Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, last week the world lost a true hero with the passing of Nelson Mandela. His determined and courageous advocacy helped end South Africa's disgraceful system of apartheid, while his enlightened leadership set an example for national reconciliation. Apartheid was a policy of hate. It was a severe form of segregation that denied the non-White population their basic human rights. Millions of non-Whites lost their homes and were forced from their lands. In order to travel or work in a restricted White area, special passes were necessary. Non-Whites could not participate in national government and were segregated in almost every way imaginable--from education to transportation to health care. Nelson Mandela dedicated much of his life to ending this injustice. After years of protesting the harsh policies of the South African Government, he was imprisoned for 27 years--18 of which were spent at the infamous maximum security prison on Robben Island that was surrounded by shark-infested waters. There he suffered in a cell that he described as ``perpetually damp'' and only measured 7 feet by 8 feet. From prison, Nelson Mandela was an inspiration to those fighting apartheid both inside South Africa and throughout the world. And as pressure grew, the South African Government initiated secret talks with Mandela for the first time in 1986. That same year, I was a Member of the House of Representatives when Congress voted to impose sanctions against the South Africa Government--overriding a Presidential veto to do so. Two months before that historic and long overdue vote, the President gave a speech opposing comprehensive sanctions against South Africa. That same day, I went to the House floor to respond, asking: How many children have to die? How many funeral mourners have to die? How much bloodshed will be spent before the President decides that words are no longer enough--that `constructive engagement' has done nothing to prevent 2,000 deaths since late 1984? In that same statement, I spoke about the ``concerned citizens all over the country who have emphasized the need to do something specific to demonstrate our abhorrence of the policies of the South African government.'' Those concerned citizens included the Solano County board of supervisors, who sent me a resolution in 1985 that declared, ``Acquiescence to South Africa's apartheid policy, whatever the rationalization would be a rejection of the ultimate sacrifices made by those who died to ensure justice for all human beings . . .'' It was the grassroots movement against apartheid in the 1980s that pushed Congress to enact sanctions, and this grassroots movement was inspired by the example of Nelson Mandela. In 1990, Nelson Mandela was finally released from prison, and in 1994 he was elected as South Africa's first Black President. Despite more than 40 years of suffering under the brutality of apartheid, Nelson Mandela chose reconciliation over resentment. During his inauguration, he declared, ``The time for the healing of the wounds has come . . . the moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come. The time to build is upon us.'' The legacy of Nelson Mandela lies not just in his courage to fight repression but in his courage to forgive his enemies. In his words, ``Courageous people do not fear forgiving for the sake of peace.'' My deepest sympathies go out to Nelson Mandela's family, the nation of South Africa, and all those who are mourning the loss of this great man.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I understand Senator Lee is on his way to the floor. I will yield to him when he arrives. I came to the floor today to say what a good debate we are having. Let us be clear, there is only one amendment that puts in place a fundamental change; that is the Gillibrand amendment. We have had 20 years of promises that this problem would be fixed. I have a chart I will bring out later to show that every Secretary of Defense for 20 years, Republican and Democratic, has said exactly what Senator Ayotte has said: Oh, we are going to fix this, and it is going to be fine. We are picking up steam in our support. I wish to state the reason we are picking up steam. It is because, with all due respect, every single victims' organization that I know of supports the Gillibrand amendment. When victims say to me the reason I don't report is because I don't want to take it to my commander, I think we ought to listen. With all due respect, I love the Senators on the other side and I have great respect for the people in the military, but they are not the victims. The victims are standing behind the Gillibrand amendment. The committee that advises the Pentagon on the treatment of women in the military is called DACOWITS. This committee came out overwhelmingly in favor of the Gillibrand amendment. My colleagues are saying don't make this fundamental change. But the one committee that advises the military--made up of retired military members and civilians--had a chance to say go with the status quo or go with the Gillibrand amendment. They voted without a single dissent in favor of the Gillibrand amendment. When one stands here and defends the status quo in terms of the way this is decided, we have to understand they are in essence saying a 10- percent reporting of these incidents is OK with them. Otherwise they would vote to change it. They can think they know why more people aren't reporting and fix it around the edges. I am so pleased we have some reforms in the bill. But the main, major reform and the reason the victims' rights groups are so behind the Gillibrand amendment is because it is the only fundamental change that is in the bill. I compliment my colleagues for what they have done. It is wonderful, but they don't get to the heart of it, which is why we have a 90- percent problem. Of 26,000 cases, only 10 percent are reported. I thought it was bad in the civilian world where 50 percent are reported. I say to my colleagues, we all have staffs and we run a workplace. I don't know how many people each of us has in their offices. I say to my colleagues, suppose there was a horrible sexual assault that took place in our workplace. We knew the alleged perpetrator, and we knew the alleged victim. We would call the police. We wouldn't become the decider. We wouldn't become the jury, the judge, as these commanders do. What is really interesting is Senator Gillibrand called a press conference, and we had a commander who commanded troops in Iraq, and he said: Honestly, the last thing I wanted as I was getting my troops ready to fight and win battles was to deal with some horrible incident that occurred among those I was commanding. I wanted to get a professional in there. The Gillibrand amendment is important not only for the victims but, yes, for good order and discipline. How can people stand here and say there is good order and discipline when there are 26,000 incidents of sexual assault and only 10 percent are reported? There are thousands of people walking around the military not being charged, and sometimes the deal they get is to get kicked out. I will tell a story of one of my constituents because I think it is instructive. She joined the Marines. She was out with friends, and she was drugged. She was brutally raped. She was tossed on the street in the early morning hours. She woke up dazed. She reported it to her commander. Let me tell you what happened. The perpetrator got out of the military--probably to continue his rampage on the streets of some city we represent--and my constituent was investigated by the military for drug use because she was drugged that night and abandoned on the street. So I hope the people who support the status quo will hear that story and hear the other stories. We have a 90-percent problem; 90 percent do not report. We have DACOWITS advising the military it is made up of former military members and civilians saying support Gillibrand. We have every victims' rights group I know supporting Gillibrand. I will just say that if a minority of this Senate stops us today, we are going nowhere. We had a press conference yesterday where we revealed the new Republican on our team; today, a new Democrat. We want to have the best servicemembers in the world. We want our commanders concentrating on what they have to concentrate on. We have men and women being assaulted, and we have a plan in front of the Senate, and that plan is the Gillibrand amendment. It is smart, and it has strong bipartisan support. Believe me, I was at a press conference with Senator Grassley, Senator Cruz, Senator Paul, Senator