Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow, Bridget Byrnes, be given floor privileges during the consideration of the national defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maj. Aaron Jelinek, an Air Force officer currently serving as a defense fellow in Senator Begich's office, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an amendment I plan to introduce to the National Defense Authorization Act next week. This is an amendment known as the bipartisan Military Justice Improvement Act.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their leadership in this effort. As we have said from the beginning, this is not a Democrat nor a Republican idea. It is good, plain old common sense. It is the right idea necessary to protect the men and women who fight for our country and our values in uniform every single day. So I thank the broad coalition of supporters for their leadership--former generals and commanders, veterans, advocates--who are making their voices heard so that they know these horrible crimes aren't going to happen to someone else; that the justice system we build is one of which they are deserving. They are urging Congress to use its responsibility of oversight and accountability, to use their role head-on, by finally creating an independent military justice system which gives survivors of these horrific acts of violence a fair shot at justice--a system free of inherent bias and conflicts of interest that currently exists within the chain of command, that will enable survivors to come forward and to hold their perpetrators accountable.

The strong and growing bipartisan coalition of Senators, survivors, veterans, retired generals, commanding officers, and advocates is showing this is not only free from partisan politics and ideology, but it is a promilitary piece of legislation which actually strengthens our military readiness, strengthens unit cohesion, and strengthens good order and discipline.

This week began with all Americans saluting our veterans, honoring our solemn commitment to the brave men and women who join the Armed Services for all the right reasons: To serve our country, defend all that we hold sacred, and make America's military the best the world has ever known.

These men and women put everything on the line to defend our country. Each time they are called to serve, they answer that call. But too often these brave men and women find themselves in the fight of their lives--not on some foreign battlefield in another place against an unknown enemy but within their own ranks, on this soil, among men and women with whom they serve. They are victims of horrific acts of sexual violence.

Sexual assault in the military is not new, but it has been allowed to fester. It has been festering in the shadows for far too long, and when our commanders for the past 25 years have said there is zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military, what they really meant was there is zero accountability--and that is the problem we are facing--going back to the Secretary of Defense under Dick Cheney in 1992. He uttered those words: ``Zero accountability.'' Every Secretary of Defense has since that time said ``zero accountability.'' But our system of justice in the military is broken, and our commanders are the ones who hold all the cards about whether these cases can go forward.

There are those who argue that moving these decisions to independent military prosecutors will somehow undermine good order and discipline. If you had 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact, rape, and assault in the military last year alone, you do not have good order and discipline.

Our allies with whom we fight side by side in every conflict--Israel, the UK, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany--have all already made this decision to say serious crimes deserve the objective review of trained military prosecutors. They should not rest in the chain of command. They should not rest where bias is possible, where conflicts of interest are rampant. It should not be there because the scales of justice are blind. That is the whole point of the American justice system: Blind justice. Not tipped for the defendant, not tipped for the victim. Blind, objective.

We have a Defense Department panel that is actually taking up evidence on this issue. They had a hearing. They asked members from our allies to come and testify about when they made this change. When you took this decisionmaking out of the chain of command, what happened? Did you have a falling off of good order and discipline? They testified no. The director-general of the Australian Defense Force Legal Service, Paul Cronin, said that Australia had faced the same set of arguments from their military leaders in the past.

It's a bit like when we opened up to gays in the military

in the late 1980s. There was a lot of concern at the time

that there would be issues, but not surprisingly there

haven't been any.

There are those who argue that somehow our commanders would no longer be accountable. Let me be clear about this. There is nothing in this bill that takes commanders off the hook. They are still responsible, solely responsible, for maintaining good order and discipline, for setting the command climate, for saying these rapes are not going to happen on my watch and, if they do, victims can come forward and know they will be protected. They are responsible for making sure there is no retaliation.

But you know what. Last year alone, of those 3,000 brave survivors who did come forward and report what happened to them, 62 percent were retaliated against--62 percent. That means those command climates failed to protect victims telling their commanders I have been raped; I have been sexually assaulted; I have been brutalized, and justice has to be done.

What does retaliation look like? Commanders saying things such as: It is your own fault; you are to blame; you are the problem. If you report this crime, I am going to write you up on drinking or adultery. Do you really want your military career to end?

For so many victims, that is what happened; they are forced out of the military. All they want to do is serve our country, some of our best and brightest. We are losing them because justice is impossible for them.

Some opponents say this reform will cost too much money. One estimate is that if you had enough lawyers to do all this legal work, it might cost you $113 million, $4,000 a victim. That is an absurd argument. Are you really telling me it costs too much to prosecute rapists in the military? Are you really telling me it costs too much to have enough lawyers to take these cases to trial? Are you really telling me it costs too much to have a criminal justice system that honors the men and women who serve in this military? You cannot possibly be saying that. You cannot possibly be saying that.

It is also an argument that makes no sense. Do you know how much it costs our military to have 26,000 sexual assaults, rapes, and unwanted sexual contacts every year in our military? Do you know what that costs? The RAND Corporation actually did an estimate. They said having this kind of rampant sexual assault, rape in our military, cost the military--because they lose so many of these good men and women there have to be new people retrained--$3.6 billion last year alone. That is the cost. That is a cost we should not be willing to pay.

Last argument. Our opponents say that commanders will actually move

more cases forward that prosecutors wouldn't. That is not true because, again, if you have 23,000 cases that are not being reported and you create an objective criminal justice system, you are going to have more reporting. With more reporting, you are going to have more cases going to trial, many more cases than any argument that there might be an aggressive commander here or there. Many more cases will go to trial and end in conviction if you create an objective system.

