Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Reed-Heller bill, which would extend unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans--very critical--for 3 months, because it is the right thing to do for these workers, and it is the smart thing to do for our economy.

Unemployment insurance has been around since the 1930s, and it has historically received bipartisan support. Indeed, I am pleased that Senator Heller has joined me. So this is a bipartisan bill, also. This is something we have to deal with today. It is a huge crisis. As I said, 1.3 million Americans have lost their benefits as of December 28. But we can expect through this next year approximately 3 million more to exhaust their State benefits--typically 26 weeks--and not have this Federal long-term benefit available to them.

This has always received support on a bipartisan basis because it is not a red State and blue State issue. It is something which impacts this entire country. It impacts people who work. You cannot get this program unless you have a job and, through no fault of your own, you have lost that job. In this economy, people who lose jobs are competing with many others for very few jobs.

These 1.3 million Americans were pushed off an economic cliff just 9 days ago. This vital lifeline would help them cope. They were not let go from their jobs because of something they did. It was through no fault of their own, and they are searching for work in an economy which has nearly three job seekers for every one job opening.

Illustrative of this is a front-page story in the Washington Post today. In Maryland, they are opening up a new dairy operation, and what this story speaks to is something that is happening across this country in so many places:

When the Good Humor ice cream plant closed here two summers

ago, more than 400 jobs and a stable, punch-the-clock way of

life melted away, another in a string of plant closings that

have battered this once-proud manufacturing town.

I would add parenthetically that in Connecticut, Rhode Island, west coast, east coast, north and south, we have seen this happen. Manufacturing plants close, move overseas, and shut down entirely.

The hulking plant sat vacant until a co-op of Virginia

dairy farmers purchased it in summer 2013 to process milk and

ice cream, though on a far smaller scale than the 60,000

cases of ice cream that global food giant Unilever churned

out every day.

Randy Inman, the board president for Shenandoah Family

Farms, said he expected the plant's revival to trigger plenty

of interest in its three dozen or so initial jobs. What he

did not expect: 1,600 applicants and counting--a deluge.

That is what this economy is about. Skilled people lose jobs through plant closures, many of them working for decades, and suddenly they see a possibility. But it is not one job for one applicant. It is 1,600 applicants for about 36 jobs. They are trying--they are trying awfully hard. But unless we pass this legislation this evening and begin the process, we are not trying.

On the economic side of the ledger, moving away from the human dynamic, the nonpartisan Congressional

Budget Office estimates that failure to renew unemployment insurance will cost the economy 200,000 jobs and sap 0.2 percent of economic growth by the end of the year. Why? Because these payments go to people who are really desperate. They need this extra cash. It is about $300, maybe $350 a week. They need it to pay rent, to buy groceries, to keep the boiler running in subzero temperatures, to keep their families together as they look for work. By the way, in order to collect, you have to keep looking for work.

So this program is not just fair to people who have worked hard. It is smart for our economy. This is one of the best fiscal tools we have available to ensure that we are creating demand, creating additional jobs. As I indicated, if we do not pass this, if these benefits lapse and go away, 200,000 jobs will be lost--at a time when every Member of this body would say one of the most important jobs is to create more jobs in America. We can do that, but we have to start today on this procedural vote.

Our bill is designed to help families who have weathered the toughest part of the great recession--2008, 2009, 2010--and many were laid off about 1 year ago. The maximum extended unemployment benefits is 72 weeks, which includes, in most cases, 26 weeks of State benefits. So they got through the hardest part of this recession, which suggests to me these are good workers. These are people who were struggling and working when unemployment was much higher, and now they need help. I believe we have to give them that help.

We should be working together to create an expanded economy so the jobs are there, so that when there is a new plant opening it is not just 36 jobs and 1,600 applicants, so it is a lot more jobs. In fact, we would like to see it the other way. We would like to see 1,600 jobs and 1,600 applicants. We have to do that.

I have heard from a lot of my colleagues who said they cannot do this because they need an offset.

This has traditionally been emergency spending. It is emergency spending up until December 28 because we extended it last year on an emergency basis, probably creating on the order of 200,000 jobs--just as we will lose 200,000 jobs if we do not extend it--and helping our economy overall. We have to do this.

We have tailored this--Senator Heller and I--so that it is just 3 months, so it provides immediate assistance to unemployed workers. It is retroactive, so we will pick up the people who lost their benefits on December 28. But it also gives the Senate, the appropriate committees, and the House the ability to think through this program in an orderly way, to make changes if necessary, and to look for appropriate offsets if it is deemed that those offsets are necessary. But it will in these 3 months ensure that people have something to help them get by while we do our job.

By my count, colleagues have voted to move forward on these non- offset emergency benefits more than 10 times since 2008. More than ten times we have taken up this unemployment insurance program and we have passed it on an emergency basis without offsets, so this is not a new, novel approach. In fact, what is somewhat new is actually providing offsets for this emergency spending.

I wouldn't hesitate to say I venture that if we brought up a bill that had huge tax cuts, particularly for the wealthiest corporations and individuals, there would be very little discussion on the other side that it should be offset, but when we are talking about a program that helps working people, we have to have offsets? Traditionally, we have not done it, and we can have that conversation, but in order to have it appropriately and help these people, we have to move this legislation forward to give us the time to work constructively, collaboratively, and thoughtfully on the program and also on possible offsets.

We should not be filibustering this measure. We should be passing it and then working collegially and cooperatively to improve the program if we can and, if we deem it appropriate, to pay for the program.

I have heard some of my colleagues say we need offsets. They are very vague about what types of offsets. There are some suggestions about Medicare, Social Security, or discretionary spending. I do not think Americans, our constituents, would want to see those types of cuts. I think they are relieved, in fact, that through the good work of Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan, we have a budget for 2 years and we are doing appropriations bills and we are beginning to provide certainty and support for the economy.

I do sense, though, that my constituents know there are many people out there who are struggling to find a job, who want to work and need a little help just to get by. That is what we would be doing if we pass these measures this afternoon or begin the process of passing them this afternoon.

Again, I think if we are going to seriously talk about offsets or programmatic changes or responding to different dynamics in the economy, it should not be done here on the floor with dueling amendments or dueling proposals, it should be done through regular order in the committee.

I offered a 1-year extension that was not offset, and my Republican colleagues objected, and I completely understand the privilege of doing that and the right to do that. One of the arguments was that it should go through committee. This 3-month bill does both. It helps people immediately, and it gives us the time to do our job.

A few weeks ago I also came to the floor to address an argument that has been percolating throughout this discussion that somehow this whole unemployment insurance program is just being abused, that beneficiaries would rather collect than work. The reality is that I think $300 a week or $350 a week is not something for which people would give up good jobs or allow themselves to be displaced from those jobs just to collect the benefit. I believe Americans really want to work and they want to get back to work as quickly as they can. They want to do the work for which they have been trained. They want to do the work in which some of them have spent decades investing not just their time but their whole selves.

One of the interesting things about work is that it is not only a form of economic remuneration, it is a way we define ourselves. Within a few minutes of meeting any stranger, I bet one question pops up: What do you do for a living? It is awfully difficult today for millions of Americans to say: I am just looking desperately for a job. But millions are.

I discussed earlier that there is academic research out there that has been bandied about suggesting that, no, this is a ruse, an abuse. But research actually supports the notion that individuals would rather work than collect unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance benefits, as I have indicated, are a fraction of what an individual would earn in the job he had previously. These are benefits that keep people whole while they are searching for work.

There was a very eloquent editorial by Charles Blow in the New York Times that addressed some of these issues. I think his words are very thoughtful because they strike the right tone. He wrote:

Whereas I am sure that some people will abuse any form of

help, I'm by no means convinced that this is the exclusive

domain of the poor and put-upon. Businesses and the wealthy

regularly take advantage of subsidies and tax loopholes

without blinking an eye. But somehow, when some poor people,

or those who unexpectedly fall on hard times, take advantage

of benefits for which they are eligible, it's an indictment

of the morality and character of the poor as a whole.

I don't think that is the case. I agree with Mr. Blow. These are people who want to work, but they need some help. We have given them help in the past, and we should continue to do so.

This program has been a critical, crucial safety net for families, helping them avoid poverty, helping them get back on their feet, helping them get back into the workforce. It has been with us since the Great Depression. It affects a whole spectrum of individuals. Indeed, if we look at 2012 data, about 40 percent of the households that receive these benefits had an income prior to job loss of between $30,000 and $75,000. These are middle-income Americans who would much rather be working and making close to what they made before they were laid off than

collecting $300 a week. So these benefits are not the exclusive province of the very poor.

In fact, more and more they are middle-class, middle-age people who never thought they would be on unemployment insurance, who need this. They are supporting elderly parents. They have children. They have mortgages. They had a professional career--accountant, paralegal, bookkeeper. They are now looking desperately for work. They are people who used to work in dairy processing plants or people who used to work as vice presidents for sales who are so desperate--I assume some of these people, if we looked at their resumes, would be qualified to do many things other than work at a plant, but they are looking because they desperately need work.

We hear this argument, though: Oh, it is a program that doesn't work and the people are undeserving and we are not even doing them a favor by letting them have this benefit. I disagree. I think we have to pass this measure. We have to do it because it is the right thing for these families, it is the right thing for our constituents, and it is the right thing for the economy. It would be foolish, frankly, to take a program that we are confident can save 200,000 jobs, can increase GDP by .2 percent, that is one of the best forms of fiscal policy to stimulate demand and economic growth, and say we are not going to do it. I think we say we have to do it.

There is another aspect of this, too, particularly appropriate to the issue of long-term unemployment. We are seeing a remarkable number of long-term unemployed individuals in this recession. Typically, Congress has only ended these benefits when the long-term unemployment rate was 1.3 percent. Today it's double that at 2.6 percent. Again, this program is a program that takes care of the long-term unemployed.

