine going back to 2004.

Nichole is affectionately known as ``H'' in our office, initially because of the ``h'' in her first name and later for reasons best not shared on the Senate floor but related to her tenacity and direct nature. Nichole was the absolute rock and foundation of our legislative staff during her tenure.

She was, in fact, the first legislative aide that I hired. It did not matter--although was a shock to some--that she had no previous experience in DC. I knew she would dive right into her responsibilities with attention to detail and skill. In fact, within 2 years on the staff, she assumed responsibility for my government reform portfolio, which encompassed the issues that I focused on most intently during my first 6 years in the Senate. During that time we promoted her four times and continually increased her responsibility. In each case, she performed beyond even my highest expectations. There was no challenge and no issue Nichole could not tackle.

Nichole's policy accomplishments are too many to number. She was our lead staffer on earmark reform work; whistleblower legislation for both Federal employees and contractors; our complex regulatory reform efforts; everything and anything that had to do with empowering our inspectors general. She led all the office work on screening policies at the airports along with handling innumerable challenging situations with the GSA in regards to Missouri and was the lead staffer in writing bills to curb some of the excesses that we discovered in that Agency. She also patiently waded through all of the difficult policy and politics of energy issues, including the challenging and politically sensitive debate on cap and trade. There was no detail too small for Nichole to master and no nuance she could not grasp. One of her earliest policy responsibilities had to do with an energy issue much smaller than cap and trade, however. She prepared legislation dealing with the measurement of gasoline as it relates to temperature--hot gas was not the most exciting issue. It involved no bright lights and no headlines, just hard, complicated, solid, public policy work--the exact kind of thing Nichole thrived at. Those issues that take more than a cut-and-paste memo were Nichole's specialty.

I have known Nichole since she was 8 years old, as the granddaughter of a strong public servant, Carole Roper Park Vaughn, who served with me in the Missouri State Legislature. As Nichole ran around Carole's Jefferson City office, Carole helped instill in her that leadership spark. In 2004, when I ran for Governor, I hired Nichole for the first time to help run our Kansas City volunteer crew. By the end, most people on staff thought she was the one really running our KC office-- and for all intent and purposes, she was.

By our 2006 Senate race, she became my rural outreach director, helping us

find some of the gems of our campaign, like Sweet Corn Charlie. On both campaigns she was always willing to do whatever was needed at any level from literally boosting me up onto an RV so we could grab a picture of our ``McCaskill for Senate''-wrapped RV in front of my family's old flour mill in Houston, MO, to walking into a field office unannounced one day and saying she was there to go door-to-door, despite her senior role on the campaign.

She is a take-charge kind of woman but taking charge by immersing herself in a subject. That became her trademark. We all grew to expect her remarkable technical competence on very complicated issues and her penchant for digging deeper to find the real answer. Of course, at times, she let her desire to dig deep bleed into her personal life, too. Just ask her new husband Ryan what her first two responses to his marriage proposal were: ``Are you serious?''

Because of this knack for asking the right questions and learning the detailed answers, I always listened to what she had to say--I did not always agree, of course, but listened nonetheless. As one of her male colleagues said, ``She looks tiny and sweet, but everyone is a little terrified of her because she's tougher and smarter than most everyone out there.'' And have no doubt, when Nichole believes something, she will let you know, and she will fight for it. I cherish this attribute because in this kind of job you need people who aren't just smart, aren't just aggressive, but who are real and honest.

Now no one stays terrified of Nichole for too long because they figure out how genuine she is, and funny too. The gifted members of our staffs are both intense and blessed with great humor.

Our legislative correspondents have been lucky to have her as a mentor, as well--someone who expects a high level of performance, gives praise when it is due, and encourages professional development. It is no accident that one of the first LC's to work for her grew into one of my staff's most important legislative assistants today.

It is always bittersweet for me when these kinds of junctures happen--these times when you want your staff to blast forward and make you proud as much as you want them to stay--because they have been so essential to your work.