Every single year the DOD does estimates; they estimate what is actually the incident rate of sexual assault in the military. Last year they had confidential surveys men and women filled out. Based on that confidential survey, they estimated there were 26,000 cases last year alone, sexual assault, rape, unwanted sexual contact. Of that number, only 2,558--that is the 1 in 10--sought justice by filing unrestricted reports. Of those 2,500 cases, 300 went to trial. So you are really talking about 1 in 100 cases end in justice. That is an abysmal record. We owe so much more to the men and women who serve in our military, so much more to those who will even die for this country. A chain of command oriented system that produces only 302 convictions of 2,558 actionable reports is simply not holding enough alleged assailants accountable under any standard. One in one hundred cases ending in conviction is not good enough under any standard.

Further, an independent system will protect not just the rights of the victim but an accused who may well be innocent, because when a commander is the only decisionmaker and they may know the victim and they may know the perpetrator or the accused and they have a reason to deal with this case in a way that is reflective of his or her bias, what you are creating is an unjust system. Justice must be blind.

I have not come to this conclusion for this fundamentally needed reform lightly. But if you listen to the survivors, if you listen to what happened to them, where the breach in the system is, where the failure of trust occurred, there is no possible reform that does not include taking it out of the chain of command.

What I would like to do, as my colleague Senator Grassley has just joined me on the floor--Senator Grassley is one of our greatest champions on this bill. He has looked at this problem from the perspective of common sense. He has looked at this problem and said you cannot possibly have a system rife with bias and conflicts of interest and expect justice will be done. I am going to yield to my colleague when he is ready. He wants to address another issue.

I yield to my colleague.

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

Mr. President, I had the privilege of listening to my colleagues, Senator Hirono and Senator Blumenthal, who have been addressing this issue of sexual assault in the military. As both of them said so persuasively and articulately, our military justice system is broken. The sense of trust that a man or woman serving in the military today, who has been subjected to rape or sexual assault, has been broken--and not just between them and the assailants in their unit but between them and their commanders. In fact, the trust that their commander will have their back, that they will have these crimes investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice has been broken.

Even General Amos, Commandant of the Marines, said so. He said: I can see why a female marine might not report a case of sexual assault. They don't trust us. She doesn't trust the chain of command.

This is our challenge. We have to reform the system because these are some of the best men and women in the world that make our military as strong as it is. But we are subjecting them to not only these great acts of violence but then the second heartbreak, the second revictimization of having a military justice system that does not have their back or they are convinced not to report these crimes because justice will not be done or nothing will be done or they will be retaliated against for reporting.

The No. 1 reason 23,000 cases last year went unreported was because victims believed nothing would be done. They did not trust their chain of command to have these cases prosecuted. The second reason they didn't report these cases was because they feared or witnessed retaliation. That is not surprising, because of the 3,000 brave survivors who did report their sexual assault or rape, 62 percent were retaliated against. That is a huge number.

There is a failure within our military--our military that has promised for 25 years zero tolerance for sexual assault and rape in the military. As far as I am concerned, all we have had is zero accountability, because of those brave 3,000 survivors who did come forward and 62 percent were retaliated against means those commanders failed to maintain a command climate where retaliation is not taking place.

In our underlying bill we are going to fix that. We are going to make retaliation a crime, giving commanders more tools to go after perpetrators of retaliation. Retaliation has always been against good order and discipline. It has never been acceptable, but still it exists and too many victims do not come forward because they fear it.

So I wish to speak on behalf of these survivors, these advocates, these champions, these leaders in reform. They can't be on the Senate floor right this moment, but I can be here, and I can share their stories. I can tell what happened to them.

Sarah Plummer was raped as a young marine in 2003. She said:

I knew the military was notorious for mishandling rape

cases, so I didn't dare think anything good would come of

reporting the rape.

Having someone within your direct chain of command just

doesn't make any sense, it's like being raped by your brother

and having your dad decide the case.

Another survivor, Trina McDonald, at 17 enlisted in the Navy. She was stationed at a remote base in Alaska. Within 2 months, she was attacked, repeatedly drugged and raped by superior officers over the course of 9 months. Can you imagine that being your daughter? Can you imagine this young woman who literally wants to serve our country and even die for our country being repeatedly drugged and raped by her supervisor?

She said:

At one point, my attackers threw me in the Bering Sea and

left me for dead in the hopes that they would silence me

forever. They made it very clear that they would kill me if I

ever spoke up or reported what they had done.

Thank God Trina McDonald survived, because as I read her testimony from the Senate floor, she is being heard in this debate.

Army SGT Rebekah Havrilla, who served in Afghanistan and was raped in 2007, said reporting the crime to her commanding officer was unthinkable:

There was no way I was going to go to my commander. He made

it clear he didn't like women.

Listen to AIC Jessica Hinves, who was raped in 2009 by a coworker who broke into her room at 3 a.m. She said:

Two days before the court hearing, his commander called me

on a conference at the JAG office, and he said that he didn't

believe that [the offender] acted like a gentleman, but there

wasn't reason to prosecute.

Breaking into someone's room, not being a gentleman. Obviously, that commander does not understand that rape is a serious crime.

I was speechless. Legal had been telling me this is going

to go through court. We had the court date set for several

months. And two days before, his commander stopped it. I

later found out the commander had no legal education or

background, and he'd only been in command for four days.

Her rapist was given the award for Airman of the Quarter. She was transferred to another base.

