Floor Statements

Mr. President, many words have been spoken since Newtown, including the very powerful words of my colleague just now. But the plain, simple fact is no words can capture what I feel about that day. No words ever will capture that day or the days and weeks and months afterwards, when we have grieved and healed and resolved that we will do everything within our power to make sure that kind of massacre never happens again.

But equally important is that the deaths by gunfire are reduced or prevented--those 26 senseless, unspeakable deaths of 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators but also the 194 children who have been killed by gunfire since Newtown, and the 10,000 or more deaths caused by gunfire, person by person, a tragic river of senseless deaths that we have the power to prevent, the power in this body and the power in this Nation.

As much as we should be shamed and embarrassed by the failure to act, we also must have hope and resolve that we will act. History is on our side. The example of courage and strength provided by those families ought to give us the resolve and the determination to act; likewise, the examples of courage and resolve by Father Bob Weiss, who had a service in St. Rose of Lima on the evening of December 14, one of the most moving public experiences I will ever have. As I said then, the world is watching Newtown. The world has watched Newtown. It has watched First Selectman Pat Llodra, who has led Newtown with her own courage and strength and determination, including coming here as my guest on the night of the State of the Union to be an example for all of us about what a public official can do by her own example, leading by her own example.

We will mark, this Saturday morning, at St. Rose of Lima the 1-year anniversary at a service Senator Murphy and I will attend. I have worn since virtually that day a bracelet. I wear it now. It says, ``We are Newtown. We choose love.'' If there is a message for all of us in this Chamber, it is that we continue to choose love. We are all Newtown. Our town is Newtown. All of our towns are Newtown. I see this bracelet literally from the time I wake in the morning to when I go to bed. It will always be an inspiration for me, inescapably our hearts and minds go back to that moment when we first learned about this horrific, unspeakable tragedy.

Of course, I went to the Newtown firehouse that day. The sights and sounds of grief and pain are seared in my memory. They will be with me forever. So will be the story of the children whom we lost: Grace McDonnell and Allison Wyatt, who loved to draw pictures for their families and planned to be artists; Chase Kowalski, a Cub Scout who loved playing baseball with his father; Jessica Rekos, who wanted to research orca whales and become a cowgirl.

We will never forget the heroism and the bravery of the educators such as Vicki Soto and Anne Marie Murphy. Vicki Soto is in this picture. Her brother Carlos came to a service today here in Washington. He has continued, and so have his sisters, to come to events that provide impetus and movement and momentum to the effort to stop gun violence.

Vicki Soto and Anne Marie Murphy literally shielded their students, sought to save them with their own bodies. Dawn Hochsprunk and Mary Sherlach ran unhesitatingly toward the danger entering their school and perished doing so. There are heroes in this story. It is not only about bad people who used guns improperly and illegally; it is not only about evil; it is also about good. The good includes the first responders and police who stopped the shooting when they came to the school and ran toward danger and toward gunfire and thereby ended it, when the shooter took his own life.

It is also about Ana Marquez-Greene, a beautiful girl who loved music and flowers, loved to wear flowers in her hair. She was described by Bishop Leroy Bailey as a beautiful, adoring child. That picture evokes the stories of all of those children: beautiful, adoring, a future and a life ahead of them.

For all of those stories and the tears, and the teddy bears and tributes that were outside of the firehouse, Newtown has refused to be defined simply by tragedy; refused to be locked in its past. It has moved forward, because Newtown is not just a moment, it is a movement. It is not just a moment in

history defined by tragedy, it is a movement to make the world better. It is a movement to make America safer.

That is the movement we have articulated and sought to advance. Those families, including Neil Heslin, who has come here numerous times for his son Jesse, have been an example of courage. Indeed, they have been profiles in courage. When Neil Heslin dropped Jesse off at school on the morning of December 14, Jesse gave him a hug and said: ``It's going to be all right. Everything's going to be OK, Dad,'' because Jesse was that kind of kid, Neil told the Senate Judiciary Committee in his testimony. His pride in Jesse, as well as his grief, brought tears to all of our eyes.

Jesse was just that kind of kid. He never wanted to leave a baby crying. He never wanted to leave anybody feeling hurt. Jesse and Neil used to talk about coming to Washington, about meeting with the President. Neil met with the President but Jesse was not there, at least physically he was not there. He was with all of us as we worked with Neil to make America safer and make sure Newtown is not a moment but a movement toward a better, safer America.

I thank my colleagues for the outpouring of feeling and support on the eve of that tragedy. It was a rare moment of bipartisan unison and feeling as well as words. I wish to thank them as well for meeting with many of those families because they demonstrated a graciousness and generosity regardless of their views on any of the issues relating to gun violence and any of the bills on the floor. That graciousness and generosity I hope will prevail on this issue and again move us forward.

The acts of kindness and generosity that followed have been inspiring as well.

College students and firefighters have come together to build playgrounds in honor of the Sandy Hook victims. Bill Lavin of New Jersey, on behalf of the New Jersey firefighter system, has done yeoman's work. There are now new playgrounds in their memory in Norwalk, New London, Fairfield, Ansonia, Westport, and Stratford.

I have visited many of them. They are distinct, reflecting the character of those children such as Ana Marquez-Greene.

The Newtown High School football team took time away from celebrating a perfect winning season to devote their efforts to the children and educators we have lost.

The Sandy Hook Run for the Families not only raised more than $450,000 for the Sandy Hook Support Fund, but it also broke the world record for attendance. In millions of actions, large or small, in Connecticut, all around the country, the people of Newtown, the State of Connecticut, and the country showed what compassion, giving, and kindness truly means in action. They chose to honor them by action.

Often the compassion and kindness unleashed by the Newtown tragedy took many other forms that were unheralded, unreported, and unspoken. These were acts of kindness that were not in the newspapers or in the public view but simply acts that meant something to the recipient and to the giver.

These fundraisers and vigils, emails and postcards, small and large signs of recognition and love from our colleagues, from people across the country, are a form of giving back. They give me hope that eventually we will prevail in this effort to make a difference.

Scarlett Lewis, Jesse's mom, is also a hero. She heard about the Cruz family who had lost two of their children to a drunk driver. Scarlett responded with that same resilience and strength by offering to give a fundraiser for the Cruz family.

When she was asked about her family and about what she had done, she explained:

What brings meaning to the suffering is doing something for

someone else. . . . In doing something for them I'm also

helping my own healing.

Nearly 90 percent of Americans support commonsense measures such as background checks, a number that is virtually unchanged since the issue soared to the forefront of our political discourse in the wake of Sandy Hook. Even in gun-owning households the support is virtually identical, 88 percent. That figure hasn't changed. A mountain of public support has failed to produce measures, but our resolve is unchanged because those memories of Sandy Hook, those examples of kindness and compassion, will drive us forward, as will the more than 10,000 other victims including at least 14 children under the age of 12 in 43 different States.

Congress has shamefully and disgracefully failed to act, but that is not the end of the story. There has been one vote, and we lost, but that vote is not the end of this movement. Newtown is not a moment. It is a movement. Surrender is unacceptable; the status quo is inexcusable. The families and Newtown community have refused to surrender to personal despair, and we cannot surrender to political dismay or difficulty.

I was moved the other day when I saw a clip of Ronald Reagan endorsing the Brady bill. Ronald Reagan, as President, was a victim of gun violence, as was Jim Brady, who was paralyzed by the same hail of bullets that struck the President of the United States when they were fired by a deranged person, John Hinckley.

Twelve years passed before the Brady bill was passed. It was 12 years of struggle, work, resolve, and courage by Sarah and Jim Brady, with eventually an endorsement by Ronald Reagan.