With Nichole now working as a senior advisor within the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at the EPA, she is providing the kind of public service that embraces intellect, curiosity, and precision. It is why they brought her on, of course. They quickly saw what we already knew. They are benefiting greatly from her deep vein of common sense and her refusal to stop working until she has asked every question and gotten every answer.

I am proud to say thank you to Nichole Distefano as 2013 comes to an end, to express my deep gratitude for all she has done for me, for Missouri, and for our great Nation over so many years. I am proud to see her continue to grow and excel. I know she is doing exceptional things in her new position. She is my friend. She is a rock. And I miss her.

Madam President, I ask that the Senate join me in honoring the life of Albert Henry Haas. Albert was killed November 29 in a mortar attack at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, where he was serving as a civilian aircraft mechanic.

Albert had a long career in service to our country, dating back to his service in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war and continuing in the Army Reserves during the conflict in Bosnia. Following 30 years of military service, Albert retired and began a 30-year career in aircraft maintenance for companies such as TWA and American Airlines.

Albert had a passion for life that he shared with those around him. He especially enjoyed spending time with his grandchildren and learning about different cultures. He was fascinated with and very knowledgeable about all mechanical things that move like trains, helicopters, and planes. Those around him will remember him as a comical person who was able to make all around him feel comfortable and welcomed.

As the daughter of a caring, loving father who always told me I could achieve anything, and that there were no jobs too tough for me, I was especially happy to hear about Albert's advice for his two daughters. He instilled in them from an early age that they could do anything they put their mind to, without regard to their gender. This resulted in them helping rewire the entire house and working on roof repairs with Albert. Just as I am thankful on a daily basis for the lessons my father taught me, I know Albert's children are thankful for the memories and teachings of their father.

On behalf of the Senate, I wish to offer my condolences to Albert's wife of 41 years, Bay Thi, their three adult children, Thao Haas of Texas, Tina V. Smith of Belleville, IL, and Lisa R. Carnahan of St. Louis, MO, and his eight grandchildren. Albert's life was an example to those around him and I hope his family can take comfort in the memories they shared with him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any time spent on quorum calls during this debate on the sexual assault issue be equally divided between Senator Gillibrand on one side and Senator Ayotte and Senator McCaskill on the other side.

I yield 5 minutes of the time of Senator Ayotte to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Blunt for his comments and appreciate his hard work on the Armed Services Committee as we tackle an issue that all of us have an emotional commitment to for all the right reasons.

I thank Senator Gillibrand. We both want fundamental reform. We are both working as hard as we know how to get it. We have a fundamental disagreement on how best to obtain that goal, and I would like to go through some of that disagreement for the next few minutes.

The 26 historic reforms that are in the bill are going to make our military the most victim-friendly criminal justice system in the world. In no other system does a victim get their own lawyer. In no other system will they have the protection, empowerment, and the deference we are creating for them in this bill.

In my years of experience in handling these cases--hundreds of them with victims--I would have given anything if that victim had had the confidence of independent advice. I think it would have made a tremendous difference in the staggering number of victims who refused to go forward.

This is the most personally painful moment of anyone's life. Make no mistake about it, no matter what we do in this Chamber and no matter what this bill accomplishes, we will never be able to get every victim to come forward because of the nature of this horrific crime, but we have to do better.

Like Senator Gillibrand, I have talked to dozens and dozens and dozens of victims. I have talked to and spent hundreds of hours with prosecutors--military prosecutors, women and men, veterans, commanders, active and retired--and just as there is not agreement among all the women in this Chamber, there is not agreement among all the victims, there is not agreement among all the veterans, there is not agreement even among all the commanders, although most women commanders have acknowledged that even though this sounds seductively simple, it is much more complicated, and we will be creating more problems than we will be solving if we make the change as advocated by Senator Gillibrand.