Many listening tonight may think this is just a crime against women, but one of the most disturbing facts is that more than half of these crimes are against men. It is not a gender issue. The crimes of rape and sexual assault are not of passion but are brutal crimes, crimes of aggression, crimes of dominance, crimes of control. These are not cases of dates that have gone badly.

Blake Stephens, now 29, joined the Army in January of 2001, just 7 months after graduating from high school. The verbal and physical attacks started quickly, he says, and came from virtually every level of the chain of command. In one of the worst incidents, a group of men tackled him, shoved a soda bottle up his rectum, and threw him backward off an elevated platform onto the hood of a car.

When he reported the incident, Stephens said, his drill sergeant told him, ``You're the problem. You're the reason this is happening,'' and refused to take action. Blake said:

You just feel trapped. They basically tell you you're going

to have to keep working

with these people day after day, night after night. You don't

have a choice.

His assailants told him that once he deployed to Iraq, they would shoot him in the head. ``They told me they were going to have sex with me all of the time when we were there.''

If these stories aren't enough, please do listen to some retired generals, commanders, JAG officers, veterans who know from years of experience that the status quo is an injustice to those who serve, and our approach is the right way forward.

This September, three retired generals gave their public support for our proposal, including LTG Claudia Kennedy, the first woman to achieve the rank of three-star general in the U.S. Army; BG Lorree Sutton, formerly the highest ranking psychiatrist in the Army; BG David McGinnis, who most recently served in the Pentagon as the Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.

Lieutenant General (retired) Kennedy wrote me:

Having served in leadership positions in the US Army, I

have concluded that if military leadership hasn't fixed this

problem in my lifetime, it's not going to be fixed without a

change to the status quo.

The imbalance of power and authority held by commanders in

dealing with sexual assaults must be corrected. There has to

be independent oversight over what is happening in these

cases.

Simply put, we must remove the conflicts of interest in the

current system. . . . The system in which a commander can

sweep his own crime or the crime of a decorated soldier or

friend under the rug, protect the guilty and protects serial

predators. And it harms our military readiness. . . .

Until leadership is held accountable, this won't be

corrected. To hold leadership accountable means there must be

independence and transparency in the system.

Permitting professionally trained prosecutors rather than

commanding officers to decide whether to take a sexual

assault case to trial is a measured first step toward such

accountability. . . . I have no doubt that command climate,

unit cohesion and readiness will be improved by [these]

changes.

BG (retired) Lorree Sutton also wrote to me, saying:

Failure to achieve these reforms would be a further tragedy

to an already sorrowful history of inattention and ineptitude

concerning military sexual assault.

In my view, achieving these essential reform measures must

be considered as a national security imperative, demanding

immediate action to prevent further damage to individual

health and well-being, vertical and horizontal trust within

units, military institutional reputation, operational mission

readiness and the civilian-military compact.

Far from ``stripping'' commanders of accountability, as

some detractors have suggested, these improvements will

remove the inherent conflict of interest that clouds the

perception and, all too often, the decision-making process

under the current system. Implementing these reforms will

actually support leaders to build and sustain unit cultures

marked by respect, good order and discipline.

BG (retired) David McGinnis, who also served as a Pentagon appointee, wrote this to me:

I fully support your efforts to stamp out sexual assault in

the United States military and believe that there is nothing

in [the Military Justice Improvement Act] that is

inconsistent with the responsibility or authority of command.

Protecting the victims of these abuses and restoring American

values to our military culture is long overdue.

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Martha Rainville, the first woman in the history of the National Guard to serve as a State Adjunct General and served in the military for 27 years, including 14 years in command positions, wrote:

As a former commander, endorsing a change that removes

certain authority from military commanders has been a tough

decision. It was driven by my conviction that our men and

women in uniform deserve to know, without doubt, that they

are valued and will be treated fairly with all due process

should they report an offense and seek help, or face being

accused of an offense.

When allegations of serious criminal conduct have been

made, the decision whether to prosecute should be made by a

trained legal professional. Fairness and justice require

sound judgment based on evidence and facts, independent of

pre-existing command relationships.

That is the crux of the problem. You have commanders who have biases. Maybe they don't want women in the military. Maybe they don't believe gay members should serve openly. Maybe they need or appreciate or like the assailant more. Maybe the perpetrator has done great things in battle. Maybe he is more experienced, more important. Maybe he is more popular.

Those biases color decisionmaking. Because when the decisionmaker actually weighs evidence, one of the fundamental pieces of evidence in these cases is the testimony of the victim and the accused. If that commander doesn't value the victim because she is new, he may not believe her when he sees the perpetrator is a family man with two kids, a lovely wife: How could he possibly do that? He has been in Iraq five times. I don't believe her and I believe him. He has weighed the evidence through a colored lens.

That is not justice. That is not fairness. That is not what our democracy is based on. We believe in justice being blind. We believe in the scales of justice not being weighed for the victim or the accused. Justice is blind. It is fair. It is impartial. It is objective.

If that decisionmaker is not even a trained lawyer, how do we hope they are going to get it right, colored with biases, colored with self- interest. No commander wants to say rape is happening under their command. That is a failure. It is a failure of military readiness. It is a failure of good order and discipline. It is a failure of good command climate. Why would they want to report their own failure? Many times they don't. That is why the deck is stacked against the victims of these crimes in too many cases.

We have had a recent ruling that I think is incredibly important.

The DOD for 50 years has had a panel called the DACOWITS panel. It is a panel of advisers that have been asked by the Secretary of Defense, for the past 50 years, to please tell him what policies and proposals are most important to protect and support women in the military. The whole purpose of the committee is to look at this issue and say what is the status of women in the military, how are they faring.