The sadness and anger I feel today, prompted by the memory of that tragedy and this body's failure to respond, is mitigated by the knowledge that history is on our side, that America is better than the oath we took in April. The people of Newtown have not failed. The people of America have not failed, and this body has not yet failed.

We can and we will do better because Newtown and that vote will be with us.

Newtown is more than a moment. It is a movement that eventually will prevail.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to, first of all, thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking member, Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe, for the leadership they have provided to this body and to our Nation in fashioning a bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, that truly serves our national security and preserves and enhances our national defense.

I want to thank my colleague Senator McCaskill for the leadership she has provided, along with others, such as Senator Reed and Senator Gillibrand, all who have focused on the issues that are raised by the Military Justice Improvement Act--the need to reform and strengthen our system of prosecuting and providing justice to the survivors of sexual assault.

I have joined with Senator Gillibrand in supporting the Military Justice Improvement Act because I think it embodies the kind of major reform that is necessary to provide enhanced confidence and trust in this system of military justice--major change that is needed to drive out the scourge of military sexual assault from our Armed Forces and provide the men and women of our military--the strongest and best military in the world now and in the history of the United States--with a system of military justice that matches their excellence.

The legislation before us, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, provides much-needed equipment and training needed by our warfighters. It keeps us dominant across the globe and all of the domains that are necessary for our national defense. It authorizes two new attack submarines for the coming fiscal year, and it keeps us on track for developing the next generation of ballistic missile submarines. These weapon systems, these weapon platforms, and all that is contained in this act, are vitally important for the defense of our Nation. The debate about the Military Justice Improvement Act should in no way distract us from that mission to maintain and enhance the defense of the United States.

This bill enables the Air Force to move forward with a new combat rescue helicopter that will take injured airmen and others to safety. In June I wrote with five of my colleagues to Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff, to support the Air Force in its efforts to replace the current fleet of HH-60G Pave Hawks with helicopters that can carry more and go further, all the while keeping the fuel efficiency and value that the H-60 aircraft provides. This legislation keeps our progress underway in the development and fielding of the Joint Strike Fighter that will assure that our Air Force, Navy, and Marines are ready to respond.

This bill has so many critical and valuable elements that should be at the forefront of this debate and evoke appreciation for Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe and the work done by my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. So I am proud to support this bill. At the same time, Congress has a responsibility to transform the time-worn slogan of ``zero tolerance for military sexual assault'' into a real plan and strategy that will achieve that goal.

For years and years the military has promised zero tolerance toward sexual assault. Yet the actual achievement has fallen short. That is why reporting has been so low and why the crime of military sexual assault is not only underreported but underprosecuted.

The goal of the Military Justice Improvement Act is to improve reporting because without reporting there cannot be investigating and there cannot be prosecution, which means there can be no punishment and no prevention and protection.

Those are the goals of this major reform: better reporting and enhanced prosecution to deter this horrific crime, and to make sure that victims are better protected and the crime itself prevented.

This bill requires the Secretary of Defense to afford rights to victims of crimes prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, such as protections from unreasonable delay and the right to be heard. This bill gives those protections even without the Military Justice Improvement Act. It also obligates the Secretary of Defense to ensure these rights are enforceable and affords every victim a special victim's counsel--again, measures on which there is consensus provided in the bill right now.

I am pleased that in response to my request to the defense appropriations committee, when this provision is authorized in this legislation, there will be $25 million appropriated to stand up this program systemwide and defensewide.

So the legislation before us has many good things even without the Military Justice Improvement Act. I am proud of the reforms that are accomplished in this bill on which we agree. Where we disagree is on the proposal to take prosecutorial decisions out of the chain of command. That is a narrower change that many people appreciate because the rest of the system, which is required for the present command and control authority, would be essentially maintained. What is taken out of the chain of command is simply the prosecutorial decision so that an experienced, trained, objective professional can make those decisions.

I really believe this measure, if adopted, as I hope it will be, will lead the military at some point--those commanders who may resist it now--to actually thank the Senate and the Congress for taking these decisions out of their hands so that they can focus on the incredible challenges of military readiness and preparedness, so they can do what they are trained to do, which is to train their men and women and maintain and enhance their readiness so that they can do professionally what is their prime mission, which is to fight wars and defend our Nation.

These decisions about prosecuting sexual assault cases can be better made by trained, experienced prosecutors who have the expertise in their field that our military commanders have in their field. I think it will serve the entire interests of our military to make sure that these decisions are made by those military professionals in JAG offices, just as they are trained in other areas of expertise that require that kind of training.

I am listening to the voices of the victims as to what will enhance their reporting and eliminate their fear of reprisal and retaliation. On Monday I was joined by four survivors of military sexual assault to discuss the need for reforming military justice. I wish to express my appreciation for Army SST Sandra Lee, Army SGT Cheryl E. Berg, Air Force SSgt Pattie Dumin, and Marine Corps Cpl Maureen Friedly. Each demonstrated that day that their shared experiences of military justice warrant the reforms contained in the Military Justice Improvement Act.

I would like to share just one--Marine Corps Cpl Maureen Friedly, who was sexually assaulted by a fellow marine in 2006 while attending the Navy School of Music. She pressed charges against her attacker and requested an unrestricted investigation. I will now read her words into the Record:

I went to an NCIS investigator who questioned me about the

day I was attacked and, after hearing my testimony, told me

that I would have to take a lie detector test to insure I was

not filing falsely. I agreed to it but was never asked

anything by my investigator again. My chain of command made

it very clear that they preferred my attacker,

who was a platoon leader, over me and supported him through

everything. When I graduated from the school and went to my

duty station in San Diego, CA, my new chain of command tried

to help me find out what had happened to my case as I had not

heard about it for several months. A few weeks passed before

we found that my paperwork had been mishandled, and I was

told that nothing could be done and my attacker would go out

to the fleet.

Eventually it was found that he had sexually assaulted

several other women and he was administratively separated

from the Corps, not charged, and not given a dishonorable

discharge.

Her remarks say more than I ever could about the need for enacting the Military Justice Improvement Act. The reforms contained in the measure already are a vitally important step in the right direction. Taking these decisions out of the chain of command is important to good order and discipline because eliminating the crime of sexual assault and providing for greater reporting is vital to good order and discipline. Our experience shows that it has worked when our allies implemented it. Whatever the claims about numbers of cases reported in those allies' armies, clearly they are satisfied with the way it has worked there.

Finally, let me just say that I appreciate the bipartisan efforts on this bill on both sides. I think that eventually we will see this kind of reform. Whether or not it is approved today, history is moving in this direction, demanded and driven by the brave men and women who have suffered from this crime, the survivors and victims whose voices we have heard, and the commanders and veterans who have come forward to us, all of the major veterans organizations that have made their voice heard to us and who wholeheartedly have said: This kind of reform is necessary to vindicate and support the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for our Nation day in and day out, whose excellence should be matched by a military justice system that truly and really looks for zero tolerance and achieves zero tolerance in sexual assault.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who led this effort. Well before I became involved, Senator Udall and Senator Wyden have helped to lead this effort before there was any real disclosure about some of the excesses that have been so dramatically revealed over the recent past. As a colleague in this effort, I thank them for their relentless courage in blowing the whistle, quite bluntly, telling America there was something wrong, even when they could not reveal exactly what was wrong, saying the American people would be outraged if they knew, if only they could be told. That kind of bravery and strength has given energy and momentum to this debate.