Shaheen, of course, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Hirono, and our group is growing. So if a minority of the Senate stops this, I will hearken back to the many reforms that have been made--whether it is don't ask, don't tell, gays in the military--you can just name them. Yes, it may take us a time or two. I remember having an amendment that lost that said you can't take convicted felons into the military if they have been convicted of a sex crime. I lost. I lost. But years later I won, and now you cannot take these felons into the military. So these reforms are hard. This one is 20 years in the making. History will record who stood on the side of positive change, who stood with the victims, and who obstructed. I know everybody is doing it for reasons, and I respect that, OK. Let's be clear. But I am passionate about this because I have been here before. I was in the Congress during the Tailhook scandal, and I said to myself after that was publicized: This will never happen again. We won't see harassment. We will see a reduction in rapes. Remember, half of the victims are men. This is a crime of violence. This is a crime of terror. We have to make sure there is justice, and that means trained people making the decision of whether to go forward, trained people running the trial and not putting this on the commanders. At the end of the day, when you talk to them--and I haven't talked to all of them, but I have talked to many of them--they say the last thing they want is this power. No one can tell me there is good discipline when we have a 10-percent reporting record here--10 percent of the crimes are reported. It just can't be. That isn't good discipline. That isn't good order when you have rapists walking around because people are too scared to go to their commander. I know my colleagues are trying to do the best for this country, but listen to the victims. We don't know better than the victims. We don't know better. We should be humble. We should listen to the victims. Our allies have gone this way, and they have been pummeled here today, saying they have bad records and the rest of it. I think the reputation of the Israeli military is second to none. They have taken this outside the chain of command. Many of our other allies and friends--Australia. I visited there and talked about this. Frankly, this is the way to go. Sixty percent of the American people support the Gillibrand amendment--60 percent in a poll that just came out. So the people are for the Gillibrand amendment, the victims are for the Gillibrand amendment, and the one committee that advises the Pentagon on women's rights in the military is for the Gillibrand amendment. I praise everyone who has worked on so many other reforms in this bill. I am so proud. This is a reform bill. But I beg my colleagues to make that fundamental change we need to make and have the professionals decide whether there is a case from beginning to end. That is what justice really is. I will close with this. There is a woman who has been put up for Under Secretary of the Navy. I have a hold on her nomination. I don't believe in secret holds. This is from the Obama administration. She was asked about the Gillibrand proposal, and do you know what she said, Mr. President? Here is what she said: If you take this outside the chain of command, decisions on this crime will be made based on the evidence, not on good order and discipline. Can you believe that? This is the truth. We don't have decisions being made based on the evidence. This woman was honest, I give her that. She said that if we took this outside the chain of command, decisions on these crimes would be made based on the evidence. Well, she made our case, and I am proud to stand with a very strong bipartisan coalition in favor of the Gillibrand amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what we have just seen on this floor tonight is just more and more of the same obstruction. This is now the fourth DC Circuit judge the Republicans have filibustered. That means they have not allowed us to have an up-or-down vote. I am not going to go into the qualifications of these people; they are stellar. We will have more time to debate that. But it is extraordinary. We never heard that the DC court should become a smaller court when George Bush was President, or any other President. Now, all of a sudden they want to shrink the court when, in fact, this is probably--I would say it is the most important circuit in the country, and it has a very important caseload. First we see that obstructionism, the filibuster of the court nominees, and then we see my dear friend the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee I think reluctantly object to moving forward with two amendments that are essential to the bill. There are two amendments; one has to do with Guantanamo, one has to do with sexual assault in the military. My friend from Oklahoma, representing the Republicans, said: We want an open amendment process. Just so people know what that means, when someone says: We want an open amendment process, it means they want to offer amendments that have nothing to do with the Defense bill, to this particular bill. Again, we are stymied. I was just home. People are saying: Why don't you guys get along? Why don't you get things done? We are trying. We did not have one Democrat filibuster the judges. We didn't have one Democrat oppose moving forward with two critical amendments. Mr. President, we see obstructionism here from my Republican friends. They are my friends. They are my friends, but I do not get this. This is a military bill. This is a dangerous world. We are bringing our troops back from hot spots around the world. They are still in great danger. We have sexual assault in the military that I am going to talk about that is rampant. We have so many issues we want to address. Yet we hear objection. We can only hope that in the light of day tomorrow, cooler heads will prevail and we can begin debating and voting on these critical amendments. It is puzzling. It took us days and days to do the compounding bill, which is a bill necessary to make sure the pharmaceutical outlets that compound drugs are safe. It passed the House. It is uncontroversial--days and days because a Senator wants to talk about the health care of Members of Congress. We better start doing the work of the people because that is why we are here. We cannot go down any lower in public opinion. It is embarrassing--9 percent of the people think we are doing a good job. At first I thought it is our families, but now I am even doubting they think we are doing a good job. I don't know who the 9 percent is, but thank you, thank you, thank you. It will get better when we start working together. I am very hopeful. I am going to chair the Water Resources Development Act conference. We are going to conference on that bill. It is 500,000 jobs. A bill passed the House. We have a good bill here in the Senate that passed. We hope to iron out our differences. I know Senator Murray and Paul Ryan are trying to bring us agreement on the budget. I pray they get that done. Meanwhile, we have a bill that should bring us together, the Defense Authorization Act. Yet what happens? Stymied. We have supremely qualified judges for the circuit court. What happens? They are filibustered. We cannot vote on them and they are left out there hanging, with all their qualifications. It is ridiculous. Something has to give. Amendment No. 2181 There are a couple of issues I have worked hard on in terms of this bill. I have a number of amendments, but I want to talk about two with which I have been very involved. One is my own amendment No. 2181, which is based on a bill I wrote with Senator Graham, Lindsey Graham. The bill is quite bipartisan. We have an amazing list of cosponsors. I am going to read them in alphabetical order: Ayotte, Baucus, Blumenthal, Blunt, Cardin, Chambliss, Collins, Coons, Donnelly, Fischer, Gillibrand, Graham, Hirono, Klobuchar, McCain, McCaskill, Murkowski, Shaheen, Tester, and Warner. This is wonderful. The amendment I have written is going to reform what we call the article 32 proceeding. In the military, when there is a sexual assault and the decision is made to move forward with a trial, there is first a pretrial investigation. This is called an article 32 proceeding. It is the equivalent of a civilian pretrial hearing. Even though there is supposed to be a rape shield law in place, it does not work. What is happening is these article 32 proceedings have become their own trials, an opportunity for the defense counsel to harass and intimidate sexual assault