This panel actually has been studying sexual assault in the military for decades. They have been focused on it, have had hearings on it, opining on it, giving recommendations for a very long time. They have looked at this proposed recommendation, studied it, and they actually recommended every piece of this legislation to be passed by this Congress. They have actually recommended the decisionmaking go outside the chain of command. The vote for that proposal: 10 in favor, 6 abstained, none against. Of the 10 in favor, 9 out of 10 are all former military, 5 of them senior officers. The one nonmilitary was a woman who was head of the Women's Law Center. They want every aspect of this reform put into law. They are the experts. Even Secretary Hagel said he looks at this group with great regard, with high authority. He regards them as the preeminent advisory panel for women in the military.

We also have a lot of support from other retired members of the military, Retired U.S. Army MG Dennis Laich, Retired Navy CAPT Lory Manning, Former JAG officer and Congressman Patrick Murphy, and military legal experts such as Diane Mazur and Rachel Natelson.

When the DACOWITS panel, the Defense Advisory Committee On Women In The Services, voted in support of the measure, they say they believe these are the reforms that will make the difference. They say they must implement these reforms to make sure the status of women in the military is protected. Secretary Hagel places a great premium on this panel.

We also have the support of leading veterans groups, veterans groups who actually have served. They are veterans; they understand what happens. ``We want to be clear, a vote for the Military Justice Improvement Act is a vote for our troops, and a vote for a stronger military.'' We should listen to our veterans.

I think it is time we restore trust. The military has had 25 years to deal with this problem. They have been saying zero tolerance for 25 years. They keep saying: We got this. They keep saying: We can handle this, just give us more time. If this happened to my son or daughter-- how much more time do you need? How many more thousands of victims are going to be raped and assaulted in the military and have no hope for justice? How many more good men and women are we going to lose to sexual assault and rape, who are retaliated against and pushed out, being told they are the problem? How much are we going to lose in terms of military readiness, in terms of unit cohesion, in terms of troop morale, in terms of good order and discipline, to the scourge of sexual violence in the military?

I don't think we should wait another day. I don't think we should wait for another panel, another report, another study, another, another, another, another. We have boxes of studies over the last 25 years making recommendations. But until you create a transparent, accountable military justice system, you do not have a hope of solving this problem. Until you give the decisionmaking authority to an actual trained lawyer who is not biased, you don't have a hope.

All of our allies have done this, all of them. The ones we fight side by side with--Israel, UK, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Germany--are allies. They said if it is a serious crime; let the decisionmaker be unbiased; let the decisionmaker be trained.

Did they have a fall-off of good order and discipline when they let these decisions be made by trained prosecutors? They told us no.

When we tried to repeal don't ask, don't tell, military commanders said you cannot possibly do this; this will undermine good order and discipline. When we wanted women to be able to serve in the military, they said you cannot possibly do that because of good order and discipline. When we integrated the armed services, commanders said you cannot possibly do this; it will undermine good order and discipline. We did it. We did every single one of those reforms.

Congress had an action, elected leaders had a responsibility. We provide oversight and accountability over the Department of Defense. It is an important relationship, and sometimes we may have an idea for reform that can make the difference, that can make our military stronger, that can utilize all of our best and brightest.

Don't ask, don't tell--we lost 10 percent of our foreign language speakers because of that corrosive policy. How many thousands are we going to lose to sexual assault and rape in the military? How many? How many good men and women? Losing one more is too many.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is not a Democrat nor is it a Republican idea. It is a good idea. It is a commonsense reform. It makes perfect sense when people learn about the issue and want a solution. This is what this place is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be people of good will coming together to solve problems, to make a difference.

We need leadership. We do not need followers, we need leaders. We need people who will do that job and provide oversight over the Department of Defense, especially in an area where they failed so much. This reform will make a difference, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer my strong support for Ms. Nina Pillard to be a U.S. district court judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Nina Pillard is an exemplary nominee who is more than qualified to serve on the Federal bench.

She has been a tenured professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center for 15 years and is a highly accomplished litigator who has practiced law at every level of the court system, including the Supreme Court.

Nina Pillard's impressive professional background makes her superbly qualified to serve on the DC Circuit. Her sheer talent, legal prowess, and vast and varied professional career is a testament to her brilliance.

She has argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and briefed dozens of others on significant constitutional questions such as gender equality, the Family Medical Leave Act, the right to a jury trial, and free speech.

Over the course of her 25-year legal career, Ms. Pillard has argued and/or briefed landmark Supreme Court cases, including United States v. Virginia, where she successfully opened the doors of the Virginia Military Institute to female cadets.

Nina attended Harvard Law School, where she was editor of the Harvard Law Review. She began her career as a clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the Honorable Louis H. Pollak and served as assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. She then joined the office of the Solicitor General of the United States, where she briefed and argued cases on behalf of the Federal Government before the Supreme Court. In 1998, she was named Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel.

Nina is a board member for the American Arbitration Association and is an active reader for the American Bar Association Reading Committee, which evaluated the writings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for the Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. She also is a member of the Georgetown Law Supreme Court Institute and serves on the Board of Academic Advisors for the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law. Previously, she served as a member of the American Constitution Society and the Center for Transnational Legal Studies.

However, some of my colleagues are once again blocking another highly qualified and immensely talented woman. The filibuster of Caitlin Halligan, Patricia Millett, and the threatened filibuster of Nina Pillard is history repeating itself.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the three remaining vacancies on the DC Circuit should be eliminated because the court's caseload is too low.