The standard program in the States is one of 26 weeks. If you have a brief episode of unemployment, if you lose a job and then 5 weeks later you get a job, you are in that first tranche of State benefits. The long-term unemployed are those who have been without work for at least 26 weeks. We have seen the number of long-term unemployed double since previous recessions--from 1.3 percent to 2.6 percent. So this program is more important now than in any previous economic downturn we have had based upon looking at these numbers. This is another reason we have to extend these benefits.

I urge my colleagues to support this procedural vote so that the full Senate can consider the measure and move toward passage. We need to move swiftly to pass this bipartisan bill to provide some certainty, some stability, and some support for families who are struggling in a very difficult market.

The answer I suggest to those who are considering voting against cloture this evening is, fine, you can come down and tell the clerk no. What are you going to tell the 1,600 people in Hagerstown, MD, and across this country who are desperately looking for work and need some support? What are you going to tell them? No? I hope not.

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

Madam President, first let me thank Chairman Baucus for his very kind words, but also salute the President of the United States for his wisdom in announcing that he intends to appoint the Senator from Montana to be our next ambassador to the People's Republic of China. I can't think of anyone whose integrity, intelligence, commitment to the Nation, and patriotism would so well serve and be so beneficial to this country as continuing in his public efforts after his days in the Senate in the embassy in Beijing.

I also thank the chairman because he has been an articulate and effective advocate for unemployment compensation benefits for hard- working Americans who are without work through no fault of their own. This economy has suffered a drastic contraction, beginning in 2007, 2008, and 2009. We are seeing some improvements. During this period, the chairman has been the key actor, the key force driving for extended benefits.

Chairman Baucus has been the driving force as well in the context of trying to reform the program. He has implemented efforts such as work sharing, a proposal I brought to him, that is a smart way to do business. It basically allows a company to retain their workers for part of the week and let them collect benefits for the rest of the week, so they keep the workforce together. In Rhode Island, it has been extremely beneficial. It is now a nationwide program because of Chairman Baucus.

He is working very hard--as he indicated, we are working together--to ensure that we do not see this cliff where 1.3 million Americans lose their benefits on December 28.

Yesterday, I came to the floor to discuss some of the economics behind the logic of extending these benefits. I believe the extensive amount of economic research supports the very commonsense notion that I think the vast majority of our colleagues share: That Americans want to work. They are in an environment, however, where jobs are scarce. There are two workers for every job, and in some parts of the country that ratio is even much worse.

However, I hear other colleagues say: That might be true, but we have to fix this program because we have abuse and we have fraud. The chairman, in his efforts, has always demonstrated that we are committed to rooting out any type of fraud or abuse. In 2012, for example, we strengthened the requirement that one has to search for work to qualify for unemployment compensation. We also improved program integrity by having beneficiaries show up more frequently for in-person assessments to help them find a job quicker and ensure they receive the right benefit amount based on their past work history.

So we want the program to be efficient. We do not want the program to be subject to abuse. That means that more people can benefit correctly and not abuse the system. So I am sure the chairman and I are quite willing--I know I am, and I know he is too--to work hard if we need reforms. But we can't do that in 10 days. We can't do that. We need some time.

So I have joined together with Senator Heller to suggest a 3-month extension. That will allow us--and this is a bipartisan effort, and I thank the Senator from Nevada--to keep people from falling off the edge, literally.

The average benefit in Rhode Island is about $350 a week. There are very few people who are going to give up a job to collect about $350 a week. By the way, that money is going right from the check to the local grocery store, to pay for heat or to pay for rent. That is why CBO has estimated that if we don't extend unemployment benefits, we will see a situation in which we lose approximately 200,000 jobs next year which we could have otherwise had, and that we will see our economic GDP growth shrink by about 0.2 percent, because the demand generated by unemployment checks going out in the mail will be lost. It is one of those programs that provides about $1.70, $1.60, for every dollar we invest. So this is about good economics, not just, as Senator Baucus said so eloquently, about our commitment to something beyond ourselves, to the welfare and the good faith of our neighbors in the spirit of Christmas, the true spirit of this holiday.

The other thing, too, is if we look at this argument: Well, we are not going to extend the program because of abuse--we can look at a lot of programs; we can look at the crop insurance program, for example. I don't hear many people saying: Oh, let's cut out that crop insurance program because of abuse. Just recently, this year, the Department of Justice prosecuted a very large, significant case of widespread tobacco crop fraud spanning 6 years. A Federal district judge brought to justice an insurance agent and a farmer. Prison time was ordered, more than $8 million of restitution had to be paid, but no one is standing up and saying: Let's cut crop insurance because of this case.

Let's get realistic. We need to extend these benefits, and we need to do it promptly because the 28th is just upon us.

Shortly, I will make a unanimous consent request, but before that, I wish to recognize my colleague, Senator Stabenow. Then, I ask that at 2:30, if she could yield the floor back to me so that I may make my request.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 265, S. 1845, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act; the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I do not modify my request. I would insist on my request since it is the only practical means of getting the measure passed.

Madam President, I believe I have a few minutes left--2 minutes. So before Senator McCain takes the floor, let me make a few more points that I think are critical.

Last month, the economy did add jobs--203,000 jobs. But what we are seeing is the average length of unemployment is increasing. People are still out of work now an average of 36 weeks. That is more than 20 weeks longer than prerecession levels, and it is longer than the 26 weeks of State unemployment insurance.

That is why we are here asking for benefits. People now are averaging a much longer time without finding work. This is not a situation where they fall within the State program. They have to have these Federal benefits, because it is harder and harder to find work.

I would also suggest, too, that if you look at it another way, in 2008, when President Bush started this emergency unemployment compensation program, it took the average jobless American 5.6 months to find employment. Now, with the increased long-term unemployment, it takes about 9 months.

So again, this is a reason why these long-term extended benefits are absolutely necessary. I would hope our colleagues would join myself and Senator Heller and Chairman Baucus and Senator Stabenow and others and continue to move aggressively forward and see if we can, in fact, extend the benefits so that many Americans can continue to have some assistance and some sustenance as they continue to look for work.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I commend the work of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, especially the chairman, Senator Levin, on reaching an agreement with the House to complete this important legislation. For 51 consecutive years, the Senate has passed a defense authorization bill, and I hope we will be able to soon send the bill before us to President Obama for his signature. We owe it to our servicemembers to pass a law that will support them and enable the DOD to execute this year's budget efficiently and effectively.

We made tough decisions in putting together this bill--especially in these difficult economic times. But this bill will allow DOD to combat current threats, plan for future threats, and provide for the welfare of our brave servicemembers. While it is disappointing that we did not have sufficient time to debate amendments, this is a good compromise bill and it is critical that we pass it.

I would like to point out a few of the highlights of this bill:

It authorizes a 1-percent across-the-board pay raise and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays for our men and women in uniform; includes 36 key provisions to strengthen sexual assault prevention and response programs; extends authorities to continue several ``train and equip'' programs to assist foreign militaries in counterterrorism and counternarcotics missions; and authorizes $6.2 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to further build the capacity of the Afghan army and police so those forces can take over security throughout Afghanistan by December 2014.

This year I once again had the honor of serving as the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, alongside Senator McCain, the ranking member. Working together, our subcommittee focused on the needs of the Navy, Marine Corps, and strategic mobility forces. We put particular emphasis on supporting marine and naval forces engaged in combat operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings to higher priority programs. Specifically, the bill includes the required funding for two Virginia-class submarines and provides an additional $100 million to support buying the 10th DDG-51 under the current multiyear procurement program. The bill also approves the funding for other major programs, including the DDG-1000 destroyer, the Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program, the Littoral Combat Ship, LCS, and the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft. I am particularly pleased about the funding for the Virginia-class submarines and the DDG-1000, which so many Rhode Islanders help to build.

Working together with Senator McCain, this bill increases accountability for taxpayers' dollars spent on several major Navy programs. For example, the bill includes language to increase the CVN- 78 cost cap, while excluding certain urgent and unforeseen testing costs from that cap. In addition, we require quarterly reports on the program manager's estimate for CVN-79, and we freeze the payment of fees whenever the program manager's estimate of total program costs exceeds the cost cap.

In this bill, we also require the CNO to submit a report identifying the current littoral combat ship, LCS, concept of operations and the expected survivability of each sea frame; we require the GAO to review the LCS program; and we limit future procurements of the LCS until the Navy produces certain reports and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council makes certain certifications about the LCS program.

The bill also amends the language of the annual 30-year shipbuilding report to require the disclosure of ship prices assumed in the plan and a risk assessment whenever the number of ships in the plan falls below the Navy's requirements.

I offer my thanks to Senator McCain and the other members of the Seapower Subcommittee for their diligence in the subcommittee's work this year.

We have a good bill before the Senate, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, student loan debt continues to climb. According to an analysis by the Institute for College Access, average student loan debt has increased by 6 percent each year since 2008. In 2012, over 70 percent of college graduates had debt, owing an average of $29,400.

This is a growing drag on our economy.

In this summer's National Association of Realtors survey, 49 percent of the respondents identified student loan debt as a huge obstacle to home ownership--more than those who identified having enough money for a down payment or having enough confidence in their job security.

It is clear that the more than $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt has serious implications for the broader economy.

We know that student loan borrowers are struggling. Default rates are on the rise. 13.4 percent of borrowers entering repayment in 2009 defaulted within three years. The rate jumped to 14.7 percent for borrowers entering repayment in 2010.

We cannot tackle the student loan debt crisis without States and institutions stepping up and taking greater

responsibility for college costs and student borrowing.