victims. In fact, according to the DOD, 30 percent of sexual assault victims who originally agree to help prosecute their offenders change their minds before the trial because they know and they told us they are revictimized by the process. I am going to give a few examples. In April 2012, a 20-year-old female midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy was raped by three football players at an off-campus party. The young woman testified during the article 32 proceeding, where she was forced to endure roughly 30 hours of relentless questioning by attorneys for her attackers. The questioning included graphic questions about her sexual history and even what she was wearing under her clothes. Anyone who knows anything about the civilian legal system knows this would never, ever be allowed--never. In October 2008, while stationed at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego, Elizabeth Lyman was raped in her barracks by another marine. She was 11 weeks pregnant at the time. She was forced to testify at two article 32 proceedings before her case was sent to a court-martial. This is what she said: My rapist hired a civilian attorney who asked me outrageous questions. . . . These questions were extremely upsetting to me. I had just been discharged from the hospital when I was told I had to take the stand for a second time and I was told I had no choice if I wanted the charges to go forward. This is what has become of the procedure for article 32. I went to Senator Lindsey Graham because he is an expert and indeed an attorney. He has served in the position of counsel, and right away he said it was revictimization. It is wrong, it is a runaway train, and we have to fix it. I am so grateful to him for helping us. In July 2012, a 23-year-old marine named Karalen Morthole was raped by a master sergeant in a bar on the grounds of the Marine Barracks in Washington, DC. Earlier this year she testified in an article 32 proceeding against her alleged attacker. According to her, ``The overall experience was painful. It was the first time since the night of the rape that I saw the man who hurt me. It was a terrifying and uncomfortable experience. I felt dehumanized being made out as a liar, and blamed for everything that happened to me. . . The intimidation tactics, the blaming, all in front of the man who raped me were completely overwhelming.'' She supports this bipartisan amendment to reform article 32. She said people don't come forward because they know they are going to be revictimized, and so they walk away. I am very pleased we have strong bipartisan support for this amendment. I know we have a very big debate going on and everybody is torn asunder on the other issue of whether to keep the prosecution decisions in the chain of command for serious offenses. But on this one--limiting the scope of article 32--we have broad support. I am proud to say that I even have support of Chairman Levin and Senator Inhofe. We have a tremendous group of people who have helped us. We will have these proceedings presided over by a military lawyer when possible. The proceedings are going to be recorded. We will prevent victims from being forced to testify in these proceedings. They can have alternative forms of testimony instead. So these are the basic commonsense reforms. I am very happy to say that with the strong support we have from so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the support of Chairman Levin, I feel very positive. But to get this done and stop this revictimization of people who are distraught after having been attacked and brutally raped and hurt, we need a bill to come up, and we don't need objections so we can move forward. We need to move forward with this bill, and I truly hope we can. This article 32 reform brings us all together. It brings Claire McCaskill and Kirsten Gillibrand together. It brings Senator Blunt and myself together. It is a very bipartisan reform. There are already several reforms in this bill we are proud of. Senator Mikulski is organizing us tomorrow to talk about those reforms, and this is one more we can add. In closing my remarks tonight, I wish to take on the issue of the Gillibrand amendment No. 2099. I am so very proud to stand with a very bipartisan group of colleagues in support of Kirsten Gillibrand's amendment. These colleagues perhaps don't agree on much. When I am on the same side as Ted Cruz, that is something; right? When Kirsten Gillibrand is on the same side as Rand Paul, that is something. It goes on and on down the line. We also have Senator Grassley's support. By the way, 17 of 20 women Senators support the Gillibrand amendment. I hope that is a message--that this is the right way to go, and I am going to explain it. My involvement in this is deep and long. Twenty years ago we were all outraged to learn that nearly 100 women and men had been sexually harassed and assaulted by a group of naval aviators during a convention of the Tailhook Association. I think a lot of us who were around then remember that. I was a new Senator at the time, and I was completely shocked at what happened. They had a gauntlet that people walked through. They were harassed, hurt, and distraught when it was over. In the wake of the Tailhook scandal, senior military leaders promised to crack down on the crime of sexual assault with then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney declaring a zero tolerance policy. I will show how many times different Secretaries of Defense--Democrat and Republican--have promised they were going to take care of this. When the military comes to lobby us against this, I say to them: When are you going to embrace true reform? Because for 20 years we have been hearing this baloney, and I will read now. Secretary Rumsfeld, who served from January 2001 to December 2006, said: ``Sexual assault will not be tolerated in the Department of Defense.'' Secretary William Cohen, who served from January 1997 to January 2001, said: ``I intend to enforce a strict policy of zero tolerance of hazing, of sexual harassment, and of racism.'' He said that on January 31, 1997. Secretary William Perry, who served from February 1994 until January 1997, said: ``For all of these reasons, therefore, we have zero tolerance for sexual harassment.'' Secretary Cheney, who served from 1989 until 1993, said: ``Well, we've got a major effort underway to try to educate everybody, to let them know that we've got a zero-tolerance policy where sexual harassment's involved.'' I wish to correct the Record. When Tailhook happened, I was in the House. I got to the Senate right after that because it was 1991, and I was elected in 1992. I continued my work on this when I got to the Senate. I have to be honest and say I believed the military when they said it would never happen again. I said: Well, that is it. This thing is out and it will never happen again. I was wrong. By the way, that is the worst thing a politician ever wants to say: I was wrong. Those are three words you never want to say: I was wrong. I believed the Pentagon. I thought they would take care of it. They have never taken care of it. Now we have Chuck Hagel, who, to my knowledge, is now lobbying against the Kirsten Gillibrand approach. Secretary Hagel said: It's not good enough to say we have a zero tolerance policy. We do, but what does that mean? How does that translate into changing anything? I want to know. He wants to know. I will tell him. Support the Kirsten Gillibrand amendment. Change and reform this. Take these serious offenses outside of the chain of command. It is not working. Leon Panetta, who served from July 2011 until February 2013, said: ``We have absolutely no tolerance for any form of sexual assault.'' He didn't take anything outside the chain of command either. Secretary Robert Gates, who served from 2006 until 2011, said: ``This is a matter of grave concern. I have zero tolerance for sexual assault.'' Really? Every one of these men had zero tolerance for sexual assault. Yet not one of them ever lived up to the promise. Sexual assault is running rampant. We have 26,000 cases a year, and do you know what percent get reported? Ten percent get reported. Do you know what percent of cases don't get reported? Ninety percent. We have a 90- percent problem. There are 26,000 cases and only 10 percent get reported. Ninety percent don't get reported. So then you say: Why? Why is it? The answer comes back from the victims: Nothing will happen. We will be revictimized. We will get blamed. They will blame us. We will get kicked out. We have to go to our commander. He is not trained in this. Please change it. If a whole