What they have failed to mention is that the DC Circuit Court currently has 8 active judges and 6 senior judges with an astonishing caseload total of 1,479. This outrageous argument was made just over 7 months ago, when another highly qualified female nominee to the DC Circuit, and New Yorker, Caitlin Halligan, was filibustered.

It should also be noted that in the last 19 years, the Senate has confirmed only one woman to this important court. Furthermore, the DC Circuit has only had five female judges during its entire 120-year history. In a country where women make up over half of the population, that is a disgraceful statistic and one this body can take steps to eliminate immediately.

It is absolutely necessary that the Senate confirm supremely qualified individuals such as Nina Pillard to serve on the Federal judiciary. Her experience is unmatched and her passion for the law is unquestioned. With a caseload as high as that of the DC Circuit, it is our responsibility in the Senate to act swiftly in confirming the President's nominees. We cannot continue nor can we afford to toss out highly experienced individuals, particularly such accomplished women to serve in our Federal Judiciary because of political gamesmanship. The time to act is now.

Today it has been exactly 1 year since Superstorm Sandy hit my home State of New York and the surrounding region. Today is a very solemn day where we pause to ponder the unimaginable loss of 61 precious lives and the great collective pain as countless other lives were shattered. Over 300,000 homes were damaged or destroyed and businesses lay in rubble. Over 250,000 businesses were affected, many of which are still unable to open their doors.

There is something else to remember today. In the days and weeks that followed Superstorm Sandy, we also saw the absolute best of New York. We know New Yorkers are a resilient bunch. We get knocked down, but we get right back up.

As I traveled all across New York City, I saw neighbors coming together, going door to door to help the homebound, donating resources, volunteering their time, clearing debris. In the Rockaways I saw hundreds of residents create an impromptu bustling plaza of hot food, clothing, and anything people might need.

I remember talking to one small business owner in Staten Island whose restaurant was nearly split in two by a boat from a nearby marina, and he simply said to me: ``We will rebuild this better than it was before,'' before agreeing to have dinner together this time next year in that very spot where that boat was resting. He said yes, and we had lunch at his restaurant only a few months ago. It was amazing.

In Westchester, a small business owner gave me a hug, and she vowed she would rebuild. She said defiantly, ``This is our community.''

On Long Island, I walked the streets of Lindenhurst, Massapequa, and visited Long Beach and Fire Island. While the devastation I saw was awful, I have never met more resilient and compassionate people. I witnessed homeowners struggling to pick up their own pieces and to get it out of the way to help neighbors, sharing food, sharing water supplies, giving each other rides to the stores, sharing generators, and clearing each others' debris.

While the road to recovery is very long and very hard, New Yorkers will rebuild. They will rebuild stronger, but we all have to do our part. Too many communities are still recovering and rebuilding. Some families are actually still homeless, living in trailers or confined to the second floor of their homes and still waiting for additional assistance. Too many homeowners have not yet received the funding to repair their homes and their businesses. Too often, those who are struggling to rebuild have been caught in redtape.

Throughout the past year, I have pushed to change some of the Federal policies that have stood in the way of recovery. We have had some successes. We were successful at pushing FEMA to extend critical deadlines for Sandy survivors to document their losses, so that those who have had trouble getting back into their homes are not prevented from filing flood insurance claims.

We were able to get the Department of Housing and Urban Development to relax regulations that would have prevented substantially damaged homes from accessing critical recovery funds. We received assurances from the Army Corps of Engineers that they will fund critical shore protection projects at full Federal expense, ensuring that these projects can move forward quickly without having to wait for our communities to find the matching funds out of very tough and local struggling budgets that are already stretched too thin.

That is not enough. For all of our successes, we are still facing so many challenges. There is still far too much redtape getting in between families and recovery. My office hears every single day from homeowners and families who are struggling just to move forward.

Many of us are working on a bipartisan bill to postpone the potentially disastrous flood insurance rate increases coming into effect as a result of the Biggert-Waters flood insurance reform law. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bipartisan bill that was introduced by Senator Menendez and Senator Isakson that would delay the premium increases set to go into effect until after FEMA has completed a study and provided Congress with a plan to make the rates more affordable. Our families working so hard to rebuild, frankly, deserve nothing less.

Some homeowners, even as they do rebuild, have started seeing their rates increase. This would cause so many of our constituents to be forced out of their homes and communities that they love, that they have lived in their whole lives. This is why the Menendez-Isakson bill is so critical and why I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation.

As we focus on providing communities with all of the resources they need to rebuild from Sandy, the Federal Government is partnering with States, local governments, the private sector, and academia to develop solutions that will protect us from the next disaster. We know that for every dollar spent to make our homes, businesses, and infrastructure more resilient, $4 is saved in potential recovery costs down the road.

Earlier this year Senator Wicker and I introduced the STRONG Act, which stands for Strengthening the Resiliency of Our Nation on the Ground. This bipartisan bill seeks to build on the progress that has been made locally by requiring the Federal Government to develop a national resiliency strategy, assess where there are gaps and opportunities for improvements. It also creates a new information portal for both the public and private sectors to share information about how to strengthen our communities and protect against future extreme weather threats.

We have come a long way in the past year, but I am very sad to say we have so much more work to be done. Our communities are working as hard as ever to recover, but we have to work equally as hard toward rebuilding and being better prepared for the next storm.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 931 for a vote at a time to be determined by the manager of the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I yield to the chairman of the committee for other business.

I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join my effort to fight off the proposed $4 billion worth of cuts to SNAP, better known as food stamps.

I ask that my amendment, No. 931, be called up for a vote at a time determined by the manager of the bill.