I am chagrined that we will not be debating and acting on it in connection with the National Defense Authorization Act if the present circumstances prevail and amendments are limited. I do believe it is past time to be talking about and acting on those issues, to move for greater accountability and transparency.

One of the amendments I have sponsored would call for a more adversarial process, to expose more of the truth before the judges who make these decisions through the appointment of a constitutional advocate.

The hour is late today. I hope at another time to talk about these issues in greater detail. But the time now is more urgent than ever to confront and address these shortcomings in the present system. I think the intelligence community itself will help us greatly and it has recognized this and all of America will benefit greatly, including their work.

I salute the talented and dedicated members of that intelligence community who have done their work literally in secret for so long, helping to save Americans around the globe from terrorism and other threats. I think we need to change the system in ways that are worthy of the challenges they confront everyday, while at the same time making sure we have trust and confidence in America, trust and confidence in the system, trust and confidence in both the need for and the tools and weapons we use to further American intelligence in the combat against terrorism.

I again thank my two colleagues who are on the floor and tell them I look forward to working with them in the next few days. If it is possible to achieve these reforms, so be it; if not, we will continue to work.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to join the resolution which has been submitted by Senator Durbin, and also a separate resolution submitted by Senators Collins and Klobuchar, relating to the fight against Alzheimer's disease.

Mr. President, all of us have been touched by this dread and pernicious disease. Alzheimer's strikes families, loved ones, colleagues, coworkers, friends, acquaintances--literally all of us-- increasingly so because the numbers are multiplying almost epidemic- like across the country. Of course, classifying it as an epidemic is difficult to do because we scarcely understand this disease. We are only beginning to comprehend the cause and modus operandi of this pernicious ailment.

I am joining on these resolutions because of the need to express and call attention to the deadly and insidious spread of Alzheimer's and the Nation's failure to effectively address it. We know that the numbers of people suffering from Alzheimer's are increasing drastically and this resolution rightly calls attention to the dimensions of the problem. But as important as those numbers are, even more so are the numbers of dollars that reflect the Nation's failure to take action that is so desperately needed.

As my colleague from Maine highlighted earlier, we spend $500 million in research for Alzheimer's compared to $6 billion for cancer, $3 billion for HIV, and $2 billion for cardiovascular efforts. These numbers do not reflect any excess spending on cardiovascular or cancer or other kinds of medical problems for which the National Institutes of Health does such great work, as well as others in the private sector, and philanthropic donations as well. If anything, perhaps we should be considering expanding those efforts. But the numbers do reflect the disproportion and inadequacy of what we as a nation are spending on the research of Alzheimer's. The estimate, according to the National Alzheimer's Project Act and its representatives, is in the neighborhood of $2 billion a year, as a minimum, that we should be spending to develop diagnoses, cures, and treatment. We should be doubling or tripling funding. Yet even this minimal funding is in danger due to the sequester, which has also jeopardized many other research projects supported by the National Institutes of Health. This abdication of responsibility is a tragedy for us as a generation who will suffer from it in untold numbers, and for the next generation that could be saved from this disease.

I am proud to join in this effort to match the severity of the challenge with public consciousness and awareness and, even more importantly, public dollars and resources that are vitally important to ensure we conquer and cure as many Alzheimer's patients as we can as quickly as possible. We owe it to ourselves and our children.

There are many ways in life to feel alone. There are many forms of isolation. Even in this body, surrounded by people, Members can be alone at points--alone in championing causes or alone in thought, but there are few conditions that match the aloneness of an Alzheimer's patient. They are often cut off from the world by an inability to communicate, and we must reach out to those patients who cannot let us know and describe, as they might want to do, their aloneness and their resolve.

So for them and all of our loved ones--friends, family, and coworkers--who now and in the future will suffer from the disease, let us resolve to do more through this resolution, and as a nation we will confront this challenge.

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

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Senator Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 1714 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my purpose in being here today is to support the Military Justice Improvement Act and the very urgent need to include its worthwhile and comprehensive provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, either by way of amendment or whatever measure may be appropriate, and to support the very eloquent remarks made by the Senator from New York. She has been a steadfast and strong advocate of necessary changes in the Military Code of Justice and has acted as chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee to approach this issue--a very difficult issue--in strengthening the system of justice for our men and women in uniform with care and caution as well as vigor and bravery.

I know how different the views may be in this body among our colleagues, and I have listened to people on both sides of this argument very carefully before reaching my own conclusion.

One statistic that strikes me as perhaps paramount in importance is the gap between the number of victims, which is estimated to be close to 30,000, or perhaps more. We don't have a precise number, but the estimates from the military indicate that there are tens of thousands, and very likely more than 30,000. The number of reported cases is around 3,000, or perhaps 2,500, who have sought justice for sexual assault in the military. By the way, only about 300 go to trial every year. At least that was the number for last year.

My view is that we must remove any concerns about undue command influence on the process so that more victims will seek justice. The only way to deter this heinous, horrific crime is to encourage more reporting so there can be more prosecution and enable more deterrents through strong and swift justice. The goal is justice. The goal is not necessarily punishment for its own sake but justice.

I have listened to my colleagues who feel that the act as written or as amended should keep prosecuting authority with the commander. I have listened carefully to them, and I believe their sincerity and respect for victims is unquestionable. This is not about who respects victims or cares for them the most, it is about what system will best seek justice and deter the epidemic--the spreading numbers of these horrific crimes.

I have also listened to military professionals who have come before Senator Gillibrand's subcommittee, as well as the committee as a whole. I have questioned them repeatedly in public and in private, and I am convinced beyond any doubt that they are as outraged and find this crime as abhorrent and antithetical to their profession as anyone in this body. Yet, for years and years, we have heard that the military has zero tolerance. Their renewed vigor is welcomed but in my view has to be matched by reforms in the process which will make sure that that commitment is real and realized in real life.

Most importantly, I have listened to the victims who have come, both publicly and privately, to the Armed Services Committee, where I serve, and have told their stories. They have told their stories also in writing and in documentaries, such as ``The Invisible War''--a very powerful and compelling argument for reform.

I have listened to them as they have expressed to me that what matters to them is the fear of retaliation and adverse effect on their careers from the present structure of prosecuting authority. I believe that prosecuting authority should be made the responsibility of an independent, experienced, objective, and trained professional.

I recognize and I understand that there is immense power in the present system given to any commander who sends men and women under his power potentially to give their lives for their country. Their argument and feeling is that they should hold the same power over punishment for crimes that those men and women may commit under their command.

Good order and discipline, I recognize, is a profoundly important goal, and a paramount, irreplaceable, and

undeniable goal. Good order and discipline is hardly well served by acts of sexual assault in the military, which is why those professionals say they have zero tolerance for this heinous crime. I have listened to them about why they feel the present system should be continued.

We need a military justice system that works as well in Camp Leatherneck as it does in Camp Pendleton or Camp Lejeune, and we need a justice system that works well not just in one season or another, politically, but in all seasons at all times for all men and women. I think the approach best suited to reach that goal is the one that embodies legislation that has been introduced by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand. Of course, in listening to all of those sources of insight and perspective on this issue, I have also utilized my own experience as a prosecutor. I would say the most difficult decisions I made as a U.S. Attorney prosecuting under Federal law, and as State attorney general, largely with civil authority, was whether to charge and what violations of law to charge, because, as a practical matter, the charge can ruin a life, and often does. It can ruin a career, ruin a family, and ruin an individual's standing in society. Even if that individual is eventually found not guilty at trial, the charge stands forever. I found that the decision of whether to charge was often the most difficult decision I had to make not only because of the consequences to the individual, but the difficulty of making a decision about whether a fact finder--whether a court or a jury--would conclude that every element of the crime as charged was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the responsibility of the jury or the judge, depending on who is trying the case and who the fact finder is. There are instances where these decisions are air tight and easy, but in many cases, and most particularly in cases involving sexual assault, they are sometimes difficult to make. There is forensic evidence, there are metrics, there are precise scientific measures, but there is also a judgment to be made about whom to believe when there are conflicting versions of an incident.