States are critical partners in making college accessible and affordable. However, state support for higher education has declined in recent years, contributing to rising tuition costs at public colleges and universities. According to the latest State Higher Education Finance report published by the State Higher Education Executive Officers, state spending per full-time equivalent student reached its lowest point in 25 years in 2011.

In the Partnerships for Affordability and Student Success, PASS, Act that I am introducing today, we will re-establish a robust, Federal- State partnership for college affordability and student success. I long worked to fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, LEAP, program, an initiative that engaged the states in matching federal funds to provide need-based grants to students. LEAP was modest in scale. The legislation I am introducing today calls for a more ambitious and comprehensive Federal-State partnership for higher education.

The PASS Act will authorize $1 billion for a State formula grant program. In order to participate, states must make a commitment to maintain their investment in higher education and must have a comprehensive plan for higher education with measurable goals for access, affordability, and student outcomes. At least 70 percent of the funding must be dedicated to need-based student financial aid. States also have the option of awarding grants to colleges and universities or partnerships between institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations to improve student outcomes, including enrollment, completion, and employment, and to develop innovative methods for reducing college costs. I am pleased to have the support of the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and U.S PIRG in advancing this legislation.

Institutions also have a critical role to play in curbing student loan debt. To ensure that institutions have more skin in the game, so they provide a better and more affordable education to students, which will in turn help put the brakes on rising student loan defaults, I am proud to be introducing the Protect Student Borrowers Act with Senators Durbin and Warren.

The Protect Student Borrowers Act will hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan default by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. Only institutions that have 25 percent or more of their students borrow would be included in risk sharing based on their cohort default rate. Risk-sharing requirements would kick in when default rate exceeds 15 percent. As the institutional default rate rises, so too will the institution's risk-share payment.

The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt burdens and reduce default rates. Colleges and universities can reduce or eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan. The Secretary may waive or reduce the payments for institutions whose mission is to serve low-income and minority students such as community colleges, Historically Black Institutions, or Hispanic-Serving Institutions, provided that they are making progress in their student loan management plans.

The risk-sharing payments will be invested in helping struggling borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and reducing shortfalls in the Pell Grant program.

With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program.

We need to tackle student loan debt and college affordability from multiple angles. We need all stakeholders in the system to do their part. With the PASS Act and the Protect Student Borrowers Act, we are providing the resources and incentives for states and institutions to take more responsibility to address college affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and look forward to working with them to include these and other key reforms in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. President, student loan debt continues to climb. According to an analysis by the Institute for College Access, average student loan debt has increased by 6 percent each year since 2008. In 2012, over 70 percent of college graduates had debt, owing an average of $29,400.

This is a growing drag on our economy.

In this summer's National Association of Realtors survey, 49 percent of the respondents identified student loan debt as a huge obstacle to home ownership--more than those who identified having enough money for a down payment or having enough confidence in their job security.

It is clear that the more than $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt has serious implications for the broader economy.

We know that student loan borrowers are struggling. Default rates are on the rise. 13.4 percent of borrowers entering repayment in 2009 defaulted within three years. The rate jumped to 14.7 percent for borrowers entering repayment in 2010.

We cannot tackle the student loan debt crisis without States and institutions stepping up and taking greater

responsibility for college costs and student borrowing.

States are critical partners in making college accessible and affordable. However, state support for higher education has declined in recent years, contributing to rising tuition costs at public colleges and universities. According to the latest State Higher Education Finance report published by the State Higher Education Executive Officers, state spending per full-time equivalent student reached its lowest point in 25 years in 2011.

In the Partnerships for Affordability and Student Success, PASS, Act that I am introducing today, we will re-establish a robust, Federal- State partnership for college affordability and student success. I long worked to fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, LEAP, program, an initiative that engaged the states in matching federal funds to provide need-based grants to students. LEAP was modest in scale. The legislation I am introducing today calls for a more ambitious and comprehensive Federal-State partnership for higher education.

The PASS Act will authorize $1 billion for a State formula grant program. In order to participate, states must make a commitment to maintain their investment in higher education and must have a comprehensive plan for higher education with measurable goals for access, affordability, and student outcomes. At least 70 percent of the funding must be dedicated to need-based student financial aid. States also have the option of awarding grants to colleges and universities or partnerships between institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations to improve student outcomes, including enrollment, completion, and employment, and to develop innovative methods for reducing college costs. I am pleased to have the support of the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and U.S PIRG in advancing this legislation.

Institutions also have a critical role to play in curbing student loan debt. To ensure that institutions have more skin in the game, so they provide a better and more affordable education to students, which will in turn help put the brakes on rising student loan defaults, I am proud to be introducing the Protect Student Borrowers Act with Senators Durbin and Warren.

The Protect Student Borrowers Act will hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan default by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. Only institutions that have 25 percent or more of their students borrow would be included in risk sharing based on their cohort default rate. Risk-sharing requirements would kick in when default rate exceeds 15 percent. As the institutional default rate rises, so too will the institution's risk-share payment.

The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt burdens and reduce default rates. Colleges and universities can reduce or eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan. The Secretary may waive or reduce the payments for institutions whose mission is to serve low-income and minority students such as community colleges, Historically Black Institutions, or Hispanic-Serving Institutions, provided that they are making progress in their student loan management plans.

The risk-sharing payments will be invested in helping struggling borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and reducing shortfalls in the Pell Grant program.

With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program.

We need to tackle student loan debt and college affordability from multiple angles. We need all stakeholders in the system to do their part. With the PASS Act and the Protect Student Borrowers Act, we are providing the resources and incentives for states and institutions to take more responsibility to address college affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and look forward to working with them to include these and other key reforms in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 259, S. 1797, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for 1 year; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I will not amend the request. I respect the Senator's point, but I will not amend the request. I am here simply to ask for the unanimous consent as I presented it.

Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Texas coming here, engaging, and I appreciate the fact that he is making a point. But I am trying to make a point which I think is very compelling. Within a few days--December 28--1.3 million Americans will lose their extended Federal unemployment insurance benefits. It will be a tremendous trauma to those families, and it will be a huge impact for our economy going forward.

I have renewed my request for a full 1-year extension, and it has been objected to. I recognize that. But, I believe it is urgent we extend unemployment insurance benefits.

I also have been working closely with my Republican colleague, Senator Heller, on a bipartisan basis to introduce a bill to extend these benefits for 3 months, giving us the opportunity to go and take a more deliberate and careful review of the program and also to provide for a mechanism to extend the benefits for a full year.

I am very pleased we are beginning to build bipartisan support for this initiative for at least 3 months. It does reflect the fact that my colleagues from all across the country are recognizing the huge impact of this loss of benefits. This is not a problem that is restricted to a particular area of the country. Nevada has the highest rate in terms of unemployment numbers. Rhode Island trails behind, but not by much. We are at over 9 percent. But you have States with high unemployment throughout the country: Michigan at 9 percent, Illinois at 8.9 percent, Kentucky at 8.4 percent, Georgia at 8.1 percent, Arizona at 8.2 percent. These are States that have significant issues with respect to unemployment and need the continuation of this program to protect their families and also to provide stimulus for their local economies.

We have at this point in many of these places two unemployed workers for every available job. So this is not just a question of: ``The jobs are there. Just go get it.'' The job is not there. Also, we recognize-- I think we all recognize--the skill sets that are increasingly in demand are some of the skill sets that mature workers--people who have been working for 20 years, who have been every day of their lives going to the office or going to the mill or going to the plant are now competing with 20-year-olds who have sophisticated information technology skills and other skills in a climate where manufacturing is becoming sophisticated. Every sort of enterprise seems to be much more sophisticated and demanding a higher level of skills than years ago. So this is a very difficult time for workers out of a job, and I believe in this difficult period of time we need to extend these benefits.

There is extensive research on unemployment insurance and the labor markets that also supports the point that people who are on unemployment insurance want to go back to work. This is a very sort of pragmatic insight. In Rhode Island, for example, the average benefit is $354 a week. For most workers, that is a fraction of what they were gaining in their job. They would love to be called back to work. They would love to find a job that fits their skills that is close to the pay they had or maybe less. But no one is getting this help and socking away a lot of money on their UI benefits.

Indeed, a recent report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers looks at the economic tradeoffs that are being faced. In their words:

In choosing the optimal unemployment insurance policy,

policymakers must weigh competing costs and benefits. On the

one hand, some argue that extending benefits may dull the

incentives for unemployed workers to exert effort to search

for another job, leading to increased unemployment--the so-

called ``moral hazard'' effect. But on the other hand,

providing benefits gives families income that can in the

limit keep them from poverty but more generally can help them

to finance a longer job search that might ultimately result

in a job better matched with their talents, resulting in

higher overall labor market productivity. . . .

These are important aspects that have to be considered. I think the consensus of many in Congress is that this program is not only necessary and essential, but it also does not significantly inhibit the willingness, the ability, the desire of people to get back to work.

Raj Chetty is a noted economist who studies these issues. He concludes:

Nearly a dozen economic studies have analyzed this question

by comparing unemployment rates in states that have extended

unemployment benefits with those in states that do not . . .

. These studies have uniformly found that a 10-week extension

in unemployment benefits raises the average amount of time

people spend out of work by

at most one week. This simple, unassailable finding implies

that policy makers can extend unemployment benefits to

provide assistance to those out of work without substantially

increasing unemployment rates.

That is the conclusion of a very well respected economist who has been looking at that issue for several years.

Once again, from the Council of Economic Advisers' report:

Finally, while economists have found only small

disincentive effects of UI extensions, recent research shows

that the effect of UI on job search behavior is even smaller

in recessions as the moral hazard effect shrinks when jobs

are scarce.

Let's get back to common sense. There are roughly two workers for every job. The benefits UI beneficiaries receive are a fraction of what they would get in the workplace. They want to get back into the workplace. The jobs are just not there. Frankly, we have not done enough, I would suggest, to put those jobs in place. We have to do more. But in the interim, we have to make sure these families have some benefits and some protection.