When Congress proposes to cut the food stamp program, it is not a nameless, faceless person looking for a handout who suffers--it is hungry children, hardworking adults, seniors on fixed incomes, veterans, active-duty servicemembers fighting our wars, and the families who stand by them.

I heard from a single mom in Queens, working full time at a supermarket, doing all she could to make ends meet but still struggles in this very tough economy. Her son came home one day from school with a bag in his hand and told her he saved his lunch for their dinner, and that he asked his best friend if he could have his sandwich to bring home for his brother. Obviously that mother broke down in tears. She needs food stamp assistance.

I heard from a senior in Washington Heights in New York City. She receives a limited fixed income, not enough to live on. She relies on SNAP to pay for food and for some peace of mind. Without that help, putting food on the table will become impossible.

I have heard from veterans all across the country who are making their voices heard to prevent these cuts, such as one very brave veteran from Colorado Springs. He served in Iraq, but was declared medically unfit to continue his service. He was released from the military and returned home. As he was looking for a job and waited for the VA to activate his benefits, he relied on SNAP to help his family make ends meet. Going from active duty to food stamps, he described, was a culture shock. It was never his plan to go on food stamps. Without that little bit of support, this veteran, his wife, and his children would have needlessly suffered. Today he is back on his feet working full time, but the program was there for him when he needed it, as it should be.

These are the people who rely on this critically needed assistance to put food on the table and who stand to lose if Congress follows through with these deep cuts to SNAP. Half of all food stamp recipients are children, 8 percent are seniors, and 1.4 million veteran households receive food stamps. There are some of you here who would have us believe that these children, seniors, and veterans are gaming the system just to take advantage of taxpayers. The fact is, it is less than 1 percent of every dollar that goes into this program that is wasted, less than 1 percent is evidence of fraud. Imagine if we had that level of efficiency anywhere else in government.

In fact, SNAP keeps our economy moving. This money goes straight to the grocery stores, the store clerks, the truckers who haul the food, and producers all across the country. Sixteen cents of every SNAP dollar actually goes right back to the farmer who grew the crop, according to the USDA. When we cut $4 billion from SNAP, it means there is $90 less a month going to half a million households. To folks in this Chamber, $90 a month may not seem like a lot of money, but for a struggling family that is a week's worth of groceries. Imagine telling your children they can't eat the last week of every month. Imagine telling your child at night when he says to you: Mommy, I am still hungry, that there is nothing you can do about it.

As a mother, as a lawmaker, watching a child, a senior, and a brave veteran going hungry is something I will not stand for, and neither should anyone else in this body. Clearly we have to reduce the debt and the deficit, but hardworking parents, their children, seniors, troops, and veterans are just trying to keep the lights on, trying to make ends meet, trying to put food on the table. They did not spend this Nation into debt, and we should not be trying to balance the budget on their back. They deserve better from us. These are the wrong priorities for America.

Instead, the amendment I am proposing would reduce a real source of waste in this budget, and that is corporate welfare for large corporations that do not need it, including insurance companies that are based in Bermuda, Australia, and Switzerland.

My amendment already has the support and advocacy of a third of this body. Thirty-three Senators have signed a letter saying do not cut food stamps, because it protects half a million struggling Americans who too often do not have a voice in Washington when they desperately need it. It makes modest cuts to an already overgenerous corporate welfare system. It is common sense. Standing by those who are suffering is the core. It is a core value of who we are as Americans.

If it is in your heart, and if you believe feeding hungry children is the right thing to do, then stand with us. Stand with America's veterans. Stand with the AARP and America's seniors. Stand with struggling families and children all across this Nation. Let's keep food on the tables of people who need it. When we do, America will be stronger, and this body will be stronger.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment because when Congress proposes to cut the Food Stamp Program, it is not nameless, faceless people looking for a handout who suffer. It is children. It is veterans. It is Active-Duty servicemembers. It is hard- working adults. We have to stand by them in the way they have stood by us. The reality of this amendment is that half of the recipients of food stamps are children, 8 percent are seniors, and 1.4 million veteran households receive food stamps.

Some of my colleagues believe this is some loophole we are closing, but the fact is these programs were designed for efficiency as part of welfare reform. When we put this LIHEAP program in place--the ``heat and eat'' program--it was to say families living in cold weather States that have high heating bills need extra money to put food on the table. This particular provision is for people in rental apartments who do not have a heating bill but are also having their heat included in their rent. These Governors in ``heat and eat'' States have said we want to make sure our recipients of food stamps are eligible for this benefit because they need it. Children, seniors, veterans, Active-Duty servicemembers deserve to have food on their table.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, building a family is an exciting milestone in the lives of millions of American families. Unfortunately, the road towards conceiving a child is often difficult and painful for the nearly 7 million Americans diagnosed with the disease of infertility.

Earlier this month, men and women across the country shared their stories during National Infertility Awareness Week. This movement, organized by RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, brings attention to the disease of infertility and encourages the public to take charge of their reproductive health. Let me take this opportunity to commend RESOLVE for its work providing community and giving voice to women and men experiencing infertility.

Over the last few decades, significant medical advancements, such as in vitro fertilization, have provided a solution for some would be parents. However, the high cost to undergo infertility care often poses an additional barrier for couples to overcome. It costs more than $12,000 for a couple to undergo one cycle of infertility treatment and insurance coverage is often dismal. For some patients, multiple cycles are required to achieve a successful pregnancy outcome. Federal Government insurance plans do not specifically cover infertility treatments and only 15 States offer any level of coverage.