group of people who have been victimized tell you the reason why they will not report the crime, you ought to listen. They know better than any Senator. They know better than any Defense Department blue ribbon panel. Speaking of panels, there is a panel that has a funny name called DACOWITS, which stands for Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. They have one job; that is to provide recommendations on policies relating to women in the military. Guess what. They endorsed the Gillibrand amendment. There was not one vote against it. How can Senators--and I have friends on both sides of the aisle-- stand with a straight face and say we can keep the status quo, when all the victims are saying no, and the one committee that has advised the military on women for over 60 years says no. I say listen to the victims, listen to the military's advisory committee. Don't listen to the top brass who are running around, going to everybody's offices trying to undermine us. Just for the record, they have not come to my office because they know where I stand. If they came to my office, the first thing I would do is look at them and say: What would you do if this happened to your daughter? What would you do? Would you tell her to report it to a commander who may be very friendly with the guy who did this? Let me tell you, there is a moment in time when you see an issue clearly, and it happens in funny ways. The woman who has been nominated to be Under Secretary of the Navy made a statement about this issue. When I read this statement, you will understand why the victims are so right. I know the Presiding Officer has worked hard on this issue as well. Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, the nominee to be Under Secretary of the Navy was asked the following question: In your view, what would be the impact of requiring a judge advocate outside the chain of command to determine whether allegations of sexual assault should be prosecuted? In other words, she was asked about the Gillibrand amendment. Should we take the prosecution of military sexual assault and other serious crimes outside the chain of command? Listen to her answer. This is the advertisement for the Gillibrand amendment. She said: A judge advocate outside the chain of command will be looking at a case through a different lens than a military commander. I believe the impact would be decisions based on evidence . . . Can you believe that? She said: ``I believe the impact would be decisions based on evidence . . . '' I ask rhetorically: Isn't that what justice is about, decisions based on the evidence? She goes on to say, `` . . . rather than the interest in preserving good order and discipline.'' I would argue, A, you base these decisions on the evidence; and, B, there is no good order and discipline when there are 26,000 cases of sexual assault and only 10 percent are reported. What kind of order is that? We have thousands of perpetrators running around the military, and there are thousands of victims scared to death. They are brokenhearted, broken down, and their spirit is broken. How do Senators actually stand here and say: We are going to just keep it the way it is. We are going to turn our backs on these victims. Listen to this story from a young woman in my State. I stood next to her and held her hand when she told this story. Stacey Thompson was drugged and brutally raped by a male sergeant while stationed in Okinawa, Japan. She reported the rape to her superiors, but her allegations were swept under the rug. While her attacker was allowed to leave the Marine Corps without ever facing trial, Stacey became the target of a drug investigation, and this is why. Her perpetrator drugged her and he dumped her on the street. He left her on the street after being raped and drugged. He gets out of the military scot-free and they start an investigation on her drug use, even though she never used drugs, except the drugs her perpetrator gave her. I stood next to this young woman. She had never told her story until--and it happened in 1999--until Kirsten Gillibrand put her bill forward. I want to make this point: Half of the victims are men. When I talk about 26,000 victims, half of them are men. These are violent crimes. So here is the story of Amando Javier. He was serving in the Marine Corps in 1993. He was brutally raped and physically assaulted by a group of fellow marines. Ashamed and fearing for his life, he kept his rape a secret for 15 years. When he finally found the courage to share the story with a friend, he wrote it down, and I will read some of his words: My experience left me torn apart physically, mentally, and spiritually. I was dehumanized and treated with ultimate cruelty, by my perpetrators . . . I was embarrassed and ashamed and didn't know what to do. I was young at that time. And being part of an elite organization that values brotherhood, integrity and faithfulness made it hard to come forward and reveal what happened. So it is two decades later, and not one person--not one--has been held accountable for this heinous crime. The perpetrators are still out there and they are able to recommit these horrific crimes again. Ariana Klay. Here is the last story. She graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. She joined the Marines. She deployed to Iraq in 2008. Following her return from Iraq, she was selected to serve at the Marine Barracks in Washington, a very prestigious post. It is right down the street from here. At the Marine Barracks, Ariana was subjected to constant sexual harassment. When she tried to report it, do my colleagues know what her chain of command told her? ``Deal with it.'' That is akin to telling a little child who is being abused somewhere to deal with it. That is the culture my colleagues want to keep--``deal with it''? No. It is a crime. Help the person. Go after the perpetrator. Get a trained prosecutor in there to find out if it is true and if it is true, prosecute to the hilt. In August 2010, she was gang-raped by a senior Marine officer and his friend who broke into her home. Ariana, despite all the warning signs, reported her assault. But a Marine Corps investigation determined she had welcomed the harassment. Do my colleagues know why? This is what they said: She wore makeup and she exercised in shorts and tank tops. What? The Marine Corps did court-martial one of Ariana's rapists, but they never convicted him of rape. Do my colleagues know what he was convicted of? Adultery and indecent language. Please. How could anyone who listens to the victims say they are not going to vote for the Gillibrand amendment? I stood with Ariana along with a large group of colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, right here the other day. Her husband is a former Marine Corps officer and he spoke at the press conference. This is what he said. It is so important to listen to what he said: The first step to addressing sexual assault in the military is to remove its prosecution from the chain of command. It is unfair to expect commanders to be able to maintain good order and discipline as long as their justice system incentivizes and empowers them to deny their units' worst disciplinary failures ever happened. In his statement--and it is on YouTube and I hope people will listen to it. In his statement, he talks about the fact that he was a commander and he was in the middle of war. He said, as a commander, I have one job to do; that is, to have a fighting machine that is second to none. I want you to know, when I am told to deal with sexual harassment or a crime of any sort, I am not trained to do it. It is a distraction. I will read the exact quote so my colleagues don't think I am exaggerating. He said: I used to feel a commander's disinterest in the law, too. During my training and deployments to Iraq, I focused on fighting. My life and those of my Marines depended on it. Legal issues were divisive, distracting, and confusing; they made me resent those who brought them to my attention, and feel bias as strong as my relationships with those involved. Commanders can be forgiven for thinking war is their most important job, and it should be expected that they'll manage the judicial process as a side-show and an annoyance. This is someone who served as a commander and is telling us it is not right to keep loading these commanders up with all of these different responsibilities when their main responsibility is to fight and win wars. So our amendment, the Kirsten Gillibrand amendment, would take the decision about whether to prosecute serious crimes such as sexual assault out of the hands of commanders and