I am quite willing to work with my colleagues if there are changes that should be made, could be made. But we are facing this deadline. Unless we move--and I am disappointed we have not moved today--1.3 million people on December 28 lose their benefits. The checks will cease going out the following week, and our economy will take a hit next year of 200,000 jobs, about a 0.2-percent growth shrinkage in GDP. We can avoid that by moving today or moving tomorrow, certainly moving as soon as we get back, to make sure these benefits are in place.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I come again to the floor to remind my colleagues that in 11 days 1.3 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance. With the goal of providing certainty to these families that they will continue to have access to this vital lifeline, I and my colleague from Nevada, Senator Heller, are introducing a bill that would extend unemployment insurance compensation benefits for 3 months.

I hope this sensible and bipartisan approach will provide a path forward to extending the program through 2014, which will give families and our economy more time to recover.

In many parts of the country, recovery is just getting underway. My own State of Rhode Island has 9.2 percent

unemployment. There are States throughout the country that have over 8 percent unemployment. There are some States that are doing well and we are very pleased they are. But for the millions of people who are still looking for work, they need this help.

This program is designed so workers continue to look for work while they receive very modest compensation. In my State the average is about $354 a week. That is not the kind of money that is going to induce someone to simply sit back and collect. It is going to provide some support for them to just put food on the table.

This safety net is not only there for them, it is for everyone, as 23.9 million Americans have received these Federal benefits since the start of the program in 2008. Some, thankfully, have found work and returned to work. But all of them, in a very critical time, received assistance and support. They only qualified for the support because they worked. This is a program that is based on one fundamental principle--they have worked long enough to qualify for these benefits. As a result, I think we have to go ahead, follow through, and not leave 1.3 million people, on December 28, literally with nothing, in many cases.

As we look by household, the number of Americans this program has helped rises to about 69 million people, not only the workers but their families, sons, daughters, and spouses. In fact, it includes about 17 million children who would not have received support without the benefits provided by this program.

In terms of income, over 40 percent of those households new to receiving UI in 2012 had household income between $30,000 and $75,000. That is an important point to make. These are working families. These are people who were enjoying a reasonably good living and suddenly, because of many changes, globalization, downsizing, you name it, they are without a job in a very difficult job market.

They went from people with good, solid, middle-class jobs to desperately looking for work. At least this program gave them some support as they made that great effort to look for work.

This program has been and continues to be a crucial benefit to millions of American households all over the country and of nearly every conceivable demographic background. That is why it is such a significant part of our recovery too. Its expiration will hurt families.

It has been estimated that if we do not extend this program over the next year, we will lose 200,000 jobs. And the logic of this program is very compelling. People who receive these benefits, people who used to make $50,000 a year, for example--and many of them did--they are not going to go ahead, turn around, take these benefits and just sort of squirrel them away or go off on a vacation. This is about paying the rent and paying for fuel in a cold winter or a hot summer in the South and Southwest. It is about making sure their children get a little something. Again, about 17 million children have benefited over the last several years--since 2008--from this program.

This is absolutely critical. It is critical to our economy. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the economically smart thing to do. It has been estimated that without the extension of unemployment insurance, we will lose .2 percent of GDP growth this year, and this is at a time when we all very sincerely profess that our No. 1 job is jobs--getting people back to work and growing the economy. And if we grow the economy, that has many beneficial effects. Not only does it lower the number of people who need this type of assistance, but as a result of that and other activities, it begins to lower our deficit.

For so many reasons, both economic and central to our purpose as a government--which is when people who have worked hard run into a situation where they lose their employment through no fault of their own, this is something that is there for them, and I hope we can move forward on it.

I am so pleased Senator Heller has stepped up and has joined me, and I will join him, in urging all my colleagues to give us the opportunity not only to bring this legislation up but for at least 3 months to extend it so we can look longer term. Some of my colleagues have raised some very interesting points about how perhaps there are reforms necessary for the program. Well, in the context of a program that expires on December 28, it is hard to take the legislative time and insight to develop reforms that will work for everyone. But if we can extend this for at least 3 months, we will have that opportunity.

Mr. President, again, I will return. This is not the last time I will speak on this point. But I did want to come back and remind people that this program is central to so many families. It is an important part of continuing our economic expansion, and it is particularly difficult at this time of year when 1.3 million Americans in this holiday season are facing a cutoff of benefits that to many of them are the difference between paying the rent, paying the mortgage, and keeping the kids in their sports programs or doing those things families in America need to do.

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

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

Mr. President, in 12 days, unemployment insurance will expire for 1.3 million Americans. This will impact virtually every State. Over the course of the next year, it will set back millions of hard-working families, slow down job growth, and slow our economic recovery.

Today I filed three amendments to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement Act. The amendments would extend UI for 1 month, 3 months, or a year respectively. While I believe the best policy is to extend unemployment insurance for 1 year in order to keep our economic recovery moving forward, I am willing to work with my colleagues who object to extending it for the full year to find a path forward.

What we must, I think, provide is at least a message to those people that they will not see their benefits eliminated on December 28, and that we will, in fact, be working to make sure that this protection is in place for families all cross this country. Over the next several days I will be coming to the floor seeking consent and urging my colleagues to extend unemployment insurance.

The expiration of unemployment insurance will be devastating to families across the entire Nation who rely on this as the last remaining source of support, in many cases for people who have worked hard for many years and because of this economy have lost their jobs.

This is a stressful time.

My home State of Rhode Island has an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent. We have been struggling since 2008 and 2009. This is very difficult for people. This difficulty will be particularly hard to bear as we celebrate the holidays--at a time when people should be able to consider and count their blessings--they will instead be looking ahead a few days afterward to the loss of valuable, irreplaceable income.

It is also a devastating blow to our local businesses and economy. Extending UI is not only doing the right thing for American families, this is doing the right and smart thing for the American economy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we fail to extend unemployment insurance, we will lose 200,000 jobs--at a time when our major priority should be getting as many jobs as we can--and will slow economic growth by about .2 percent GDP.

This is not only the right thing to do in terms of the families of America, it is the smart and right thing to do for our economy. There is a compelling, economic rationale to provide these extended unemployment insurance benefits.

Mark Zandi, a noted economist, estimates that for every $1 we put into the UI Program we get $1.55 in return of economic activity. It makes sense. People who are living without their income from employment, when they take this money, they go to the store, they put food on the table, they pay rent. They pay for heat in the Northeast where the President pro tempore resides.

They are not stashing it away. In some cases, they are putting it right back into the economy. So this is a wise, economic policy, as well as a humane and decent policy.

Now is not the time to let this program expire for the individuals or for the economy. We have to extend UI immediately. December 28 is the day it stops; it is a cliff. People are off the program. Then, throughout the year, as people exhaust their State benefits at 26 weeks, they fall off because there is no Unemployment Insurance Program.

This is an economy where we are just beginning to see some recovery. Last month's numbers suggested about a 200,000-job gain. That was good, but hidden in those statistics was increasing evidence that long-term unemployment is increasing. Those people who haven't found jobs quickly are not finding jobs very well at all.

That trend is continuing and that is another reason we need the long- term benefits that are provided by the Federal program.

I am going to do my best to try to bring people together to recognize that this is an issue that is about American workers. People don't get unemployment insurance unless they have worked. It is about American families, because it is so necessary to support these families, and it is about States all across this country. Rhode Island has a 9.2-percent unemployment record. Nevada is the highest with 9.3 percent.

We can look at States--North, South, East, West--scattered across this country that have unemployment rates over 8 percent that need this program for their residents. I hope we can come together, work together, and get this done.

I urge, again, in the next few days that we all stop and think about our obligations, not only to the families of America but to keeping the momentum of economic growth moving forward. I would particularly ask those colleagues who are representing States with unemployment rates that are above the national average--and the national average is 7 percent--to think very hard about what they are going to tell many of their constituents on December 28 when they have lost their benefits.

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

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

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1797, which was submitted earlier today; that the bill be read three times and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, first of all, I think it is appropriate to make some comments. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota being here and making his point. But we are at a juncture that within 2 weeks 1.3 million Americans will lose their Federal unemployment compensation insurance.

It will be a shock to them economically and particularly since it will be just a few days after the Christmas holiday. My legislation is very simple. I am seeking to extend for an additional year the unemployment compensation program that has been in place for several years. That will allow 1.3 million Americans to have some support as they face a very difficult economy.

We have asked, as Democrats, that this UI proposal be part of the budget negotiation. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives have made the same request. It appears that will not be the case. So we have to seek a stand-alone legislative vehicle. That is why I proposed the legislation as I have done today.

What we were trying to do, with the request that was just objected to, and what we have to do within 2 weeks is pass this legislation--so the upcoming expiration does not allow us the time for the procedural process of committee deliberation and markup, et cetera. What we have to do is try to avoid a huge economic shock to 1.3 million Americans immediately. There will be more after that. But as of December 28, if you are on unemployment insurance, Federal unemployment insurance, you lose it.

In my State, that is 4,900 people celebrating New Year's Day by losing their Federal unemployment insurance benefits; for families who are struggling just to keep their heads above water in a very difficult economy--who have seen their jobs disappear, who after years of dedicated work find themselves now looking at very difficult circumstances for employment, in my home State particularly, but not my home State alone--this is a very difficult burden to bear.

So we have to act. That is why we are here this evening, to ask for immediate consideration of my legislation to extend unemployment insurance, not further review, but immediate consideration.

I think it is important to point out that the average weekly benefit is about $300 per week. This is not a program that people are using to enrich themselves by any means. This is basically keeping the heat on, keeping some food on the table, maybe keeping the rent paid. Also, this is a program that people only qualify for after working and establishing a work history.