Let's get at what we are trying to do. We have no disagreement that there are too many of these crimes and that they are not reported enough--complete agreement. The goal here is how do we get more reporting. There is a theory that if we do this--if we take this decision away from any command at all to go forward, that that will magically have victims come forward.

Senator Gillibrand talked about our allies. I am grateful we have their experience because we can look and see what happened. Our allies have done this, and not in one instance has reporting gone up. We know this is not the silver bullet because if it were, we would have seen an increase in reporting in all the countries that have adopted this system.

The response systems panel was put in place by the Armed Services Committee to recommend to the Pentagon changes in this area. We know they have formally acknowledged that our allies--many of whom did this to protect defendants' rights--have not seen an increase in reporting.

If the theory is that reporting can only go up if we do this, then why are we seeing a spike in reporting right now? There is a 46-percent increase of reporting this year over last year. That is because some of the military are already putting in the reforms we are codifying in the underlying bill. They are giving victims their own lawyers. They are ramping up the protection, information, and deference they give victims. That is the single most important factor, based on all of my experience, that will dictate whether a victim has the courage to come out of the shadows, and finally that somehow doing this will stop retaliation. That unit is still going to know that that crime was reported.

Keep in mind that currently, and under our reforms, the victim does not have to report to the chain of command. Right now the victim does not have to report to the chain of command. Many of my colleagues didn't realize that a victim has many places they can report this crime. Under our reforms, they will immediately get a lawyer and have that level of protection immediately. They will also have the information that they don't have to report to the chain of command.

I am trying to understand how reporting, investigating, and deciding half a continent away--a group of lawyers making that decision--stops retaliation. How does that keep the people in your unit from acting inappropriately toward you because you have reported a crime? There is nothing magical about that. In most instances the word will get out.

Let's use our common sense. Say you are back in your unit after having been assaulted. Which way are you going to have more protection? Will you have more protection if a group of colonels a half continent away is looking at the facts of the case or if your commander has signed off? Of course, if your commander has signed off, because that sends a message to the unit: We are getting to the bottom of this.

Probably the most telling fact about this debate is: Is this happening now? Because at this time outside investigators investigate these cases, and outside JAGs make recommendations. We have that in our system now. So the question is: If these outside lawyers are recommending that we go forward based on their independent investigation, are commanders shutting them down? Are commanders saying: We will not go forward? No one can find me a case where that happened and the prosecutors said: We need to go and the commanders said no.

On the other hand, over the last 2 years, there have been 93 separate times the outside lawyer said: You know, this case is too weak, this case doesn't have enough facts--93 times. You know what happened in every one of those cases? The commander said: We are going to get to the bottom of it. So almost 100 victims over the last 2 years would not have had their day in court under Senator Gillibrand's proposal.

In Senator Gillibrand's proposal, when the lawyer says no, it is over, whereas, in our proposal, if this were to ever happen, even though we know this is not a problem now, we have review after review after review. No one is going to be able to turn a victim away from her day of justice without accountability, checks and balances, and oversight. There will be a difference in that unit because now retaliation is a crime and the commander is going to be evaluated on how they are handling this issue within their command.

There are also practical problems--and some of my colleagues will come to the floor today and talk about this. There are a number of implementation issues that I don't think have been thought through, and this is the real world here. We are talking about appeals and challenges. We are talking about not even having enough colonels right now to staff this. We are talking about risking the ability to get a speedy trial. We are talking about eliminating the ability to plea bargain.

Let me tell the Presiding Officer, having handled these cases, I think people sometimes make the assumption that a plea bargain is about copping out, it is about not protecting the victim. Talk about stories of victims, I can tell story after story of real people whom I dealt with who came forward and said: Yes, I think I can do this.

I will never forget this one woman who came to me and said: My mental health counselor said that testifying in court will set me back so far I can't do it, but can you get something on him? In those instances, do you think that defense lawyer is going to plead to a sexual offense or even a serious offense? But many times we were able to get something on him so the next time, if it happened, we at least had a better shot. Many times plea bargains are dictated by victims. Military prosecutors are telling me this, that it will really limit their ability and create serious due process concern.