I have introduced a bill that would alleviate some of the costs associated with infertility care. The Family Act (S. 881) creates a Federal tax credit for individuals who are diagnosed with infertility by a licensed physician. A tax credit will help make this vital patient care more accessible and affordable to those who lack insurance coverage for these services.

I hope you will join me by becoming a cosponsor of The Family Act. This is a necessary step towards ensuring that all of our citizens have the ability to raise a family, without compromising their financial future.

I agree completely with my colleagues' interpretation of section 3004 and for the necessity of the section in question. When we added the provision in the Sandy relief bill for a $20 million comprehensive study to address flood risks on the east coast, we intended for this study to produce specific and actionable recommendations for hurricane protection. I thank my colleagues for their work and Chairman Boxer for her leadership.

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support a bipartisan amendment I worked on with Senator Wicker to make our communities more resilient in an era of extreme weather that we live in. No corner of America is being spared: blazing wildfires in the West, massive tornadoes in the South, crippling droughts in the Midwest, routine hurricanes battering the gulf coast and the northeast coast.

We cannot accept the status quo. I think we must do more, because as we have seen in New York, the storm of the century has literally become the storm of the year. In 2011, we saw widespread and devastating damage from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. One year later, Superstorm Sandy hit us harder than we could have ever imagined.

The Federal Government must step in. It must step up to do the hard work, to lead the way in preparing for and protecting against these extreme weather events. This does not mean just building a higher flood wall or moving public infrastructure out of the flood zone; it means taking a smarter, longer term regional approach to disaster planning.

Along with saving lives, this makes smart economic sense. For every $1 we spend to reduce disaster risk, we save $4 in recovery costs. Our bipartisan amendment can help achieve this goal. It is called Strengthening the Resiliency of Our Nation on the Ground--the STRONG Act--to give the Federal Government a real plan to strengthen our resiliency.

First, the bill would investigate effective resiliency policies, identify the gaps, and identify the conflicting policies. Knowing what resources we have, what works, what does not, we can write and implement a national resiliency strategy to support the local efforts.

This would include a one-stop shop to gather and share data to develop smarter resiliency policies, incorporating existing databases and ongoing efforts across a range of sectors, from weather and climate to transportation and energy. It also eliminates redundancies, ensuring all levels of government are coordinating effectively and efficiently, sharing their expertise, their data, and information.

This national resource will work hand in glove with local efforts, providing the most recent scientific information and best practices to help our communities plan for and survive the worst. As we learn the lessons of Superstorm Sandy and other natural disasters, we need to ensure that our communities are thinking broadly about resiliency across all sectors of society. The STRONG Act is the foundation to build smarter and stronger cities, States and a nation. Only with communities built for the 21st century can we withstand the extreme weather of our time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am deeply honored to stand here today in support of Analisa Torres's nomination to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I also want to thank President Obama for acting on my recommendation and nominating another superbly qualified female jurist to the Federal bench.

I know Judge Torres as a fair-minded woman of great integrity. Her lifetime of public service and legal experience, serving as a jurist, an attorney, and serving her community has earned her the respect of her colleagues. Her body of work demonstrates her qualifications to serve on the Federal bench.

Since 2000, she has served as a judge in various courts, including the Criminal Court of the City of New York, and in 2012 she was elected to a 14-year term as a New York State Supreme Court Justice. Judge Torres has previously worked in private practice, as a law clerk, and as a teacher. In her current role, she has exemplified pragmatism and has demonstrated a consistent commitment to thoughtful, sound and fair reasoning.

In addition to her professional work, she has shown an enduring commitment to her community.

There is no question that Judge Torres is extremely well qualified and well suited to serve as a Federal court judge. I strongly believe this country needs more women like her serving in the Federal judiciary--an institution I believe needs more exceptional women.

Today, women make up only 30 percent of the Federal bench.

According to the National Women's Law Center, only 66 women of color currently serve as active Federal judges--that is less than 10 percent of the Nation's active Federal bench.

We have to do better.

Judge Torres's nomination has been pending before this body for over 150 days. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and help us move forward on the 14 judicial nominees who have been forced to deal with this unprecedented delay.

I remind my colleagues that greater diversity, of gender, ethnicity and professional backgrounds, are not just ideals that we should aspire to, but steps we must take to have a judiciary that is more diverse, and more reflective of the great country we live in. I have no doubt that having Judge Torres serving in the Federal judiciary will bring us closer to that goal.

I was proud to recommend her for this position. I urge all my colleagues to join me and vote in support of her nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

I rise to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join a strong bipartisan coalition which is taking real action to end senseless, deadly gun violence. This includes truly commonsense reforms which have nothing to do with infringing on our Second Amendment rights and the Second Amendment rights of our law-abiding citizens.

We have seen the Newtown parents here in Washington bravely telling their stories. They deserve better than this body turning their backs on them. The families of Aurora deserve better than this body turning their backs on them. The families of the more than 30 people who die every single day at the hands of gun violence deserve more from this body.

My friends, it is simply time to act. Today is the day for this body to show the American people their voices matter. When 90 percent of Americans demand us to expand background checks, we can deliver.

We should be able to agree we no longer need military-style weapons and ammunition clips on our streets. We should be able to agree it is time to crack down on the illegal handguns being trafficked on our streets into the hands of criminals.

Four years ago I met the parents of Nyasia Pryear-Yard. Nyasia was a beautiful 17-year-old honor student killed in the prime of her life by an illegal handgun when she was just spending time with her friends.

I vowed to Nyasia's parents and classmates I would stop the flow of illegal guns which make their way onto our streets and into the hands of criminals by finally making gun trafficking a Federal crime and holding offenders accountable with stiff penalties. We have the opportunity today to give law enforcement the tools and resources they need and have long asked for. This is not a Republican or a Democratic idea. It is a smart idea and the action Nyasia's parents deserve from us.