So for all of these reasons, we are not talking about some lavish benefit that is a windfall to Americans. This is something that can keep families together. That is why I think we have to be willing, beginning this evening, to get this program extended through next year at least.

There is another aspect to this too. Unemployment insurance is one of the best countercyclical economic programs we have when it comes to Federal fiscal policy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that

with the expiration of UI, if we do not act, it will cost our economy next year 200,000 jobs. It will cost us jobs if we do not act. It will slow economic growth by about .2 percent is their estimate.

So not only is this sensible, in fact the decent thing to do for millions of families, it is the smart thing to do for our economy. Because if we do not do it, we are literally seeing, under very rational estimates, 200,000 jobs disappear. What is the one thing everybody claims we need to do in this country right now? Put more people back to work.

This extension has been scored at about $26 billion for the year. Traditionally, we have treated unemployment insurance as an emergency expenditure. We have not offset it. That tradition has been abandoned recently and we have had to come up with offsets. But there are offsets. There are tax loopholes that should be closed. There are provisions that encourage companies to move jobs overseas that we can close and pay for this.

There are other provisions that would stop subsidizing significant multimillion dollar corporate benefits so American families can have a chance. These loopholes we have talked about--and many of my colleagues talked about--they should be closed anyway. But if it helps pay for unemployment insurance, that is not only good, that is something that would be a very positive step forward.

We need to extend these benefits not only for the individual families but for the overall economy. We have to start immediately. We are running out of time. We have just 2 weeks. Nothing is more important than getting people back to work. As I said, if we do not do this, we are going to see 200,000 jobs that are going to be forgone in the next year. So this is about jobs, as well as it is about keeping families together and keeping them able to provide for their basic needs.

It is progrowth. It is smart. I hope we can come together and do it. I hope again--I appreciate certainly the objection of the Senator from North Dakota. But I hope we can find a way to not object but to move forward together. The benefits cut across party lines. If you look at the States that are suffering the most--as we all know, the unemployment compensation program is a tiered program. It depends upon the level of unemployment in our States. But if you look at the States that are suffering the most, and unfortunately I am going to have to say Rhode Island is one of them. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate, 9.3. We are right behind them, 9.2 percent.

It has been 5 long years of unacceptable and elevated unemployment. It has come down from above 10 percent, but it is still much too high. But this is not a regional phenomenon. Illinois, 8.9 percent unemployment; Mississippi, 8.5 percent unemployment; Kentucky, 8.4 percent unemployment; North Carolina, 8 percent unemployment; Georgia, 8.1 percent unemployment; Arizona, 8.2 percent unemployment. These are tough numbers. It is not concentrated in one place; it is across this entire country. This is not a red issue or a blue issue. This is an American issue for workers who have worked and now cannot find jobs and need support. There is something else that is important to mention; that is, we have seen some progress on the jobs front. The last report showed we actually grew last month, 203,000 jobs. That is the good news. The bad news is despite this improvement, long-term unemployment remains high.

More than 4 million workers, 37 percent of those unemployed, were jobless for 27 weeks or longer in November. So what we are seeing is some short-term movement, but the longer term unemployment, the ones who qualify for the Federal benefits, they are still finding it virtually--very difficult, if not impossible, to find work.

That is exactly what this Federal program is designed to fix. Those long-term unemployed who are in an environment, in a State where the economy is not working as well as some other States. There are some States that are doing exceptionally well. I am glad for them. But there are more, as I said before, who are experiencing unacceptably high unemployment rates.

This program started to take shape in its most recent incarnation in June 2008, when President George W. Bush signed the program into law. When he did it, the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent and the average duration of unemployment was 17.1 weeks. So we are looking now at a situation that nationally and in many States is much higher than when we initiated this program back in 2008.

Now is not the time to stop, and in order to get this done, we have to move expeditiously. There is not time for elaborate hearings. There is not time for conferences with the House. The House is proposing to leave this Friday. We have to move immediately.

Today, our national unemployment rate is 7 percent. The duration of unemployment is 37.2 weeks. That is 7 percent compared to 5.6 and 37.2 weeks compared to 17.1 weeks. We still need this program to help the families of this Nation. We can't end it now. We have to move forward, particularly during this holiday season.

The reality--and finally to make this point--is that people will be looking at a new year coming with the knowledge that what little benefit they are getting as they search for work--an average of $300 a week--is gone. That is a tough reality, to look at your family on New Year's Day and understand that you don't have those resources.

So we have to act, and I hope we can.

With that, I yield the floor for my colleague and his comments.

Mr. President, I certainly respect my colleague from North Dakota for stating his principled position. I think we can both agree on one thing: We have to start moving very quickly because this reality is moving very rapidly on 1.3 million Americans. I hope we can move forward.

I yield the floor.

When sexual abuse occurs in a military unit or when a servicemember is a victim or a perpetrator of sexual abuse, we have failed.

Certainly the military has failed, but Congress with its constitutional mandate to ``make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces'' and to ``provide for . . . disciplining the militia'' shares in that failure.

This is why the efforts of Senator McCaskill, Senator Gillibrand, and indeed all of my colleagues are so important and so commendable. They have elevated this debate and challenged this Congress and our military to act. They have recognized, through their passionate advocacy, that sexual abuse not only is a violation of an individual, but it is a corrosive force that can undermine the trust that is essential for the functioning of any military unit.

The essence of military service is selfless service in which every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman must be prepared to give his or her life for a comrade. Sexual abuse is the antithesis of that ethic. It represents predatory behavior and exploitation, not selfless sacrifice and protection of those you serve with. It has no place in the military, and if not eliminated, it will insidiously destroy our military. No technology, no amount of military resources can assure military success if courage and character fail. Sexual abuse is a cowardly act that betrays the ethic and character of the military.

I believe we are united on this point. This debate is about preventing sexual abuse, a shared goal of every Member of the Senate, of Congress, of the military, and of this Nation. The question is how best to achieve this essential goal.

I believe it requires leadership at every stage: recruitment, training, evaluation, promotion, retention, and punishment. I believe commanders must be involved in every step. They must be responsible and their subordinates must recognize this responsibility and their authority. To remove the commander from any of these responsibilities will, in my view, weaken his or her effectiveness in every one of these dimensions.

I had the privilege of commanding a company of paratroopers in the 82nd Airborne Division. I was responsible directly for nonjudicial company-grade punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But it was clear to me and to my troops that the battalion and brigade commanders and the division commander had court-martial authority and would necessarily confer with their subordinate commanders in the execution of this authority. This reality, this authority, permeated everything we did and reinforced the policy orders of every commander, including myself.

I will admit that my experience is decades old, and it preceded the integration of women into combat units such as an airborne infantry battalion, but the central role of the commander has not diminished. Moreover, the experiences of the sixties and the seventies also reveal a military struggling with serious and corrosive problems, principally racial integration and drug use. Congress ultimately dealt with these problems, not by bypassing commanders but by holding them, and through them every member of the Armed Forces, to a higher standard.

Today the American military is the first institution anyone points to when noting the progress we have made in racial equality and opportunity. This was not always the case.

Incidents with racial overtones plagued the Vietnam period

[and the post-Vietnam era.] Among the most widely publicized

were a race riot among prisoners in a stockade in Vietnam in

1968 and several incidents aboard naval vessels in the early

1970s.

In one of these incidents in 1972 on the carrier Kitty Hawk, there was a 15-hour melee between Black and White sailors. Effectively, that carrier, that ship--a capital ship of the Navy--was absolutely ineffectual. They weren't prepared to fight the enemy, they were fighting each other.

In May of 1971, there were 4 days of rioting at Travis Air Force Base in California ignited by racial incidents on the base; over 100 individuals were arrested and more than 30 Air Force personnel were treated for riot-related injuries. The Marine Corps saw serious racial clashes at Camp Lejeune, NC, and Kaneohe Naval Air Station in Honolulu. In the Army, especially in Germany, there were frequent racial clashes.

In December of 1970, a special investigating team reported to President Nixon on the situation in Europe and declared that black troops were experiencing ``acute frustration'' and ``volatile anger'' because of their treatment.

Interestingly, this report cited as a major cause of this frustration ``the failure in too many instances of command leadership to exercise the authority and responsibility in monitoring the equal opportunity provisions that were already a part of military regulations. . . . ''

The military has made significant progress on racial opportunity. I am sure more can and should be done, but the progress to date has been driven principally by command leadership at every stage, including the enforcement of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The point was made by Charles Moskos and John Sibley Butler, two of the utmost authorities on race relations in the military. In 1996 they wrote:

Perhaps surprisingly, no Army regulation deals solely with

race relations or equal opportunity. Instead, these issues

fall under Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, whose broad concern

is ``Army Command Policy.'' This title is more than symbolic.

The Army treats good race relations as a means to readiness

and combat effectiveness--not as an end in itself. This is

the foundation for the Army's way of overcoming race. Racial

concerns are broadened into a general leadership

responsibility, and commanders are held accountable for race

relations on their watch.

Once again, the emphasis is on commanders, not specialized legal procedures that bypass commanders. My best judgment is we will make the most progress addressing the issue of sexual abuse by holding commanders accountable, not by excluding them from a critical aspect of military life.

Under the leadership of Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe, the Armed Services Committee made significant changes to provisions regarding sexual abuse in the military. Moreover Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, and Fischer will make additional changes in their proposed amendment that will further strengthen our commitment and ability to respond to the crisis of sexual abuse in the military. But it is also important to describe the ongoing efforts by the Department of Defense to deal with sexual abuse in the military.

I am drawing on testimony of LTG Flora D. Darpino, the Judge Advocate General of the Army, and she described policies effective in the Army, but generally there are equivalent procedures in the other services.