That is why I believe these decisions should be made by professionals who have experience, who know how to prove cases, how to try them and how to bring them to court, and who are capable of making decisions that will not only be fair and objective but will be seen as fair and objective, because in the criminal justice process often perception is as important as reality when it comes to a victim coming forward to put his or her life on the line and complain, particularly in a system such as the military, but often in society in general. Sexual assault as a crime in society is often underreported and underprosecuted because of the fears, correctly and understandably, on the part of victims.

We have made progress in encouraging victims to come forward in civilian life and in the military, but there is much more to be done. I believe the reforms offered by the Military Justice Improvement Act are important and essential to that goal.

The National Defense Authorization Act in title V has 14 specific revisions to our military justice system that will help ensure a more just process and a more just outcome for cases involving sexual assault. These changes to our current system were drafted in a bipartisan manner that defines so often--in fact, almost uniformly--the work of the Armed Services Committee under the leadership of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe, and I wish to express my appreciation for their leadership. Those reforms are important to ensure a crime victim's rights are acknowledged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that victims receive a special victims advocate, and that those found guilty of sexual assault will receive a mandatory discharge. These reforms, which were initially proposed by myself and others, will help improve this system. They are a telling refutation of anyone who says, in testimony before our committee or otherwise, that the UCMJ is serving its intended purpose of justice when it previously dealt with cases of military assault.

These reforms are necessary and necessary now, and I support them. Yet, as I look at the totality of what is now contained in this bill, it seems insufficient. I am left with the conclusion--it is an uneasy conclusion but a very strong one--that we have not yet achieved what we need to accomplish, namely, a system of justice that has the full confidence and trust of victims and all parties, that has the confidence and trust of survivors. They are indeed survivors. It is vital to encourage reporting of this crime and building the evidence that is necessary for those trained and experienced prosecutors to decide whether to pursue charges, against whom, and what kind of charges.

I believe we can strike a balance and achieve justice and not only maintain good order and discipline but, in fact, enhance them. I think, if this reform is adopted, future military commanders will thank the Senate and the Congress for enabling them to pursue what they know best professionally--what is their calling and their mission--which is to make this Nation's national security and defense the best in the world, as it has always been. They are to be thanked, and we all thank them for their commitment and their professionalism in the service of that goal.

I am joined in supporting these reforms in the Military Justice Improvement Act by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service, which last month recommended that ``decisions to prosecute, to determine the kind of court martial to convene, to detail the judges and members of the court martial, and to decide the extent of the punishment, should be placed in the hands of military personnel with legal expertise and experience and who are outside the chain of command of the victim and the accused.''

That is also the view of Jeh Johnson, the President's nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security and former Pentagon general counsel who was asked whether there are shortcomings in the military justice system, and he replied, ``I have recently come to the conclusion that the answer to that question is yes.''

He went on to say:

Last year Secretary Panetta raised the initial disposition

authority for how these cases should be handled to the 06

colonel captain level, and the problem, I believe, has become

so pervasive, the bad behavior is so pervasive, we need to

look at fundamental change in the military justice system

itself.

We are joined in this view also by the Vietnam Veterans of America, an organization that stands in favor of the Military Justice Improvement Act because ``far too many victims fail to report or choose restricted reporting primarily for two reasons: Retaliation and total lack of faith in fair just treatment within the chain of command.''

So despite my deference to our military leaders and my respect for them and my feeling that they are entitled to deference in issues that affect good order and discipline, I believe we have a responsibility in this Congress to fix this system, to repair it and reform it, and do it in ways that vindicate the rights of victims, survivors, as well as the accused, to make sure we do justice. Our responsibility under article I, section 4, clause 14 of the Constitution is ``[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'' That is why the Uniform Code of Military Justice was adopted by Congress, and we will be held rightfully responsible and accountable if we fail to act and make effective reforms and if we fail to put an end to sexual assault in the military.

Our military system has some of the most dedicated, our best and our bravest, of this generation, just as has been true in past generations. I am proud to say two of my sons currently serve in the military. We need a system of justice that matches their excellence, that keeps faith with their dedication and sense of duty, that is as fair and just as they are strong and capable in protecting this country. We owe our freedom, we owe our own justice system in this country, and all of our rights and liberties to the defense they have provided decade after decade, war after war, to this Nation.

So I urge my colleagues to come together--and I know they are working on a bipartisan basis--to finish the work of reforming our system of military justice. I look forward to the day of realizing a very simple ideal--that every servicemember who is a survivor, a victim of sexual assault, is entitled to an independent arbiter and an objective prosecutor with the knowledge that the victim will be embraced and

supported by the system, and welcomed back into the ranks, even as they face the grueling and painful task of being involved in a prosecution. I look forward to the day also when any perpetrator knows, without question, that they will be separated from service and punished if they are found guilty. These ideals are as much engrained in our military as the ideals of valor, honor, and tradition. These changes will help our bravest and finest members who contribute and put their lives on the line to reach those ideals. These changes are necessary and I look forward to accomplishing them, working with my colleagues.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2013, which I am very proud to introduce today, with bipartisan support, joined by my colleagues Senators Ayotte, Cornyn, and Casey. This bill is a comprehensive effort to update our existing system of sanctions and to reflect the reality that President Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime continue to engage in a horrible civil war against the Syrian people.

This bill builds upon the longstanding U.S. sanctions regime against Syria begun in 2004 to deal with that government's policies supporting terrorism, continuing its occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts to stabilize Iraq. Following events in Syria beginning in March of 2011, a series of executive orders have been issued to address the ongoing violence and human rights abuses that have been supported and perpetrated relentlessly by the Assad regime. Fortunately, Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis to sanction many people who are committing terrible atrocities. Now is the time to add to those sanctions, to enhance and enforce them, and ensure they encompass everyone who is enabling Assad to continue his massacres against his own people.

I have seen some of the effects of this cruel war in person. Earlier this year, I traveled to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, with Senator McCain and Senator Graham, where I saw firsthand

how the Assad regime has torn families and lives apart. I returned home from that trip convinced, along with my colleagues, that the United States cannot stand idle while this war rages on and over 1 million Syrians are displaced from their country--a substantial part--the estimates are 30 percent of its entire population displaced from their homes. I remain convinced the United States should take action not only with sanctions but with more effective humanitarian relief. Sanctions are an effective way to cut off Assad's financing and therefore his source of power. Humanitarian relief is necessary to aid the Syrian people who have become refugees in such enormous numbers, even as we pursue those sanctions.

Thankfully, most of the world has come together to denounce and isolate Assad for his horrible abuses. Appallingly, though, a few--most notably Russian banks--finance Assad and enable his continued atrocities.

In September, Senators Ayotte, Cornyn, Shaheen, and I urged the Treasury Department to sanction those Russian banks that are perpetrating war in Syria. They are enabling that war as well as the atrocities it has spawned, and there is significant evidence that some Russian banks, including VTB, VEB, and Gazprombank, have given financial cover to Assad and may still be hiding his assets. This bill, the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act, would ensure that those actors do not go unpunished. It would sanction financial institutions doing business with Assad and his senior officials, and it would also provide for a full accounting of all Assad's assets. If Assad is hiding money in Russian banks or elsewhere, we need to know where that money is, because it rightly belongs to the people of Syria, not to its murderous dictator.