give it to professionally trained military prosecutors outside the chain of command. If something, God forbid, were to happen in the Presiding Officer's office or my office--something very bad, some crime, upstairs in a room somewhere in our office--we are not trained to deal with that. We would immediately call law enforcement to deal with it, wouldn't we? We are not going to decide who is right and wrong. One person is saying he did it. The other one is saying she did it. People are crying and yelling in our office. We are not going to. It is not right. It has to be taken outside our office to the trained prosecutors to determine who was at fault. The chips will fall where they may. Maybe a Senator has a favorite of the two people involved in the altercation. We are not objective, and we are not trained for that--at least I am not. It would be similar to saying a CEO of a corporation should make a decision about whether one or more of her employees should be prosecuted for rape. That is not right. We don't have the decision made within the organization. It has to be outside. Under our amendment, complex legal decisions would be made by experienced and impartial legal experts because the decision to prosecute serious crimes should be based on evidence. Nothing else should enter into it except evidence. Jo Ann Rooney made the point for us. She said, essentially, watch out if you take it outside the chain of command, it will be based on evidence, not on discipline. Some discipline. Some discipline: 26,000 cases and 90 percent go unreported. What kind of discipline is that? It is not discipline. People are getting away with it. They are getting away with it. The men and women who risk their lives every day deserve a better system. I can't tell my colleagues how many victims I have met. They were destroyed by the system. They were destroyed by that culture. Men and women are begging us to act. Tonight we had a chance to agree we would begin debate and voting on this important amendment. It was objected to by the Republicans. We need to get to the vote. I hope when we do that we will have the votes necessary. I wish to make another point: There is a filibuster going on here. We are going to need 60 votes. We have over 50. Let's be clear. We have over 50. I am very sorry we have to get to 60, but there are those on both sides who are demanding that we get to 60. It is 20 years after Tailhook. This is our moment to make the change we should have made back then. It is time to stand up to all the people who say status quo, status quo, status quo. If the status quo was working, I would support it. If the status quo was working, the victims would come forward. They wouldn't run away and say: I can't deal with this. Think about the thousands of perpetrators who are running around the military doing this over and over. Think about when they get out and now they are on the street in civilian life doing it over and over again. If they think they can get away with this behavior--this abuse of power, this violence, this hurt--they are going to continue. I hope colleagues will make the decision to stand with us, with our terrific bipartisan group we have lined up behind this amendment, this Gillibrand amendment. I am very proud to have been working on this for a long time, and I think we are moving in the right direction. We are very close to 60 votes. I urge any colleague who might be within the sound of my voice, if they haven't decided, meet with a victim, meet with a victims' group, listen to their pleas. Listen to how smart they are. They understand what happened to them and they are begging us to stand up to the status quo, to the powerful Pentagon. We are taking on the most powerful organization in the world. But on this, they are wrong. They are right on a lot of other things, but on this they are wrong. I look forward to proudly casting my vote for the Gillibrand amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maj. Nicole Stoneburg, who is serving as a defense legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 1197, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in Senator Warner's office, Mark D. Simakovsky, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of consideration of the Defense bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1471 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sanders amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 202, S. 1545.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to as original text, the Menendez-Corker amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2013; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for debate only for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act, with the time until 12:30 p.m. for debate only; finally, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 298, which was submitted earlier today.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have seen an array of my Republican colleagues come to the floor, which is their right--and I am glad the government is open so they can have their staff help them prepare their speeches--but I have to say this is typical of the Republicans when it comes to health care. All they do is criticize. Not one--not one because I monitored the speeches--gave one new idea of how to make sure our citizens are protected with the insurance they have or how to insure the 48 million uninsured Americans--not one. But this is the way the Republican Party has been for years. Let's look at what happened when Medicare came to the Senate floor and to the House floor--Medicare, which is one of the most beloved programs. Sixty percent of Republicans in the Senate and 50 percent of House Republicans voted against Medicare in 1965. Representative Durward Hall, a Republican from Missouri, said: We cannot stand idly by now, as the Nation is urged to embark on an ill-conceived adventure in government medicine, the end of which no one can see, and from which the patient is certain to be the ultimate sufferer. This is typical of Republicans through the generations. Every time we have tried to expand health care they have opposed it and opposed it and tried to derail it. Senator Milward Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, said: I am disturbed about the effect this legislation would have upon our economy and upon our private insurance system. That is what they said about Medicare, and they read horror stories. They read horror stories about it. Here is what the Republicans aren't saying. They are saying there is a problem with the health care law that needs to be fixed, which is that people who want to keep their substandard plans are having trouble keeping their substandard plans. But President Obama has already said he is going to fix that. There is legislation to fix that. We will fix it. But that is not good enough for our Republican friends. They want to tear it down, just like they wanted to tear down Medicare. They have even wanted to tear down Medicare more recently. This isn't ancient history, let's be clear. In 1995, Dick Armey, the Republican House majority leader, said that Medicare is ``a program I would have no part of in a free world.'' This is the Republican sentiment about health care being offered to our people. That same year, after leading an effort to raise premiums and costs for seniors, Newt Gingrich predicted that Medicare was ``going to wither on the vine.'' We have tea partiers saying hands off my Medicare. OK. That is how out of touch the Republicans are with where the people are. In 1996, Senate majority leader Bob Dole bragged: I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965. Now Paul Ryan's budget ends Medicare as we know it. So let's be clear. When you see almost the entire Republican caucus come down and try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, this is not just stemming from today or yesterday or a glitch in the Web site or a problem we have that we have to fix about people losing their substandard plans. If they want to keep them, we will figure out a way to help them fix that. But notice they never said anything about the good things the Affordable Care Act is doing for millions of people. Because of the Affordable Care Act, 3 million young adults are now insured on their parents' plan. Yet they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. What is going to happen to those 3 million young adults? We have 71 million Americans getting free preventive care such as checkups, birth control, and immunizations. There are 17 million kids with preexisting conditions, such as asthma and diabetes, who can no longer be denied