The Army began a major effort to combat sexual abuse beginning in 2004 with the creation of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, the SAPR Program, and the implementation of restricted reporting. This allows victims of sexual assault to confidentially disclose a crime to specifically identified individuals and receive medical treatment and counseling without triggering the official investigative process.

This program has evolved into a comprehensive effort ``fielding a capability of over 11,000 personnel, deployable and available 24 hours a day,'' to respond to the victims' needs.

Included in the procedures available under the SAPR Program are new reporting options for the victim, expedited transfers, access to victim advocates and, most recently, access to victim counsel.

In addition, this program has a significant educational component that ``saturates Soldier training from the first days of initial entry training to senior leader forums.'' The training focuses on bystander intervention and is

linked to ``Army values that bond Soldiers as a team.'' It reinforces the military ethic of selfless service over predation and self- gratification.

``In 2009, the Army recognized the need for improved training and resources for the prosecution of these crimes.'' Special Victim Prosecutors were created in the Judge Advocate General's Corps and sexual assault investigators were created in the Criminal Investigative Division, CID. Together, these specially trained and experienced professionals work only special victim cases. They are able to apply unprecedented expertise. In addition, all JAG prosecutors and defense counsels have received enhanced training regarding cases of sexual abuse.

With all of these changes, Lieutenant General Darpino still identifies the commander as the ``critical'' element. In her words: ``The most critical element of this institutional effort, however, is the focus of commanders.''

As such, she points out:

The Army, like the other services, has moved aggressively

to hold commanders accountable for setting a command climate

that encourages reporting, deplores conduct that degrades or

harasses individuals, and provides a safe environment, free

of retaliation, for victims after they come forward. To

support this effort, officers and commanders are receiving

enhanced training at every level. Specifically, ``the

officers entrusted with the disposition of sexual assaults,

withheld to the 0-6 (Colonel) Special Court Martial Convening

Authority, are required to attend Senior Legal Orientation

Courses at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and

School with a focus on the proper handling of sexual assault

allegations. General officers, who will serve as convening

authorities, are offered one-on-one instruction in legal

responsibilities, again with a focus on sexual assault.''

Most significantly, in my view, and most recently, the Secretary of the Army, on September 27, 2013, directed that every officer and noncommissioned officer will be rated on how well he or she ``fostered a climate of dignity and respect and adhered to the Sexual Harassment/ Assault Response (SHARP) Program.''

Secretary McHugh and General Odierno have made it clear that commanders and senior leaders are responsible. Their advancement, their retention, their standing in the Army will rest with an annual, explicit, written review of their efforts to combat sexual abuse.

I wish to return for a moment to my discussion of the racial challenges facing the Army while I served. Let me also return to the comments of Charlie Moskos, the most respected academic authority and also an Army veteran. In 1986 he wrote:

More important for blacks than the new race relations

curriculum was the revision of the efficiency report, a

performance evaluation that carries a lot of weight in all

promotions. Starting in the early 1970s, a new category

appeared in the official report for officers and NCOs: race

relation skills. Filling out this section was mandatory and

the requirement was rigorously enforced. More blacks

received promotions. Some officers with a poor record on

race were relieved of command. All of this set a tone. If

for only self-interest, Army officers and NCOs became

highly sensitive to the issue of race. Today--

He is talking about 1986.

one is more likely to hear racial jokes in a faculty club

than in an officers' club. And in an officers' club one will

surely see more blacks.

I think we have made great progress, finally, by focusing on the evaluation and efficiency reports that every officer and NCO must receive each year.

Now in the context of what the military is doing to combat sexual assault and in the context of glaring examples of what it is not doing and what it is failing to do, the Armed Services Committee adopted provisions that should rapidly and dramatically combat sexual abuse within the military. The Secretary of Defense has already taken administrative steps to implement some of these provisions. Senator McCaskill will offer additional provisions with her amendment that I wholeheartedly support.

It is important to recognize the comprehensive and critical nature of these provisions that are already in the National Defense Authorization Act--from improving measures to prevent sexual assault, to protecting victims when it does happen, and strengthening the judicial process to discipline those who commit such heinous crimes.

The bill makes important changes that will improve the prevention of sexual assaults. First, the bill prohibits the commissioning or enlistment of individuals convicted of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or incest, or attempting to commit these offenses.

Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to report on whether legislative action is required to modify the UCMJ to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between military instructors and their trainees.

The next step is to ensure that all servicemembers understand how they can and must prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault. Each of the services is conducting a variety of training programs on sexual assault prevention and response. This bill requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the adequacy of this training and to then prescribe in regulations such modifications to address any inadequacies identified by this review. The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to review the adequacy of the training, qualifications, and experience of individuals assigned to positions responsible for sexual assault prevention and response, to retrain or reassign any individual who does not have adequate training or qualifications, and to improve the requirements for selection and assignment to sexual assault prevention and response billets.

Servicemembers who have been sexually assaulted or raped should have every resource available to report the incident, to receive care, and to see that justice is done. In crafting this bill, the committee acknowledged that many victims do not report such incidents because of a fear of retaliation from their peers and leaders. So this legislation includes a provision that makes retaliation against servicemembers for reporting criminal offenses a punishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This will ensure that both victims and witnesses to such crimes are able to report the occurrence without facing retaliatory action or threat of such action. This bill also requires the DOD inspector general to review and investigate allegations of retaliatory personnel actions for reporting a rape, sexual assault, or sexual misconduct.

Next, the bill expands certain existing protections to victims who are members of the National Guard and Reserves, and members of the Coast Guard. First, it requires the service secretaries to ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserves have access to a sexual assault response coordinator not later than 2 business days following the request for such assistance. These coordinators explain the reporting process, address the victim's safety and security needs, and offer expertise and available services, including medical care, counseling, and legal support.

Second, it clarifies that an existing requirement for the expedited change of station or unit transfer requested by a victim of sexual assault also applies to members of the Coast Guard.

The bill requires the 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. This resource was initially created by the Air Force, in a program that began in January of this year. Since the committee's markup of this bill, Secretary of Defense Hagel has directed each of the services to implement such a program. This provision will codify administrative action that has already been taken.

The bill also authorizes the service secretaries to provide guidelines to commanders regarding their authority to temporarily reassign or remove from an assignment a servicemember on active duty who is accused of committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault offense, not as a punitive measure but solely for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline within the member's unit. In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of Defense to provide information and discussion of this authority as part of the required training for new and prospective commanders at all levels of command.

The bill also makes several changes to further strengthen the judicial process. First, the bill eliminates the element of the character and military service of the accused--the so-called good soldier defense--from the factors a commander should consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense.

I should add that Senator McCaskill's amendment further limits the defendant's use of good military character as evidence.

Second, the bill requires the defense counsel in courts martial to make requests to interview complaining witnesses through the trial counsel, and, if requested by the witness, requires that defense counsel interviews take place in the presence of the trial counsel, counsel for the witness, or outside counsel. This is to protect against the abuse of this process.

Next, the bill changes Article 60 of the UCMJ to limit the ability of a convening authority to modify the findings of a court-martial to specified sexual offenses. In other words, this provision eliminates a commander's ability to overturn a jury's conviction for sexual assault, rape, and other crimes.

Additionally, the bill requires a mandatory minimum sentence of dismissal or dishonorable discharge of a servicemember convicted of a sexual assault offense.

The bill also eliminates the 5-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for certain sexually related offenses, and requires that substantiated complaints of a sexually related offense resulting in a court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or administrative action be noted in the service record of the servicemember, regardless of the member's grade.

Importantly, the bill maintains and strengthens the role of commanders in the judicial process. During the markup of this bill, the committee adopted an amendment on a bipartisan basis that preserves the ability of commanders to initiate court-martial proceedings. Removing this authority, which some of our colleagues advocate, would weaken accountability and undermine efforts to combat sexual assault. Commanders have the responsibility to train their subordinates, they are charged with maintaining good order and discipline within their units, and they are responsible for the safety of the men and women they lead. The commander is essential to instilling among the members of his or her unit that sexual assault and related behaviors will not be tolerated and will be adjudicated.

The bill includes several provisions that address the role of the commanding officer. First, it requires commanding officers to immediately refer to the appropriate military criminal investigation organization reports of sexually related offenses involving servicemembers in the commander's chain of command. Next, the bill requires automatic higher level review of any decision by a commander not to prosecute a sexual assault allegation, with the review going all the way to the service secretary in any case in which the commander disagrees with the military lawyer's recommendation to prosecute.

If a legal counsel advises prosecution, and the commander does not do it, ultimately it will be resolved by the service secretary. Most commanders do not want their decisions reviewed by the service secretary. I think this will add more sense and more purpose to their efforts to combat sexual abuse.

All of these changes take significant steps forward in addressing these horrible crimes. However, we must remain committed to further improving both prevention and response. That is why the bill includes several provisions related to the review that is currently under way by the independent panel created by last year's Defense authorization bill--the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel. This committee is assessing the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault. The bill we are considering today assigns additional issues to be considered by this panel and requires the panel to produce its report no later than 1 year from its first meeting, which occurred in July, rather than 18 months, as originally laid out in last year's law.

As I mentioned before, Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, and Fischer are proposing an amendment that further strengthens all of these provisions that are already in the committee's bill. First, their amendment requires the special victims' counsels to advise victims of the advantages and disadvantages of their cases being prosecuted in a civilian court with jurisdiction or through the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The victim may express his or her preference, and this preference must be afforded great weight in the determination to prosecute the offense by court-martial or by a civilian court.

The amendment codifies the decision by the Department of the Army to evaluate the performance of soldiers in adhering to the standards regarding sexual assault prevention and response. It extends this provision to every service in the Department of Defense. As previously noted in the context of race relations, this provision is likely to make a profound and lasting contribution to the prevention of sexual abuse. That is what we are about here--preventing sexual abuse. This could be one of the key drivers in that effort.