But our actions against Assad must be wider in scope than simply the financial sector. Therefore, the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act looks at all the perpetrators of horrific violence who empower Assad and it creates sanctions against them. This bill codifies existing executive orders that sanction senior Syrian officials and people who sell or invest in the Syrian Government. It sanctions anyone who helps the Assad government develop weapons of mass destruction or provides them with conventional weapons. They are responsible for the majority of killings in Syria. They are complicit, and knowingly, purposefully-- they are not merely the enablers, they are the providers of those assets used by Assad against his own people.

We have seen how some unscrupulous arms dealers continue to provide arms to the Assad regime that enable his killing. Just yesterday, I was pleased to announce that the Defense Department will stop doing business with Rosoboronexport, the arms dealer that is selling weapons to Assad. Think of it: The U.S. Government was financing, with U.S. taxpayer money, purchases of helicopters for the Afghan Government, to go to the Afghans with the knowledge that that same Russian export agency was selling weapons to Assad. It was stopped, but it is just one example of a company that allows Assad to continue killing his own people.

This bill also requires the President to submit a list of people responsible for human rights abuses committed against the people of Syria. The President must submit a list of those culpable individuals who should be held accountable for human rights abuses committed by Assad against his own people, and the bill will sanction anyone who has provided goods, services or support to enable human rights abuses.

As my colleagues can see, this bill would do quite a few things, but there are a number of important things it will not do. It will not prevent the United States from supporting the moderates who are fighting against the Assad regime, and it would not jeopardize our ongoing efforts to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile; rather, it creates a strategic framework to ensure that the prolonged dismantling of chemical weapons does not serve as a cover for the international community to ignore the brutal reality of these slaughters throughout Syria. The bill is carefully crafted to ensure that the sanctions do not target the people of Syria themselves who are just trying to survive during a difficult time. That is why humanitarian relief from this country is of such paramount importance.

Over the past few months, there has been a lot of debate over what the United States should or should not do in Syria.

Over these past months, the debate has focused on military force and many have been hesitant to use such military force in Syria. But that does not mean the United States can or should stand idle on the sidelines as hundreds of thousands of people are dying and the war threatens to create a wider conflict in the Middle East. I think we can all agree, on both sides of the aisle, that we should be strengthening sanctions against the human rights abusers and supporters of Assad and his military that is tirelessly, relentlessly, and purposefully murdering his own people.

This bill is a bipartisan attempt to move forward around the common concerns of helping the Syrian people. In the coming days, I look forward to a debate on this bill and the way forward in Syria as we consider Iran's nuclear program and other important factors. There will be a meeting in Geneva upcoming. I view this bill as a means of strengthening our government's hand as we seek peace in Syria and seek to strengthen those forces in Syria that seek to protect their own people.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important effort to ensure that the United States continues to stand up and speak out strongly on the side of the people of Syria against a regime that is striving solely and single-mindedly to keep itself in power at all costs, in fact, whatever the cost in the slaughter and displacement of its own people.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2013, which I am very proud to introduce today, with bipartisan support, joined by my colleagues Senators Ayotte, Cornyn, and Casey. This bill is a comprehensive effort to update our existing system of sanctions and to reflect the reality that President Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime continue to engage in a horrible civil war against the Syrian people.

This bill builds upon the longstanding U.S. sanctions regime against Syria begun in 2004 to deal with that government's policies supporting terrorism, continuing its occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts to stabilize Iraq. Following events in Syria beginning in March of 2011, a series of executive orders have been issued to address the ongoing violence and human rights abuses that have been supported and perpetrated relentlessly by the Assad regime. Fortunately, Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis to sanction many people who are committing terrible atrocities. Now is the time to add to those sanctions, to enhance and enforce them, and ensure they encompass everyone who is enabling Assad to continue his massacres against his own people.

I have seen some of the effects of this cruel war in person. Earlier this year, I traveled to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, with Senator McCain and Senator Graham, where I saw firsthand

how the Assad regime has torn families and lives apart. I returned home from that trip convinced, along with my colleagues, that the United States cannot stand idle while this war rages on and over 1 million Syrians are displaced from their country--a substantial part--the estimates are 30 percent of its entire population displaced from their homes. I remain convinced the United States should take action not only with sanctions but with more effective humanitarian relief. Sanctions are an effective way to cut off Assad's financing and therefore his source of power. Humanitarian relief is necessary to aid the Syrian people who have become refugees in such enormous numbers, even as we pursue those sanctions.

Thankfully, most of the world has come together to denounce and isolate Assad for his horrible abuses. Appallingly, though, a few--most notably Russian banks--finance Assad and enable his continued atrocities.

In September, Senators Ayotte, Cornyn, Shaheen, and I urged the Treasury Department to sanction those Russian banks that are perpetrating war in Syria. They are enabling that war as well as the atrocities it has spawned, and there is significant evidence that some Russian banks, including VTB, VEB, and Gazprombank, have given financial cover to Assad and may still be hiding his assets. This bill, the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act, would ensure that those actors do not go unpunished. It would sanction financial institutions doing business with Assad and his senior officials, and it would also provide for a full accounting of all Assad's assets. If Assad is hiding money in Russian banks or elsewhere, we need to know where that money is, because it rightly belongs to the people of Syria, not to its murderous dictator.

But our actions against Assad must be wider in scope than simply the financial sector. Therefore, the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act looks at all the perpetrators of horrific violence who empower Assad and it creates sanctions against them. This bill codifies existing executive orders that sanction senior Syrian officials and people who sell or invest in the Syrian Government. It sanctions anyone who helps the Assad government develop weapons of mass destruction or provides them with conventional weapons. They are responsible for the majority of killings in Syria. They are complicit, and knowingly, purposefully-- they are not merely the enablers, they are the providers of those assets used by Assad against his own people.

We have seen how some unscrupulous arms dealers continue to provide arms to the Assad regime that enable his killing. Just yesterday, I was pleased to announce that the Defense Department will stop doing business with Rosoboronexport, the arms dealer that is selling weapons to Assad. Think of it: The U.S. Government was financing, with U.S. taxpayer money, purchases of helicopters for the Afghan Government, to go to the Afghans with the knowledge that that same Russian export agency was selling weapons to Assad. It was stopped, but it is just one example of a company that allows Assad to continue killing his own people.

This bill also requires the President to submit a list of people responsible for human rights abuses committed against the people of Syria. The President must submit a list of those culpable individuals who should be held accountable for human rights abuses committed by Assad against his own people, and the bill will sanction anyone who has provided goods, services or support to enable human rights abuses.

As my colleagues can see, this bill would do quite a few things, but there are a number of important things it will not do. It will not prevent the United States from supporting the moderates who are fighting against the Assad regime, and it would not jeopardize our ongoing efforts to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile; rather, it creates a strategic framework to ensure that the prolonged dismantling of chemical weapons does not serve as a cover for the international community to ignore the brutal reality of these slaughters throughout Syria. The bill is carefully crafted to ensure that the sanctions do not target the people of Syria themselves who are just trying to survive during a difficult time. That is why humanitarian relief from this country is of such paramount importance.

Over the past few months, there has been a lot of debate over what the United States should or should not do in Syria.

Over these past months, the debate has focused on military force and many have been hesitant to use such military force in Syria. But that does not mean the United States can or should stand idle on the sidelines as hundreds of thousands of people are dying and the war threatens to create a wider conflict in the Middle East. I think we can all agree, on both sides of the aisle, that we should be strengthening sanctions against the human rights abusers and supporters of Assad and his military that is tirelessly, relentlessly, and purposefully murdering his own people.