In her proposal, this outside lawyer picks everybody--picks the defense lawyer, picks the jury, and picks the prosecutor. How is that going to stand up to a due process claim? It is not clear who picks the judge. That is left silent. I don't know who picks the judge. It is not clear. That is another question: Who is going to decide who is going to actually pick the judge?

It eliminates the option of nonjudicial punishment. Take the case of the Air Force airman who was just recently tried in civilian courts. He was initially charged with a sexual offense. It was reduced to a simple assault. If that had been within the military, they couldn't have done that because it wasn't a serious offense so it goes back over to the convening authority within the command and then that soldier knows they are not going to do a trial--they can't--and all he has to do is turn down nonjudicial punishment.

Some of these difficulties will be explored in more detail, as I say, throughout the day.

Here is the one I don't understand. If a person believes deeply in the policy he or she is advocating, why in the world would that person then proactively limit the ability to resource it? In the language of the Gillibrand amendment, it actually says there shall be no funds authorized for this, no personnel billets authorized for this. The military has estimated over $100 million a year just in personnel costs because they have to create a completely different system outside the system they currently have, which will still be operative for some offenses that are related to the military and that are low-level offenses. But we have to have a whole new system for arson, robbery, theft, murder, and for sexual assault. Yet she proactively in her amendment says we can't resource it. That is truly one that makes me scratch my head.

There are a lot of problems surrounding this amendment, but let me emphasize our goals are the same and our motives are pure. We believe-- and we believe this is borne out by the data--we will have more prosecutions because it will be very easy for lawyers who are a long way away--overworked, underresourced--to say: This is a consent case. It is a little messy. Everybody was drunk. Let that one go, and then it is over.

Let me briefly talk about what we have in our amendment because it is also very important, once again empowering victims further. In our amendment we are going to allow victims to formally weigh in, whether they would prefer, if there is concurrent jurisdiction, for the civilian authorities to handle the case in addition or whether they would rather the military authorities handle the case. It strengthens the role of the prosecutor because it provides another layer of review over the prosecutor's decisions. It increases the accountability of commanders making this evaluation on their forms and adding that other layer of review. It eliminates the good soldier defense. It is irrelevant whether someone is a good pilot if they have sodomized or raped someone in the military, and our amendment will make it irrelevant and inadmissible.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the time. I know we have others who want to visit on this, and I will be happy to be back later in the day to talk specifically about some of the other issues in this bill.

I do not see anyone else here right now, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I want to make sure I understand something about nontraditional punishment. Since the Senator is discussing the barracks thief in Afghanistan and the notion that everything is going to stop and this case is going to be sent off to a lawyer half a continent away to make a decision, let's assume the lawyer--the colonel in Washington--decides there is insufficient evidence for that barracks thief. That might be 4 months later. Meanwhile, the barracks thief is still there. And let's assume it then comes back. It is my understanding--and I think there is some confusion about this by the people who are advocating this amendment--that you cannot exercise nonjudicial punishment on a soldier if he chooses a court-martial proceeding. Is that correct?

So that commander who has to now send----

That case to Washington--that soldier is not going to agree to nonjudicial punishment. He is going to say: I will take my chances with the lawyers in Washington. And if the lawyers in Washington say no, then that commander's hands are completely tied to even putting him in the brig for 30 days.

Mr. President, I too thank my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins for making an effort today to highlight the work that has been done on this important issue. I would be less than candid if I did not say it has been frustrating to have one policy difference dominate the discussion of this issue over the previous few weeks, without anyone even realizing the historic reforms that are contained in this bill. So I welcome the opportunity to come with my colleagues who may disagree on one policy issue but do not disagree on the goal and are taking a moment to recognize the work that has been put into this bill by not just the women of the Armed Services Committee but also the men of the Armed Services Committee.