coverage. They want to talk about people who are having a problem. We are going to fix that. We think it is about 5 percent of the people, but even if it is 1 percent, we should fix it. Yesterday we learned in the first month of the open enrollment period, 106,000, or 1.4 percent of consumers expected to sign up in the first year, have enrolled. If you look at Massachusetts during its first month--and I am sure the Chair is aware of this, being from New Jersey, close to Massachusetts--only 0.3 percent, or 123 people, signed up for coverage out of the 36,000 who ultimately signed up in the first year. So let's be clear: We all wanted to see bigger numbers, but the Affordable Care Act numbers are four times better than what Massachusetts did in its first month. If you talk to the people in Massachusetts, they love their health care plan, and our plan is based on their plan. By the way, the Massachusetts plan is a Republican plan. Hundreds of thousands have started the enrollment process, and I am one of them. I have created an account and I am going to go shopping and buy my plan. I am taking my time because I have some time--until December--and I wish to discuss it with my husband. We are going to decide what is best for us and I am going to sign up. I think it was Secretary Sebelius who said this isn't like buying a toaster. This is a commitment for 1 year and you have to take your time. So don't come here and tear down the Affordable Care Act without having to put anything in its place and focus on one problem the President has said he is going to fix--and we are going to fix it. Things are going to pick up. But I wish to tell you the great news about California. Just in the first 2 weeks of November, California's enrollment has doubled. Our story is a truly good one. There is a huge amount of interest in California. People are enrolling. We do have a good Web site, which is important. People are finding affordable health care options. At the end of the day, when the kinks are worked out, I believe the California experience will be repeated across the country to the benefit of all our families. So I will break down some of the numbers from California. We have the largest State in the Union. I hate to say this to my friends here, but we are always ahead of the curve. During the month of October, 370,000 Californians began the process of signing up for private coverage or Medicaid through our health insurance marketplace, Covered California--coveredCA.com. Of those, over 30,000 Californians enrolled in health exchange plans and over 72,000 applied for Medicaid. So we are off to an excellent start in California. In October, there were more than 2.4 million unique visits to Covered California. In other words, this doesn't count people going back and back. These are unique visits. More than 249,000 calls were made to Covered California call centers, and they have got it down to just a couple of minutes of wait time. To date, more than 17,000 counselors, agents, county workers, and others have been certified to offer in-person assistance to Californians. We have heard the horror stories from over there--one side of the story--of people having a problem. We are going to fix the problem. I will quote what Californians are saying. I enrolled online on Monday! No website troubles! Took me about 15 minutes! I'll be saving $628 a month after January 1st! So grateful! Very short wait on the phone; helpful cheerful person to talk to. This online app is very easy. Thank you! The insurance package I am getting is more comprehensive and way cheaper than the one I've had for the last 9 years. Thank you for creating the marketplace and making the information more accessible and understandable. I find the new coverage provisions to be amazing compared to what was out there before. Many of the plans are cheaper than anything I've seen before and the one I chose has zero deductible. Simple, straightforward, and intuitive. I haven't had health insurance since 1985, so this site has made it unexpectedly easy to enroll. Thank you. What we heard from the Republicans is from a group of people we are going to help who have substandard plans--they don't meet the standards of the Affordable Care Act; sometimes they are called junk plans--some a little better than junk, many of them are not there when you need them. I have to say, to come down here and echo that sentiment without saying the good things which have been done is outrageous. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. So we now know the history of the Republican Party. Sad to say, but they opposed Medicare when it went in. They tried to tear it down; they still are trying to tear it down in the Ryan budget. They come down here, and they talk about a problem that exists that we are going to fix. They never said: The President is going to fix it. He may be on the way to fixing it in moments here. But they ignore the fact that the signups are ahead of where Massachusetts was at this time. Sage McCollister from Castro Valley told me how the law is helping her family. She was able to get insurance for her 7-year-old daughter, Leah, who was born with an autoimmune disorder. Sage said that before the Affordable Care Act was passed she applied to eight different companies to try to get insurance, but none were affordable. After the law went into effect, she was able to get insurance for Leah for $8 a month. Leah was able to get a procedure done to treat a spinal cord problem that could have resulted in paralysis. Sage said that without the Affordable Care Act, ``my family would be bankrupt and Leah wouldn't have gotten the health care she needs.'' ``Obamacare saved my family from financial ruin,'' said another constituent, Janine Urbaniak Reid. So let's be fair. To come down to the floor one after the other and shed light on one problem we are going to fix--that the President said he was going to fix--and then say you are going to repeal the whole thing sounds just like their predecessors who said that Medicare was terrible and that Social Security was an awful idea. That is what this is about. We are going to make history here. We are going to do the right thing. We are going to fix the problems, and there will be more because that is what happens when we are tackling this big issue. But at the end of the day, we will be a better nation, a healthier nation. Our children will have a brighter future, and I stand with those who want progress. We are not going to tear something down like they want to do and go right back to where we were before--with parents like these having to choose between feeding their families and giving their kids health care. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield through the Chair for a couple of questions?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I see the Senator from Colorado is here as well. It was so interesting to see Republican Senator after Republican Senator come down here to focus on one of the problems we are having and are going to fix. Not one of them touched any of the issues my colleague spoke about or I spoke about or that the Senator from Connecticut did, which is the broad look at what we were facing when we passed the Affordable Care Act, the benefits that have gone into place that are saving our families from bankruptcy and saving lives. I know my friend was very clear. When the Senator said that to see this become all about politics is something that is so wrong--we all know there is a time for politics. The Senator and I are into that. We understand that. There is a time and place. There is also a time and place to put that aside and help our families. I wished to ask my friend a couple of questions. Does he not remember, as I do, that years ago as we were facing a crisis in health care in this Nation, before the Affordable Care Act, we found out from constituents over and over that their insurance company would walk away from them just at the time they got sick? They thought they had a policy, as some of our people think they have good policies that do not meet the standards, but when they got sick--I remember constituents saying they get a call: You know, back 5 years ago you didn't mention the fact that you once had high blood pressure. We are sorry. We are canceling your policy. Does my friend remember that? Does my friend remember learning, as I did, with shock, that being a woman was a preexisting condition? For example, if you were a victim of abuse as a woman, they said you were too much of a risk and they turned you away. Does my friend remember just those two problems before we tackled the Affordable Care Act?