This bill is a bipartisan attempt to move forward around the common concerns of helping the Syrian people. In the coming days, I look forward to a debate on this bill and the way forward in Syria as we consider Iran's nuclear program and other important factors. There will be a meeting in Geneva upcoming. I view this bill as a means of strengthening our government's hand as we seek peace in Syria and seek to strengthen those forces in Syria that seek to protect their own people.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important effort to ensure that the United States continues to stand up and speak out strongly on the side of the people of Syria against a regime that is striving solely and single-mindedly to keep itself in power at all costs, in fact, whatever the cost in the slaughter and displacement of its own people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Nothstein, a detailee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted Senate floor privileges for the duration of the 113th Congress.

I thank my colleague from the State of Washington for her eloquence and leadership on this issue, as I do my colleague from California. She has been steadfast and strong in support of a woman's right to make choices about reproductive rights. She is absolutely right; we are not going away.

This bill that will be introduced later today from our colleague from South Carolina--as much as we respect him--is a nonstarter because it is nonsensical and unconstitutional. This bill was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year. We could not have been clearer then, and we should be very clear now, that it is inappropriate, unwise, and unfair. It remains so today and will be so for as long as we are here.

This bill essentially leaves any woman who needs an abortion for health reasons--and I stress, for health reasons--after 20 weeks of a pregnancy with no options--none. It punishes doctors with up to 5 years in prison for providing a service that the doctor believes, in his or her professional judgment, in his or her medical opinion, is best for her and her family. Those decisions are what the Constitution protects, what Roe v. Wade guarantees, what the right of privacy preserves in the right to be left alone.

Quite simply, this bill is bad for women, and it criminalizes medical professionals who would try to do what is right. I have a long history in law enforcement, and this sort of ban, which would leave women in completely desperate circumstances with no options is shortsighted, misguided, and illegal. We should not be here talking about proposals that would degrade and disgrace the Constitution, but about job measures, economic growth bills, and measures to solve the immense challenges that confront us in dealing with budget issues. I thank the Senator from Washington State for the great work that she is doing on those issues.

We should be debating the issues that concern and confront the American people at this historic challenging time--not a measure that will be struck down by the courts because it is so plainly unconstitutional and so clearly bad policy--not only for women but for men, families, and for all of us.

We have seen bill after bill in recent times stalled by disagreements over health care. We have seen the Federal Government shut down over health care. Now we see another legislative attempt to win, essentially, political points at the expense of risking the health and welfare of women and children in this country. The attack on women's health care must stop.

We are here in the midst of a busy legislative session to restate the fact that this bill is going nowhere. My colleagues and I will not allow this bill to put women's lives at risk, and to put their health care in jeopardy with politically motivated attempts at destroying constitutionally protected rights. That is why we are elected to this body, to take a stand and speak out, to protect the people who are most vulnerable, and to make sure that women who are at risk can be allowed to make personal private decisions about their health and their bodies without obtrusive interference from the government.

These decisions should be made by women, their families, the medical profession, and whomever else they wish to consult, not by politicians.

I yield the floor for my colleague from California

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, an esteemed lawyer and prosecutor herself, for her service on the Judiciary Committee and

dedication to the quality of our courts and for her bringing us together this afternoon to focus on a topic I think perhaps is not uppermost on the minds of most Americans, not something they worry about when they are bringing their kids to school or fixing dinner at night, but that shapes the quality of our society. It assures the rule of law, and it guarantees the courts of our country look like the people of our country.

We are here because there are too few women as judges on our Federal courts. They have been denied that opportunity, and for so long they were denied the opportunity even to practice law. We are here because this situation is unacceptable. The Senate cannot and should not continue to obstruct the appointment of qualified nominees--in this instance women. Nina Pillard, like Patty Millett, is eminently qualified--indeed, distinguished, a candidate who fits the ideal profile. If you were designing and writing in the abstract the resume of a circuit court judge for the United States of America, it would be Nina Pillard.

One of the tragic results of the obstruction that we see in the appointment of judges nominated by the President is that the Senate is blocking women appointees to this court. The Senate has only confirmed one woman to the DC Court in the last 19 years. During this same time period, five men have been confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In the court's entire history, only five women have been confirmed. These facts speak for themselves.

Thanks to the leadership of President Obama and Chairman Leahy, the Judiciary Committee has been approving qualified women to take the ``men only'' sign off the door at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But those women have been blocked by a minority of this body.

There ought to be common ground for Senators to have a good reason to block an appointment to the judiciary made by the President of the United States, which is his constitutional responsibility just as it is ours to advise and consent, and not simply, blindly block a woman appointee.

In 2005, the bipartisan gang of 14 came together and they agreed that a Senator should vote against a nominee only in ``exceptional circumstances, extraordinary circumstances.'' The history of that agreement is pretty well known here even though only a handful of Senators who joined in the agreement are still here. Its spirit and intent ought to guide us. Even if it is not binding in letter, its intent and purpose are as real now as they were then. It was to avoid the kind of nuclear approach--it is called, I suppose, the nuclear option for that reason--because it would be so organically threatening to the civility and collegiality of this body if it is invoked. The approach should be, as a Republican member of that gang of 14 said, that judges should be denied confirmation only in the event of ``a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of a person, not an ideological bent.'' If Senators agree that only exceptional circumstances justify blocking a nominee, then clearly the three female nominees that have been nominated by the President ought to be confirmed by the Senate. Our Country, and the legal profession specifically, has an unfortunate history when it comes to women.

As I mentioned earlier, for generations women were not even allowed to practice law. Only recently have they been afforded the opportunity to serve on the Federal bench--despite their serving with extraordinary distinction when they were in fact appointed. They are still woefully underrepresented.

When women are denied an equal chance to serve on our courts, we are left with judicial bodies that fail to reflect the American people, fail to reflect their values and backgrounds, their aspirations and dreams, and in fact their talent and insight. An exclusionary Federal judiciary makes a mockery of our Nation's claim to equal justice under law.

The excuse for blocking appointees is that the DC Circuit Court does not need more judges. I find this claim unpersuasive, based on the workload of the court. We can debate, in fact, the numbers, but statistics in this instance fail to reflect the complexity and difficulty of the cases that come before this court. The same Senators who say the caseload fails to justify appointments now gladly voted to approve John Roberts to the ninth seat on the court when the court had just 111 pending appeals per judge. It now has 182 appeals per active judge.

The history here is that the Senate approved appointees nominated by George Bush to fill the 9th, 10th, and 11th seats on the DC Circuit, the three seats that are vacant today. But this issue should not be about partisan politics. It should not be about which President made the appointments. It ought to be about the principle; that is, if the workload is insufficient, the number of seats on the court should be reduced by legislation. The Congress should not refuse to fill vacancies when they exist lawfully and in fact when there is strong evidence that the workload justifies filling those vacancies.

Nina Pillard is a civil rights icon. She is a public servant of extraordinary distinction. Ms. Pillard led the integration of women into the Virginia Military Institute. Her work led the Supreme Court to uphold Congress' ability to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act. Her academic work continues to identify common ground between liberals and conservatives that can allow for the protection of important rights.

Some have said that she is a feminist. The fact is, Professor Pillard believes that a woman's right to choose is protected by the U.S. Constitution. In other words, she believes in a judicial decision, written by Justice Blackmun--for whom I clerked--which has been upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court over four decades. It is embedded in our constitutional law, as fundamental as the right to privacy is fundamental to our Constitution. I think the merits more than justify her confirmation. There is no question that she has the talent and temperament, the intellect and integrity, the experience and the sensitivity to serve as one of our great judges on this court of appeals.