The amendment also improves accountability of commanders by requiring that a command climate assessment be performed after an incident involving a covered sexual offense, as defined in the legislation, for both the command of the victim and the command of the accused, if they are in separate commands, or a single assessment if they are in the same command. These assessments will be completed promptly and provided to the military criminal investigation organization conducting the investigation of the offense concerned and to the next higher commander in the chain of command of the affected unit.

You will know, if you are a commander, if there is an incident in your unit that all the details will be known by your battalion commander, your brigade commander, your division commander, and all the way up. That will be another strong incentive to make sure that nothing happens in your unit. That is part of the amendment proposed by my colleagues.

This provision, particularly in conjunction with the requirement to evaluate servicemembers' compliance under the official report, will go a long way to provide the accountability and the emphasis on commanders to do their jobs.

GEN Bruce Clarke, a distinguished officer wounded in the Battle of the Bulge and who was awarded the Silver Star--one of the great heroes of the U.S. Army--famously instructed his units that, in his words, ``an organization does well only those things the boss checks.'' Well, we are checking each individual to make sure commander and noncommissioned officer--they are doing their best. We are checking each unit, if there is an incident in that unit, and we are living up to the advice of General Clarke. It will get done because, finally, it will be checked consistently, thoroughly and appropriately.

The amendment also establishes a confidential process that will enable a victim of a sexual assault who is subsequently discharged to challenge the terms or characterization of his or her discharge in order to correct possible instances of retaliation. This provision will help ensure that a discharge accurately reflects the service of the individual, taking into consideration the effects of sexual assault and also helping to remove the concern that reporting sexual abuse could influence the character of a military discharge. Reporting such a crime should never influence the character of a military discharge.

The amendment strengthens the role of the prosecutor in advising commanders on courts martial. The committee language requires the civilian service secretary review all cases where a commander does not choose to prosecute when his or her legal counsel/judge advocate recommends prosecution. The amendment extends that mandatory review if the prosecutor recommends prosecution and the commander demurs. In effect, if either the prosecutor or the legal counsel/judge advocate recommends prosecution and the commander demurs, the case will automatically be referred to the civilian service secretary. You will have the highest ranking civilian in the uniform service making the final call. Every commander will know that.

The amendment modifies the Military Rules of Evidence to prevent defendants from introducing evidence of good military character as a general defense of a charge. Such evidence may only be admitted if that trait is relevant to an element of the offense for which the accused has been charged. Too often, the good soldier defense has been seen as overcoming specific evidence directly related to a crime. This

appearance undermines the essential perception that a verdict is determined by direct evidence supporting the elements of the crime, not the previous reputation of the defendant. This provision builds upon a section of the underlying bill that eliminates the character and the military service of the accused from the factors a commander should consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense.

Finally, the amendment ensures that all of the protections of this legislation are extended to the cadets and midshipmen of our service academies. The McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer amendment strengthens the committee bill. Through enhanced accountability of commanders and additional changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we will strengthen prevention and prosecution of sexual abuse.

Those who argue for the exclusion of the commander from the judicial process point to the policies of our allies, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Israel. These countries have removed commanders as convening authorities and use independent military or civilian prosecutors to make charging decisions. While it can be useful at times to draw comparisons between our Armed Forces and those we serve alongside, there are several points to be made with respect to our military justice system that do not align.

First, none of these countries changed their system in response to a sexual assault crisis among their ranks or to protect rights of victims more generally. In most cases the system was changed to protect the rights of the accused.

Second, none of the allies can draw a correlation between their system and any change in reporting by victims of sexual abuse. Many argue that removing the commander as the decisionmaker will remove a significant hurdle that victims face in deciding whether to report sexual assaults. There is no statistical or anecdotal evidence that removing commanders from the charging decision has had any effect on victims' willingness to report crimes in these judicial systems among our allies.

In materials provided to the Response Systems Panel, the deputy military advocate general for the Israeli Defense Force noted an increase in sexual assault complaints between 2007-2011, attributing no specific reason for the increase but noting that it could represent an increase in the number of offenses or it could be a result of campaigns by service authorities to raise awareness on the issue.

Similarly, the commodore of Naval Legal Services for Britain's Royal Navy has assessed that recent structural changes to their military judicial system had no discernible effect on the reporting of sexual assault offenses.

Third, the scope and scale of our allies' caseloads are vastly different, primarily because of the much greater size of the U.S. Armed Forces. For example, the Canadian military only tried 75 to 80 courts- martial last year, which is roughly comparable to one U.S. Army division's annual caseload. But several of our allies who have changed their military justice system have indicated that the changes have resulted in the process slowing down and taking longer. Frankly, that is one of the issues victims have raised in terms of why they aren't reporting and why they are so terribly frustrated--because of the length and duration of the process.

Furthermore, most allies cannot conduct courts-martial in a deployed environment. BG Richard Gross, the legal counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, stated in a letter:

One critical feature of our justice system is its

expeditionary nature--the ability to administer justice

anywhere in the world our forces deploy.

Notably, the Army alone tried over 950 cases in deployed areas over the past 10 years. In one case in Iraq, four soldiers committed multiple crimes in a single night. The commander referred all four soldiers to court-martial, and they were charged with consuming alcohol, breaking into local Iraqi homes, and stealing property and money from the locals. Because the commander in Iraq had authority to refer these cases to trial, the first trial was underway within 2 months of the incident. All of the co-accused and many defense witnesses were in the same unit, and local Iraqis were available as fact witnesses. Because the commander had a fully deployable military justice system at his disposal, he was able to send a strong message to the unit that such conduct would be dealt with swiftly and decisively. Simultaneously, he was able to restore positive relations with the local community.

The Army has also cited instances of allied soldiers committing sexual assault crimes against U.S. soldiers, and because of the allied nation's system removing the authority of the chain of command and removing the process from the battlefield, our commanders would demand but not receive timely information on the status of any prosecution. We had a soldier victim, and they could not find anything about the process that was going on.

Tragically, sexual assault is a crime that historically is underreported, and this is not only with respect to the military. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network cites Department of Justice crime surveys that show that an average of 60 percent of assaults in the last 5 years were not reported to police. However, in numbers released earlier this month, DOD showed that more servicemembers are coming forward to report sexual assaults. From October 2012 to June 2013, 3,553 sexual assault complaints were reported to DOD. That is a 46-percent increase over the same period a year ago. These cases include sexual assaults by civilians on servicemembers and by servicemembers on civilians. A significant number of the reported incidents occurred before the victim had even entered military service.

Another argument for removing the commander's authority is that independent JAGs or even civilian authorities will prosecute more cases. However, statistics show that commanders from all services have exercised jurisdiction and pursued courts-martial for sexual assault cases over the determination of civilian authorities. Over the last 2 years, Army commanders have exercised jurisdiction in 49 sexual assault cases the local civilian authorities declined to pursue, and 32 of those cases were tried by court-martial, resulting in 26 convictions. The U.S. Marine Corps exercised jurisdiction in 28 sexual assault cases, all of which were tried by court-martial, and 16 cases resulted in conviction. This goes on throughout every service.

Commanders also have an interest in pursuing a court-martial as a way to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime and its impact on unit discipline, not merely because of the quantity or quality of evidence that a crime occurred.

On June 4 the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the legislative proposals to address sexual assault in the military. We heard from four colonels from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. They all spoke about the importance of seeking legal advice from their command judge advocate and having the responsibility to adjudicate crimes within their command.

COL Donna Martin, commander of the Army's 202nd Military Police Group Criminal Investigation Division, stated:

It is of paramount importance that commanders are allowed

to continue to be the center of every formation, setting and

enforcing standards, and disciplining those who do not. The

commander is responsible for all that happens or fails to

happen in his or her unit.

She went on to say:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides me with all

the tools I need to deal with misconduct in my unit from

low-level offenses to the most serious, including murder

and rape. I cannot and should not relegate my

responsibility to maintain discipline to a staff officer

or someone else outside the chain of command.

When asked about whether a commander might be more likely to pursue a court-martial than even an outside independent officer because of the desire to send a message to his or her unit, Marine Colonel King replied that he considers ``achieving justice for whatever crime was committed and also the message that I send to the thousands of Marines that are actively watching what's going on. So I can, even if I fail to achieve a conviction at whatever level, still send a powerful message to them that this kind of conduct, even alleged, even not proven, is completely unacceptable.''

Col. Jeannie Leavitt, commander of the 4th Fighter Wing, stated:

I could absolutely see the scenario where a prosecutor may

not choose to prosecute a case or recommend prosecuting a

case because of the likelihood of conviction. However, as the

commander, I absolutely want to prosecute the case because of

the message it sends so that my airmen understand that they

will be held accountable. And then we'll let the jury decide

what happened in the case and whether or not it will be

convicted. But that message is so important, whereas an

independent prosecutor may not see the need to take it to

trial if the proof is not necessarily going to lead to

conviction.''

Additionally, our service JAGs have expressed several concerns about the proposed amendment my colleague from New York is introducing. I will take a moment and talk about the amendment.

I thank and commend Senator Gillibrand because without her persistence and passion, we would not be here today. She perhaps has done more than anyone else to focus our attention on this incredibly heinous crime done to individuals and the threat to good order, discipline, and efficiency of the military.

Her objective--the elimination of sexual abuse in the ranks of our military--must be our objective, and it must be realized. She and her cosponsors have determined, in their view, that the removal of the commander from the application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for a wide variety of offenses is the best approach to achieve the goal of ending sexual abuse in the military, but, as my previous comments clearly indicate, I disagree. Indeed, given the nature of military service, which is significantly different from civilian life, I believe that without the active involvement of commanders in every phase of military life, this goal cannot be effectively and rapidly achieved.