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Gerardo Ismael Hernandez, a loving husband and father and respected homeland security agent who was dedicated to protecting the safety of the American people. Tragically, Agent Hernandez was struck down by a gunman at Los Angeles International Airport on November 1, 2013, becoming the first Transportation Security Administration officer killed in the line of duty since the agency's creation. He was 39 years old. A graduate of Los Angeles High School, Gerardo Hernandez was born in El Salvador and came to Los Angeles with his family at age 15. The youngest of four brothers, Gerardo worked hard to succeed and always wanted to give something back to his country. He went to work for TSA in June 2010 and became a behavior detection specialist at LAX. He was devoted to his job, his country, and his beloved family. Gerardo met his future wife, Ana Machuca, when he was 19 years old. Married in 1998, the young couple settled in Porter Ranch, CA and were proud parents to a daughter and a son. His friends and colleagues remember him as a devoted husband and father and a wonderful friend with a great sense of humor who frequently went out of his way to help others. Agent Gerardo Hernandez, like all those who serve in law enforcement and homeland security, put his life on the line to protect and serve his community. His commitment to public safety and to the citizens he protected will never be forgotten. On behalf of the people of California, whom he served so well, I send my gratitude and deep sympathy to his friends and family. We are forever indebted to Agent Hernandez for his courage, service, and sacrifice.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. It is very good to see the Presiding Officer in the chair. Since the Senator has arrived, we have cast some landmark votes for laws that are so critical and for candidates who are so critical. We are about to have a moment in history where we are going to expand opportunities for the LGBT community, expand protection for them so no longer will they face fear in the workplace. If we have an overwhelming vote--which I hope we will have--it will send a message to Speaker Boehner that he should join with us. After all, what is the purpose that we should serve here? It is really making life better for people. It certainly is protecting our people. This leads me to the reason I am here at the request of Senator Murray. It is because we need to speak out against the bill that will shortly be introduced. It is ironic, because as we are about to end discrimination on a whole group of worthy people, this bill attacks another group of people, the majority of this country, women. We are here to say that the extreme and dangerous 20-week abortion ban is not going anywhere in the Senate--not on our watch. Anyone who knows this knows we mean what we say and say what we mean. The American people continue in election after election to reject the war on women. They did it in race after race in the 2012 cycle, and they did it in these local and State-wide races only a couple of days ago. The American people, regardless of party, want us to focus on issues that make a difference in their lives, such as creating jobs, reforming our immigration system, keeping college affordable for students, and rebuilding an infrastructure that is failing us. They don't want to take us back to the last century and open up battles that have long ago been fought in 1973. I see my friend from Iowa, a real champion of Roe v. Wade, a decision that was made by the Court that was a very tough decision. They really did take a moderate view of balancing all of the interests. We have a bill being introduced today that has been shopped around by the most extreme elements in our country that would essentially say Roe v. Wade doesn't make any difference, and it opens up a direct assault on women's health, a direct assault on Roe v. Wade, a direct assault on doctors. It is a radical bill. It is an abortion ban. It offers no health exception, no help for women facing cancer, facing kidney failure, facing blood clots or other tragic complications during a pregnancy, no exception for rape or incest when folks are too scared to report that they were raped or they were a victim of incest. It throws trusted doctors into jail for 5 years simply for providing needed health care to their patients. I wish to tell you who opposes this: the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They said that these restrictions are ``dangerous to patients' safety and health.'' I want to speak about Judy Shackelford. Four months into her pregnancy, she developed a pregnancy-induced blood clot in her arm. The only guarantee that she wouldn't die and leave behind her 5-year-old son was for Judy to end that pregnancy. She and her husband made that very difficult decision. No Senators were in the room when she made that decision with her husband. No Governor was in the room. No President was in the room. This was a personal decision she made with her husband, her god, and her doctor. That is how it ought to be. If a family decides they are going to save the life of their mom, that should be respected. Christie Brooks of Virginia, when pregnant with her second child, after her 20-week ultrasound found out that her daughter would be born with a severe structural birth defect and the baby would suffocate at birth. She made the incredibly difficult decision to end that pregnancy. She wouldn't be allowed to do that under this radical ban. We need to decide who we stand up and fight for. Is it some ideological rightwing agenda or is it for the people, the families, the loving families that we represent? What is best for them? That is it. So we are going to stop this dangerous bill. We are going to stop this dangerous attack on women in its tracks. We are sending a clear message--and I thank Senator Murray for organizing us today--that we will protect women and their families across America. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This bill is about basic fairness, and it is really about the Golden Rule--treating others as you would like to be treated. Every single American should have the right to earn a living and provide for his or her family without fearing discrimination in the workplace because of who they are and whom they love. Americans like Marty Edwards, an assistant vice president of First National Bank of Granbury, Texas, whose story was recently featured in The Advocate. Marty was passed over for promotions at work despite a very strong 11-year history at the bank. When he asked for an explanation from his vice president and human resources department, he was told that the workers who had received the promotion were ``a better fit for the image we are looking for.'' Marty Edwards was hired by the bank right out of college. He formed his professional identity there. He was moving up the ladder until he came out as a gay man. When Edwards asked whether his sexual orientation was the main reason he had been denied promotion, the bank's executive vice president demanded his resignation. Edwards refused, and then he was fired. Sadly, Marty Edwards' story is not unique. Between 15 and 43 percent of LGBT people have experienced discrimination in the workplace or harassment in the workplace as a result of their sexual orientation. Twenty-six percent of transgender people report having been fired from their jobs because of their gender identity, and 90 percent reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment, or discrimination. Our fellow citizens need ENDA. I was here when ENDA was voted on so many years ago when it was a Ted Kennedy bill. We did not make it then, but I think we are going to make it now because Americans know that ENDA is the right thing to do. As a matter of fact, 80 percent of Americans assume there already is a law prohibiting discrimination against this community. But more than half of Americans still live in States where it is perfectly legal to fire a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender American just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. So that is why we need this bill. There are many States where there is no protection. This bill would make sure the protections are nationwide. Seventy percent of the American public supports ENDA. According to the Washington Post, public support ranges from a high of 81 percent in Massachusetts to a low of 63 percent in Mississippi. So it is clear that the support cuts across party affiliation and generational gaps. Whether they are a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, whether