I urge my colleagues to put aside the extraneous and irrelevant considerations that may lead them to oppose confirmation and, very simply, to give their approval to a woman who will be a mentor and a model to so many other women now in law school or beginning their careers or even beginning their judgeships, and who one day will aspire to this kind of position. They will see her example and ours in approving her as an inspiration to them in their careers.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking a number of my colleagues for their leadership, including Senators Merkley and Harkin and others in this body who have championed the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, known as ENDA, over many years with great passion and constancy. Now we are literally on the verge of approving this historic measure in this body and hopefully in the House of Representatives.

I have heard from numerous organizations that represent America's workforce, such as the Service Employees International Union and the United Auto Workers Union, that--and I am quoting the UAW--``this legislation represents a step in the right direction toward providing equal opportunity for all Americans.'' That message is also carried on by America's faith leaders, our business community, generally, and many others who have fought over the years for civil rights and civil liberties. It is one of the paramount civil rights issues of our time and I am proud to be fighting for it.

I wish to mention some of the American businesses that have stepped forward to endorse this legislation: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals of Ridgefield, CT; Diageo North America of Norwalk, CT; UBS AG of Stamford, CT; and Xerox Corporation, also of Stamford, CT. There are many others around Connecticut, big and small.

The reason the business community is steadfastly and strongly behind this bill is that it is good for America's working men and women and it is good for the business community. It has attracted bipartisan support in this body and around the Nation. America is moving toward this kind of guarantee against discrimination.

This bill is many years in the making. The last time the Senate voted on this issue in 1995 the bill couldn't even attain 50 votes. Our Nation has made tremendous progress since then, of course--not only on this bill but on a range of LGBT civil rights issues. This bill is important because it is inclusive. ``Inclusive'' is the word that ought to characterize our society.

In the 18 years since the Senate last voted on ENDA, 14 States, which together are home to almost one-third of the Nation's population, have come to recognize same-sex marriage. This is, of course, an increase from zero in 1995.

Over the past two decades, we have seen a string of landmark Supreme Court cases, from Romer v. Evans to Lawrence v. Texas, to this year's hugely important and inspirational ruling in Windsor v. United States. But this issue is about more than just legal reasoning and rulings. It is about real people. It is about members--millions of them--of the LGBT community who are now just beginning to enjoy full freedom and equality that is guaranteed to them by our Constitution as citizens. It is about their moms and dads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, members of their families from all over, as well as their coworkers in the places where discrimination will be banned and who are supporting this legislation. They deserve nothing less than full equality, which is what this bill would give to them. They should not be victims of discrimination because of whom they love. That is the simple idea behind this historical potential law.

Still, we have a lot more work to do on this bill. The House certainly will not be an easy battle. We need to make sure, very simply, that the House is given an opportunity to vote. Because if it is given that opportunity--if the House votes--it will approve this bill, just as it did the Violence Against Women Act, after the Speaker initially denied that opportunity. The last time this bill came to a vote in the House was in 2007, when 35 Republicans joined Democrats to pass the bill, but it did not pass the Senate.

I understand Speaker Boehner may have reservations. He has expressed them already. I understand the politics for other Members may be difficult. But this vote is about the future of our Nation, about what kind of America we are going to be. It transcends in importance a lot of the measures we undertake. It is about real people's lives in the workplace, in their homes, and what kind of life they have, what kind of opportunities they have to fulfill all of their potential as human beings. That is why America is so special. It guarantees people an equal opportunity.

In 29 States, LGBT Americans live without any protections against discrimination in private sector employment. They have those protections in 21 States across the country. Between 15 percent and 43 percent of all LGBT Americans have experienced discrimination or harassment in their workplaces because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and that number rises to a staggering 90 percent for transgendered Americans in particular, with more than one-quarter--25 percent--reporting they have been fired. These kinds of troubling statistics have no place in the America of the 21st century.

We have an opportunity in this same bill to ban discrimination against our veterans. I would suggest--and I will propose it in an amendment--that similar protections be afforded to them. Hiring a veteran is a good investment for any business. Veterans have unique qualities, including dedication and discipline, which make them qualified for many civilian jobs. Unfortunately, too many veterans are unable to find work today, most especially our younger veterans who experience higher unemployment rates than their contemporaries who have not made the sacrifice and have not given the service they have in uniform. For them to be unemployed at higher rates is a disgrace. It is an outrage that the greatest Nation in the history of the world whose citizens volunteer to serve and sacrifice, preserving our freedom, have higher unemployment rates when they come home than others.

The evidence is--and I have heard it and seen it from veterans as well as others--that they are sometimes victims of discrimination. That ought to be outlawed. That is what I believe this law can do, in addition to seeking equality and opportunity for all Americans and banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

I wish to express my gratitude to AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the National Guard Association of the United States, which have supported this initiative prohibiting discrimination against veterans. When I introduced S. 1281, the Veterans and Servicemembers Employment Rights and Housing Act of 2013, they supported it, and I am grateful to them. I think this kind of amendment would be a welcome companion to ENDA, the landmark legislation the Senate is moving forward toward passing.

Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act

When it comes to the workplace--on a separate, unrelated piece of legislation--I wish to thank Senator Coons for his leadership in the manufacturing initiative area he has spearheaded and speak on a particular measure that will help manufacturers grow and invest, the Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act. This legislation was cosponsored by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, as well as sponsored in the House by another Connecticut colleague, Rosa DeLauro, to create a new type of an account that manufacturers can use to help save and eventually make investments in their businesses.

I am proud the Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act is part of the Senate's manufacturing American jobs agenda led by Senator Coons. Under this initiative, several of my colleagues have come together to make sure we move away from manufacturing crises and toward manufacturing jobs. That is what we should be doing, helping to create jobs, not create crises, especially when they result in self-inflicted wounds.

This bill will allow manufacturers to put up to $500,000 a year in these special manufacturing reinvestment accounts, much like people put away money in IRAs. It would give them 7 years to use the money they deposit for qualified manufacturing expenses. Essentially, these manufacturers can use these funds for investments in physical capital such as equipment and new facilities or human capital such as job training and workforce development. They then would be able to withdraw the funds from their accounts at a low 15-percent tax rate.

This bill is a Connecticut original. I am very proud I sponsored it last session and I am proud to do so again now. I wish to thank in particular Jamie Scott of Air Handling Systems in Woodbridge, CT, for the key role he played in developing this idea. He came to me with the basic concept and we developed it into a bill which is so eminently qualified for support. It makes such clear common sense, and it shows what happens when industry leaders and their elected representatives work together to devise innovative ideas to grow the economy. We not only produce in Connecticut and make the best manufactured products in the world, but we also make ideas, which is why this Yankee ingenuity has produced a bill that favors reinvestment accounts to enable investment at low tax rates and spur and incentivize job creation.

With the support of Mr. Scott and Congresswoman DeLauro, it has been reintroduced on the House side. I have been happy to introduce this legislation in the Senate. I hope it will provide real encouragement for manufacturers to grow and invest and expand job training, taking this money from profits and putting it away so it can be saved without taxation, and then using it at lower rates of taxation is a basic principle that makes eminent good sense. I think it comes at an important time as we all grapple--economists, experts, businesspeople-- with how to recognize and spur a manufacturing renaissance throughout the United States. What is needed is dollars and capital and the commitment to make sure we create jobs and use people for those jobs who are not only willing but eager to work.