The approach in the amendment proposed by my colleague from New York poses significant problems in practice that could unwittingly complicate rather than accelerate efforts to end sexual abuse.

The amendment attempts to divide crimes designated by specific articles of the UCMJ into two broad categories: traditional military offenses subject to command adjudication, such as AWOL and insubordination, and a broad category of serious offenses that would typically constitute civilian criminal offenses, such as murder, robbery, and rape and sexual crimes. In fact, here is a chart depicting the division of the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

This second category of offenses would be removed from command adjudication and would be referred to an independent prosecutor. This independent prosecutor must be at least a full colonel with ``significant experience in trials by general or specific court martial'' and be ``outside the chain of command of the member subject to such charges.''

This bifurcated system--especially considering the scope of crimes excluded from the chain of command--will have profound effects on the ability of commanders and units to function effectively.

Let's take the case, which is not uncommon, of a soldier who writes five checks on five separate occasions for $30 each to the PX knowing he doesn't have the funds to cover his purchases. The Criminal Investigations Division investigates and informs the commander. Under the Gillibrand amendment, the CID must refer this case to the independent prosecutor because it falls under article 123a. These are referred to special prosecutors if they fall under the category. The five separate incidents, although they individually have a maximum punishment of 6 months, would be charged together, leading to 30 months, which exceeds the 1-year threshold for the Gillibrand amendment. As a result, this would be sent forward to the special prosecutor.

I hardly think that charging this soldier for writing bad checks is the intent of the Gillibrand amendment, but it will be the effect. It also raises the very practical questions of how the independent prosecutor will deal with an onslaught of cases like this when the expectation is that he or she will be focused on sexual abuse and other serious crimes, such as murder. There is a practical issue: Are you going to take a bad check case when you have 15 pending attempted murders, assaults, rapes, et cetera? That is a practical issue, and I think the answer is probably no.

Under the amendment, the independent prosecutor has the choice of convening a special court-martial or a general court-martial. A special court-martial consists of a panel of at least three members or, at the servicemember's election, a military judge sitting alone. There is a prosecutor, referred to as the trial counsel, and a defense counsel. In comparison, a general court-martial is the military's highest level court where servicemembers are tried for the most serious crimes-- roughly analogous to a civilian felony court--and the maximum punishments are increased.

Before any charge can be sent to a general court-martial, an Article 32 investigation must be conducted, which is a hybrid of a civilian grand jury proceeding and a preliminary comprehensive discovery proceeding. The Article 32 investigation is intended to be more than a mere formality; it is a valuable right for the accused and a source of information for the commander. The general court-martial may consist of a military judge and not fewer than five members or a military judge alone if the defendant chooses. Capital cases require 12 members.

As we can see, these proceedings are intensive in terms of time, in terms of commitment of military personnel, and in terms of investigatory efforts. In fact, the average length of special court- martial proceedings ranges from 3 to 5 months. General courts-martial can take anywhere from 5 to 8 months. In cases involving sexual assault, both special and general courts-martial take longer--an average of 9 months. Again, this is probably going to delay the process, not accelerate the process.

Given the time and resources involved in a general or special court- martial, in the case of a young soldier writing bad checks and the longstanding practice of reserving general and special courts-martial for the most serious offenses, I seriously doubt that an independent prosecutor would take this case. At some point, the independent prosecutor will inform the commander, which raises another issue. If this notification is delayed extensively, there is a related problem of what to do with the soldier under suspicion. Do you deploy him or her subject to recall? Do you leave him behind? So all of these issues are important.

The independent prosecutor's decision is binding on any applicable convening authority for a trial by court-martial on such charges. It is binding on every commander. The amendment, however, does attempt to preserve authority to punish these types of offenses by declaring that the independent prosecutor's decision ``shall not operate to terminate or otherwise alter the authority of commanding officers'' to employ a summary court-martial or to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. But this authority is absolutely an illusion.

Under the UCMJ, every soldier has the right to turn down a summary court-martial or an Article 15. Once he is informed by counsel that he will not be subject to a general court-martial or a special court- martial, and he can turn down a summary court-martial and article 15, the soldier will invariably refuse the summary court-martial or article 15. Ironically, in doing so he will demand a court-martial. But the commander cannot comply, as he can now, because he has already been preempted by the independent prosecutor.

This scenario will play out over and over again. A unit is plagued by a series of barracks thefts which, if unchecked, erodes good order and discipline. The commander has information that one soldier is boasting about ripping off people but he has no other evidence. During a routine health and welfare inspection, an iPhone valued at over $500 and reported missing is found in the boasting soldier's room. Under the Gillibrand amendment, the commander must refer the case to the independent prosecutor and again you will have the issues of whether the independent prosecutor takes such a case, and if not, the likelihood that the accused will refuse a summary court-martial or an Article 15 and walk free.

Incidents like this--and this is not the intent of the legislation, but this is what will happen--will erode unit cohesion and raise questions at least implicitly: Who is really running the

unit? The commander? An unseen and unknown JAG, hundreds of miles away? Or individual soldiers who may appear to be violating the rules with impunity?

This question is important here, but it is critical when a commander has to order soldiers to do dangerous things, and ultimately, that is what commanders have to do and soldiers have to have no doubt that the commander, he or she, is fully in charge.

As I referenced earlier, the bifurcation of the articles of the UCMJ poses significant challenges. The problem with the drafting of this amendment complicates not just cases of common theft, not just issues that you say we could throw out, but the very issue of sexual assault we are trying to address.

Let's take another example of a married couple, both of whom are Active Duty servicemembers, who get into a shouting match in their quarters on post. The husband stabs the wife with a kitchen knife and knocks her unconscious. She provides a statement to CID but later retracts it. They have another argument which results in his assaulting her with an attempt to commit rape. Under the Gillibrand amendment, the first offense of aggravated assault, Article 128, would have to be referred to the independent prosecutor to decide whether to send the case to a court-martial, while the offense of assault with intent to commit rape, which is specified under Article 134, is exempt from the Gillibrand proposal and would be referred to the chain of command. Assuming both the independent prosecutor and the independent commander seek a general court-martial, this particular victim will now have to have two separate Article 32 hearings, two subsequent courts-martial, at least doubling the number of times she must recount her nightmare and prolonging the administration of justice.

The accused will demand and likely get two separate panels for each set of offenses, thus doubling the number of officers unavailable for their duties in the command and more than doubling the administrative, personnel, and witness costs associated with the general court-martial.

This is a situation where, rather than streamlining, reinforcing, and clarifying the military's efforts to deal with sexual assault, we have confused them, we have delayed them, and we have put commanders in the position of competing with independent prosecutors. This is not going to add to the solution on a practical basis of how we deal with sexual assault.

We know so many of the men and women in our Armed Forces serve our nation selflessly. Every day they are prepared to give their lives. Sexual assault is the antithesis of this ethic. It has no place in the Armed Forces, and if not eliminated, it will insidiously destroy our military. I believe preventing sexual abuse requires leadership at every stage and that commanders must be involved in every step. I believe that we will make the most progress in addressing this issue by involving and holding commanders accountable, not by excluding them from a critical area of militarily life.

We have worked extensively to include provisions in this bill that will improve the prevention of sexual assault, the protection of victims, and the prosecution of perpetrators. We must pledge to do more, to continue our oversight of these programs and make further changes if needed. We owe it to all those who bravely and honorably wear the uniform of our Nation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am joined by fellow regents to the Smithsonian, Senators Leahy and Cochran, in paying tribute to an individual who has provided exceptional leadership to the Smithsonian Institution as a citizen regent, Roger Sant.

We invite our colleagues to join us in commending Roger Sant, and we wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, as regents to the Smithsonian, Senator Leahy, Senator Cochran, and I would like to pay tribute to an individual who has provided exceptional leadership to the Smithsonian Institution as a citizen regent, Patricia Stonesifer.

Ms. Stonesifer was appointed to the Smithsonian Board of Regents on December 21, 2001. During her tenure, which included 3 years of service as chair of the Board of Regents, Ms. Stonesifer helped lead the Smithsonian's governance reform efforts.

We invite our colleagues to join us in commending Patricia Stonesifer for her distringuished service to the Smithsonian Institution and the American people. We wish her continued success in her future endeavors.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2013 to ensure that 1.3 million unemployed Americans, including 4,900 Rhode Islanders, will not lose unemployment insurance at the end of the year.

Unemployment insurance, UI, is a vital lifeline for individuals and the economy. It provides a temporary weekly benefit t5o those who are looking for work and were laid off through no fault of their own.

Economists across the spectrum agree that maintaining unemployment insurance will grow our economy, spur consumer demand, and help businesses, States, and job seekers. Alternatively, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the failure to renew UI could cost our economy 310,000 jobs in 2014.

Extending unemployment insurance is a key part of keeping our economy moving forward. Indeed, continuing UI is part of a broad range of pro- growth and pro-jobs policies we should be enacting. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Stabenow, Harkin, and Whitehouse, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and pressing for action on this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2013 to ensure that 1.3 million unemployed Americans, including 4,900 Rhode Islanders, will not lose unemployment insurance at the end of the year.

Unemployment insurance, UI, is a vital lifeline for individuals and the economy. It provides a temporary weekly benefit t5o those who are looking for work and were laid off through no fault of their own.

Economists across the spectrum agree that maintaining unemployment insurance will grow our economy, spur consumer demand, and help businesses, States, and job seekers. Alternatively, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the failure to renew UI could cost our economy 310,000 jobs in 2014.

Extending unemployment insurance is a key part of keeping our economy moving forward. Indeed, continuing UI is part of a broad range of pro- growth and pro-jobs policies we should be enacting. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Stabenow, Harkin, and Whitehouse, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and pressing for action on this important legislation.