they are a libertarian, whether they are young or old, Americans overwhelming support this bill. The American people are basically giving us a message: This is a no-brainer. We should not have to fight about it. We should just vote for it. That is why I was so dismayed to read that House Speaker Boehner said he would not support ENDA. His reason was that it will increase litigation. Does the Speaker really think that LGBT Americans, who have families to support and bills to pay, would rather pursue frivolous lawsuits than earn their pay in a workplace free of harassment and discrimination? Here is what I think is really disingenuous about that. Republicans do not suggest that all the other groups covered by the Civil Rights Act are filing frivolous lawsuits. In other words, all the rest of Americans who are protected because of their religion, because of their color, because of their creed, Speaker Boehner says they are not filing frivolous lawsuits and he does not want to repeal the civil rights of those people. Good. Why does he think that the LGBT community is going to file frivolous lawsuits? I have to say that evidence shows what he is saying is false. The Speaker ignores the fact that the Government Accountability Office issued a recent report showing that in the 22 States that banned sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace, ``there were relatively few employment discrimination complaints based on sexual orientation and gender identity filed.'' In other words, there is not a problem with frivolous lawsuits being filed by the LGBT community in the States that have protective laws. That is because LGBT Americans are woven into the fabric of our workplaces, our communities, and every other facet of our American life. This bill is about granting them the just and fair protections they deserve so that they can live their lives and contribute to our economy without fear of losing their jobs because of who they are or whom they love. It is the moral thing to do. It makes good business sense. A majority of Fortune 500 companies have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination policies in place. Recent polling shows that a majority of small businesses do too. I have to say that in the States where we have these laws, people are happy with it. People are so happy with it that they think the whole country has already passed a law. So how could the Speaker get up and announce that he is opposed to it because there will be the filing of frivolous lawsuits? It is a made-up straw man, if I might say. The State of California and many of our cities enforce these policies as well. The economy benefits. Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote in the Wall Street Journal: Those who have suffered discrimination have paid the greatest price for this lack of legal protection. But ultimately we all pay a price. If our coworkers cannot be themselves in the workplace, they certainly cannot be their best selves. When that happens, we undermine people's potential and deny ourselves and our society the full benefits of those individuals' talents. I thank Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, for those progressive thoughts. Employers know they will be the most competitive when they hire and retain the best people, and folks will apply for and strive to keep their jobs if they know a company only considers their qualifications for the job and the result of their hard work--nothing more, nothing less. I believe my colleagues will do the right thing and pass this bill. I want to say to my colleague Jeff Merkley, who is not on the floor right now--he has really pushed hard for this vote. I thank Senator Harry Reid, our leader. There are many other bills that compete for attention. I think it was very important because what could be more important than protecting our people, protecting our sons and daughters, protecting all God's children? That is what ENDA does. So I think we are going to see a very good vote on this bill tomorrow. Really, it ought to pass by 80, 90, 100 votes because it is a very simple idea: Everyone should be treated fairly. Everyone should be treated equally. This Nation is at its best when we do that. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 8 minutes, followed by Senator Baldwin.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am pleased to congratulate the 2013 Eastlake Little League All-Star team from Chula Vista, CA on capturing the U.S. Championship at the 67th Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA. The determination, sportsmanship, and love of the game exhibited by these young athletes inspired people in Chula Vista and throughout California. Since its establishment almost 75 years ago, Little League Baseball has grown from just three teams to become the world's largest youth sports program. This year's Little League World Series featured 8 regional champions from the United States and 8 international teams, representing the millions of children in 79 countries on 6 continents who take part in the great American pastime. The Eastlake Little League All-Stars traveled a long road to Williamsport. In order to qualify for the Little League World Series, these extraordinary young players had to first defeat worthy opponents at the District 42 Championship in South Bay, the Section 7 Championship in Spring Valley, the Sub-Division III Championship in Corona, and the Division III Championship in Long Beach, before securing the West Region Championship in San Bernardino with a 3-to-1 tournament record. Representing the West at the World Series, the Eastlake All-Stars showcased their talents with several impressive feats of athleticism. In a tense game against the Great Lakes All-Stars, Eastlake's Grant Holman became the first pitcher since 1979 to throw an extra-inning no- hitter at the Little League World Series. Later, Eastlake routed the New England All-Stars 12-to-l to take the U.S. Championship. Reaching the World Series Championship game, Eastlake fought valiantly to take the lead before falling 6-to-4 to the talented team from Tokyo, Japan. In Chula Vista, the Eastlake All-Stars received a hero's welcome at a community homecoming celebrating the new U.S. World Series Champions. In the spirit of international goodwill and sportsmanship that characterizes the Little League World Series, the Eastlake players were joined in Chula Vista by the neighboring team from the Municipal de Tijuana Little League of Tijuana, Mexico, who placed third in the World Series. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing all the members of the Eastlake Little League All-Star team on their extraordinary achievement: Micah Pietila-Wiggs, Ricky Tibbett, Rennard Williams, Dominic Haley, Patrick Archer, Kevin Bateman II, Jake Espinoza, Giancarlo Cortez, Grant Holman, Charly Peterson, Michael Gaines, and Nick Mora, along with the dedicated coaches, parents, and volunteers who contributed to their success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Kathleen Joy ``Kathy'' Mullen, a trailblazer in Fresno's special abilities community who was beloved locally and beyond. Ms. Mullen passed away on July 18 at the age of 52. Kathy was born with Down syndrome, but she never allowed it or anything else to keep her from fully pursuing her dreams. From an early age, Kathy loved performing for others, whether she was shadowing her sister practicing a gymnastics routine or staging her own performances in the family backyard. Kathy's love of athletics and performing drew her to competitive sports, where through focus and dedication, she made history as Fresno County's first Special Olympian. Kathy was a gifted athlete who broke records as the only Special Olympian to receive State, national and world gold medals in four different sports--gymnastics, swimming, bowling, and ice skating. In 1983, inspired by Kathy's accomplishments and passion for athletics, her family founded Break the Barriers, a Fresno-based organization that enables athletes of all ages and physical abilities to hone their skills, train together, and establish bonds of understanding and respect. Thirty years later, Break the Barriers provides instruction and training to 3,000 people each year in a 32,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art facility. To those fortunate enough to have known her, Kathy Mullen will be fondly remembered not just for her gold medals, but also for her infectious smile, character, resolve and remarkable ability to inspire everyone lucky enough to have known her. She will be missed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take 5 minutes.