I also thank our community colleges, such as Asnuntuck and others around the State, that have done so much to provide job training in the skills that are needed, matching skills to jobs that exist and jobs that will be created. Asnuntuck Community College's manufacturing technology program is just one example among all of our community colleges which have trained more than 1,000 students who have transitioned successfully to private sector jobs that make use of the cutting-edge skills they learned on machinery, often donated by businesses, so Asnuntuck can teach those students so they can be matched to those businesses' needs. I have seen those students in action during my visits to Delta Industries in East Granby and ATI Stowe Machining in Windsor. Both of these companies have hired many students from Asnuntuck and are looking to hire more as they grow and expand in Connecticut.

So these programs serve a profoundly important public good for our whole country that should bring us together on a bipartisan basis. We want to work together, not divide ourselves over false crises and unnecessary partisan division. I am confident, if we pass this legislation, our manufacturers will use this innovative tool and the manufacturing reinvestment account will help us to double down on growing America.

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

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

Madam President, in 2005--May of that year--the Senate faced a crisis that seems very familiar and very much like the one we face today in this body. Very simply, the Senate was unable to approve judges, which threatened to incapacitate a coequal branch of our government, the U.S. judiciary, and it confronted the threat of what came to be called the nuclear option, a change in the rules that would have wrecked the collegiality and civility that have characterized this body.

Members of both parties recognized that the situation was untenable, and they recognized as well that the American court system was too important

for the Senate to simply stop approving judges and suspend that very important constitutional responsibility on behalf of this body.

At the time, 14 Senators came together to find a solution. They came to be known as the Gang of 14--7 Republicans and 7 Democrats. I want to read their names for the record because I think their conduct characterized what is really perhaps best about this institution. They were Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, John McCain of Arizona, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and John Warner of Virginia.

What they devised was a quite simple solution. They were grappling with the same question that confronts us now: What can justify a Member of the U.S. Senate voting to block consideration--in other words, to filibuster a nominee to the judicial branch? Their idea, simple as it was, had tremendous power. They agreed they would oppose a judicial nominee only in ``extraordinary circumstances.'' That was the gist of the agreement. There were other features to it, but their spirit and intent in this short phrase had profoundly meaningful impact. In fact, for the remainder of the Bush Presidency, there were no more filibusters on judicial nominees, and those Senators, with that short phrase, accomplished a historic impact.

What did they mean by it? One of them said at the time:

Ideological attacks are not an ``extraordinary

circumstance.'' It would have to be a character problem, an

ethics problem, some allegations about the qualifications of

a person, not an ideological bent.

An ethics problem, a character problem, some allegations about the qualifications of a person.

Today, I ask for a renewed and revived commitment to the spirit of that agreement, a reinvigorated effort to apply that standard, and offer to work with my colleagues to revive that spirit of opposing a nominee and blocking that individual only in an extraordinary circumstance.

I come to the floor today because we have heard objections to a number of nominees on the basis of claims that clearly cannot constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Opposed through that 60-vote threshold filibuster just last week were a couple of nominees who clearly have the qualifications to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

I rise in support today of another: Cornelia Pillard. Whatever has been said about this process, we have heard no extraordinary circumstance to oppose any of these nominees and certainly not Ms. Pillard. Senators can always disagree about exactly what our courts should do and how we should divide and allocate resources, and the claim has been made here that the reason to oppose those nominees is that there is insufficient workload to justify them. The fact is this Congress has approved the positions that are vacant and they have been nominated to fill.

I know a lot of my colleagues have opinions on how to structure the courts and what the workloads should be, but I would assume these differences of opinion do not amount to extraordinary circumstances. They happen all the time. We debate what the workloads of the courts should be, and certainly the job of this Senate and of every Senator is to advise and consent on judicial nominations. If we refuse to consider the qualifications of a nominee and if we make the judgment based on irrelevant considerations, we are failing to advise and consent. We can debate about the structure and workload and number of cases before a court, but they are not extraordinary circumstances.

The fact is that the workload of this court well justifies these nominations. In fact, it has grown in number since nominees were last approved. The waiting time for decisions on cases makes it eighth out of 12 circuit courts. The cases themselves cannot be judged only by the numbers, by the sheer volume of the caseload; the Senate, in my view, has to look also to the complexity and difficulty of the cases.

I have argued before this circuit court and I participated in cases such as the Microsoft appeal, which took months--in fact, years--to resolve from start to finish and involved precedent-setting issues and decisions by the circuit court and literally hours of argument. So the argument about workload and about the need to fill or leave vacant, as the opponents say, those vacancies is incorrect and wrong.

Agreeing with me are the Judicial Conference and a majority of their colleagues, who also say the vacancies should be filled, as do judges from across the political spectrum and appointees of a lot of different Presidents.

But the point is that disagreement or even the claim that the workload does not justify it is not an extraordinary circumstance, and that ought to be the standard, consistent with the Gang of 14's agreement.

I happen to believe Cornelia Pillard is almost the ideal nominee. If you were to design someone to sit on the court--if you had that ability--on the basis of record and talent and temperament, I do not think you could do much better.

The DC court is said to be the second highest court in the country. I think they are all the second highest court. I do not think any one of them is better than the others.

But what we want is an individual in each of these judgeships who is worthy of the immense responsibility because for most litigants the circuit court is the last stop on the litigation course.

Nina Pillard brings to this nomination not only brilliance in an academic sense but a variety of experiences and a record of thoughtful engagement with diverse views and a dedication to excellence and to public service. She has spent time in the classroom as well as the courtroom, and she is a civil rights hero as well as a public servant and an expert on the judicial system. In other words, if you had to design someone with a record and experience that is ideal for this court or any of the other circuit courts, you would pick Nina Pillard.

Now, I am going to come back to the floor. I am going to speak about her, I am going to speak about this court, I am going to speak about the Gang of 14, and I am going to speak about what should justify blocking a nominee of the President of the United States to serve in the courts. But for now let me just say about her that I hope my colleagues will see her qualifications, listen to her story, and listen to the better angels of their nature.

The present situation cannot stand. If we continue on the present course, we will arrive at the same juncture that existed in May of 2005 when the Gang of 14 helped to save the Senate from a crisis. It would have been a crisis for the collegiality and civility of this institution. It would have also been a crisis for the country. I hope we can again avoid it if we permit this process to move forward and recognize there is no extraordinary circumstance for any of these nominees that should block their approval by the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate the Westport Little League team who made it all the way to the national Little League World Series finals earlier this year. The 11 phenomenal student players from Westport, CT comprised the first team from Connecticut to reach the final rounds of the Little League World Series since 1989.

The Westport Little League team came to the Little League World Series as New England champions and played against the reigning Northwest team from Washington State to make it to the finals. In this thrilling qualifier, Westport rallied from behind, winning 14 to 13 in the seventh inning with a single to left field. This game was the fourth time in Little League World Series history where both teams completed 27 runs and the third time in history to score a collective 30 hits.

Although these students from Westport did not win in the next few championship games, they never gave up. Even in their fight for third place against a team from Tijuana, Mexico, they played their hardest to the very end. Player Chad Knight hit two home runs and drove in seven more, making a Little League Series world record of nine runs.

After their great success, Connecticut welcomed them home with a parade through the streets of Westport and an afternoon at the Governor's mansion. The Westport Little League team was invited as a special guest of the Yankees and hosted by the Red Sox at Fenway Park.

I also wish to congratulate Tim Rogers, manager and head coach of the team, assistant coaches Brett Reiner and Tom Whelan, and the parents and loved ones of these inspiring young players. I am incredibly proud of their success, representing Connecticut as role models for student athletes around the country. They worked together as a team to reach the ultimate honor in youth baseball.