After the hearings--and some of us have spent literally hundreds of hours pouring over trial transcripts, spending time visiting with prosecutors--I think we have fashioned historic and amazing changes that are going to forever change the successful prosecution of rapists in our military and go further to protect victims.

I come to this issue with a great deal of experience. I think it is not hyperbole or overstating it that I have stood in the courtroom prosecuting sexual predators more than any Member of the Senate. I have handled hundreds and hundreds of cases and dozens and dozens of jury trials. No one in this Chamber has intersected with victims of sexual assault more than I have. I do not think anyone has more of an understanding of the particularly complicated problems that these cases present, especially when there is a ``consent'' defense.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of these cases in the military are consent offenses. You have two options in a sexual assault case. One is ``it wasn't me,'' and the other is ``it was consensual activity.'' It does not take someone much to understand the principle that in this instance most of these cases are going to be consent defenses.

Why do I emphasize that? I emphasize it because it is relevant. It is particularly relevant to the reforms that we embrace in the underlying bill. The time period in which a victim decides she is going to come forward out of the shadows and hold her perpetrator accountable is invariably very close in time to the time of report. It is how she is treated at that juncture more than anything else, more than whether she has been victimized in the military or whether she has been victimized on the streets of your hometown--she is coming forward with the most personally painful moment of her life. Keep in mind if you are coming forward with the most personally painful moment of your life how complicated that gets if you know the defense is going to be that you wanted it, that it is consensual, and then it is even more difficult.

That is why the vast majority of these crimes in our country are never reported, ever. It doesn't matter whether we are talking military or civilian. So how can we, at that critical

moment, make sure that victim gets the help and support she or he needs to do the unthinkable, and that is to lay herself or himself bare to the public about what has happened. The way you do that is through the reforms my colleague Senator Murray stressed and that we have incorporated in this bill, and that is that every single victim gets their own lawyer.

I don't think many Members understand how extraordinary that is. That reform alone will make our military the most victim-friendly criminal justice system in the world. In no other criminal justice system anywhere--civilian, military, United States, our allies--does a victim get that kind of support. That is what is underlying in these reforms. We already know it works because it has been a pilot program in the Air Force. Unlike those who say reporting will never go up unless we make another policy change, reporting is spiking in our military, up 50 percent just this year. That is because the victims are getting the word, not only do you not have to report to the chain of command, you are going to begin to get the resources and help and knowledge you need to navigate the choppiest waters, emotionally and personally, you will ever encounter.

Not only have we done that in the underlying bill, we also have done other work such as stripping commanders of their ability to abuse this system by changing the outcome of a trial--very important.

Making the crime of retaliation a reality in the military--it should be actionable in a criminal court within the military if you retaliate against a victim who reports. Now not only will the victim know that retaliation is a crime, not only will the unit know retaliation is a crime, the victim has her own lawyer who can help press those charges if that occurs.

Think of the practical consequences of this reform. You go back into your unit, you are retaliated against, you call your lawyer: You will not believe what they did to me today. Your lawyer helps you bring charges against those who might retaliate.

It requires automatic discharge from the military for rape or assault convictions.

There will be other opportunities to debate the policy difference we have about how these cases are handled in the military, but I cannot say how grateful I am to the dean and to Senator Collins for doing this today. It is very important that we not lose sight that this is not about a bumper sticker. It is not about one side versus the other. This is about doing the very best job we can on the policy so we can protect victims, prosecute offenders, and get them the hell out of our military. That is what this is about, and with every fiber of my being I believe we are going to accomplish that with the reforms we are embracing.

I will come back to the floor to talk more about the amendment I will be offering on the floor to go even further with some of these reforms that we think are necessary.

I am so grateful that my colleagues have taken a moment to recognize the obvious; that what we have done is historic; that what we have done we do in agreement; and what we have done is going to make a difference.