According to the New York City mayor's office, 85 percent of the guns used in crimes come from out of State. At least 90 percent of those guns are illegal. They are illegally trafficked into our cities and State. Of all the laws we have on the books today, effectively none are directly focused on preventing someone from driving from one State to another with stricter gun laws, parking their car in a parking lot, and selling hundreds of firearms directly into the hands of criminals. It is shocking to me as a mother and as a lawmaker.

Instead, prosecutors primarily rely on laws which prohibit making false statements in connection with the purchase of a firearm. These are paperwork violations with penalties too low to be effective law enforcement tools.

Over the past 3 fiscal years, more than 330,000 guns used in violent crimes show telltale signs of black market trafficking, 420,000 firearms were stolen, and thousands of guns with obliterated serial numbers were recovered by law enforcement. While law enforcement is working overtime to track down illegal guns and apprehend those who traffic these weapons, current law restricts their ability to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

We can all agree this simply makes no sense and leaves all our communities vulnerable. All across this country in small towns and big cities, families are saying enough is enough. It is time to get serious and do something to prevent the next tragedy.

Now we are able to do so. Our bipartisan Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act would empower law enforcement to investigate and prosecute illegal gun traffickers, straw purchasers, and their entire criminal networks. This bill is not everything I wanted when I set out on this mission in 2009, but it is a good bipartisan compromise. It is a compromise I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support. If you do, we can stop the illegal flow of guns which are coming into our city neighborhoods, reduce gun violence, and reduce senseless gun death.

Law enforcement officials across the country need this legislation to protect our communities from illegal weapons. If you are a responsible, law-abiding gun owner watching this, you should support this legislation too. My friends who are Second Amendment supporters, gun owners, and hunters support this commonsense legislation.

I am urging all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us. Stand with families in our communities all across the country who are looking to us to take action. It is time to prevent the next senseless tragedy, prevent the next death, and the next Nyasia Pryear-Yard.

I urge you to stand with the brave men and women of our law enforcement at every level who are asking us to take these critical commonsense measures needed so they can do a better job for us and keep our families safer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Vitter, Coons, Blunt, Landrieu, Leahy, Warner, and Murray in introducing the Cyber Warrior Act of 2013 to build Cyber and Computer Network Incident Response Teams in the National Guard.

This bill would establish a Cyber and Computer Network Incident Response Team, CCNIRT, in each state and the District of Columbia, which could provide a scalable response, called into support by the Governor in case of a domestic initial response or by the Secretary of Defense in a Title 10 status when the situation warrants it. These teams would combine both Active and Traditional Guard Members, thereby leveraging the private sector IT expertise and experience. The use of the Guard would also support the goal of retaining the cyber training of military personnel when they retire.

The bill would allow the Guard to further develop cyber capabilities to address existing and potential future surge needs. This bill would also allow the National Guard to support existing DHS, DOJ, Secret Service, and State and Local cyber efforts with their unique capabilities and expertise, as well as leverage their private sector expertise.

The Guard members under this bill would add to existing Guard end strengths. The funding to support this mission is intended to be born by the active duty, but not incur any new budgetary authority.

The bill would also authorize Governors to ask their National Guard to help train State and Local Law Enforcement and other Cyber Responders in cyber security, and help them develop sound best practices that allow more cohesive interaction with Federal-level responders.

The bill requires cyber Guard Members to receive the same level of training that is available to the Active Duty cyber personnel, to the extent practicable. The bill would require the Secretary of Defense to report on such training.

The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to committees of jurisdiction on the following ways to attract and retain more cyber warriors.

The bill requires description and assessment of various mechanisms to recruit and retain members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces; an assessment of the use virtual and/or short term deployments in case of cyber incident responses; and a description of the training requirements and physical demands in the cyber specialties.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Vitter, Coons, Blunt, Landrieu, Leahy, Warner, and Murray in introducing the Cyber Warrior Act of 2013 to build Cyber and Computer Network Incident Response Teams in the National Guard.

This bill would establish a Cyber and Computer Network Incident Response Team, CCNIRT, in each state and the District of Columbia, which could provide a scalable response, called into support by the Governor in case of a domestic initial response or by the Secretary of Defense in a Title 10 status when the situation warrants it. These teams would combine both Active and Traditional Guard Members, thereby leveraging the private sector IT expertise and experience. The use of the Guard would also support the goal of retaining the cyber training of military personnel when they retire.

The bill would allow the Guard to further develop cyber capabilities to address existing and potential future surge needs. This bill would also allow the National Guard to support existing DHS, DOJ, Secret Service, and State and Local cyber efforts with their unique capabilities and expertise, as well as leverage their private sector expertise.

The Guard members under this bill would add to existing Guard end strengths. The funding to support this mission is intended to be born by the active duty, but not incur any new budgetary authority.

The bill would also authorize Governors to ask their National Guard to help train State and Local Law Enforcement and other Cyber Responders in cyber security, and help them develop sound best practices that allow more cohesive interaction with Federal-level responders.

The bill requires cyber Guard Members to receive the same level of training that is available to the Active Duty cyber personnel, to the extent practicable. The bill would require the Secretary of Defense to report on such training.

The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to committees of jurisdiction on the following ways to attract and retain more cyber warriors.

The bill requires description and assessment of various mechanisms to recruit and retain members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces; an assessment of the use virtual and/or short term deployments in case of cyber incident responses; and a description of the training requirements and physical demands in the cyber specialties.