Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I will take a couple of moments at the close of this very difficult debate to express my deep respect to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand. While many aspects of this debate have been hard, perhaps the hardest part of this debate has been that this disagreement on policy has overshadowed the amazing work so many have done this year to enact a different day in the U.S. military when it comes to sexual assault and victims of sexual assault. When the Sun sets today, this body will have passed 35 major reforms in less than 1 year, making the military the most friendly victims organization in the world, giving victims more power, more leverage, holding commanders accountable, and holding perpetrators accountable. It will eliminate the ridiculous notion that how well one flies a plane should have anything to do with whether they committed a crime, professionalizing the process so that victims no longer endure a ridiculous amount of inappropriate questioning at what should be something like a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause, as opposed to some kind of rendering of questioning, torture to a victim who has come out of the shadows and is willing to go forward. I know I can speak with confidence for Senator Gillibrand that she and I have walked lockstep on those 35 reforms. We have disagreed on one. I know in the future she and I will work very hard together to make sure our military does the right thing by victims and puts perpetrators where they belong--in prison--and out of the ranks of the military where they stain the good name of the bravest men and women in the world. I thank all of my colleagues for their patience during this debate. I know this has been tough for everyone. But I stand with years of experience, holding the hands and crying with victims, with many victims, who have spoken to me and other organizations, knowing that what we have done is right for victims and right to hold perpetrators accountable. I respectfully request that people support our amendment today and reject the one area of policy on which the great Senator from New York and I disagree. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the work of Gerard Grimaldi. Gerard has a long history of public service in Kansas City, stretching back to his time serving as an aide to Senator Tom Eagleton and later as an aide to Congressman Alan Wheat. More recently, since 2001, Gerard has ably served as vice president of health policy and government relations for Truman Medical Centers. Everyone who knows Gerard respects him, and everyone who gets to work with him considers themselves lucky. A few years ago, I asked Gerard to serve as my nominee on a volunteer community advisory panel for the Bannister Complex in Kansas City, MO. This opportunity required a significant time commitment from Gerard-- time he would normally spend with his beautiful wife and four lovely children--to serve on a panel which offered Gerard no personal or professional benefit. Not only that, but this panel was created to help facilitate constructive community dialogue around some sensitive issues in a very heated environment. But, true to his background as a public servant, Gerard didn't hesitate when I asked him to volunteer. Gerard not only served on the community advisory panel for over 3 years, but he also was the chair of the panel, heading a diverse group of community leaders. This panel worked diligently to facilitate constructive community input and to help ensure transparency by government agencies involved in the Bannister Complex environmental cleanup and redeployment efforts. The work Gerard and the panel did was successful and has now come to an end. In the course of my adult life, I have been fortunate to meet many outstanding public servants--men and women who exemplify leadership and a genuine desire to contribute to the greater good. Of those public servants, Gerard is one of the best. I am proud that he is a Missourian, and I am honored to be able to recognize him here today. I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating and honoring Gerard Grimaldi for his exemplary public service to Kansas City and the great State of Missouri.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, as we come to the end of 2013, I wish to pay tribute to a friend and a stellar long-term staff member of mine, Nichole Distefano. Nichole left my office earlier this year to pursue an exceptional opportunity with the Environmental Protection Agency. She spent more than 6 years as an indispensable member of my Washington, DC, staff and was an exceptional member of staffs of mine going back to 2004. Nichole is affectionately known as ``H'' in our office, initially because of the ``h'' in her first name and later for reasons best not shared on the Senate floor but related to her tenacity and direct nature. Nichole was the absolute rock and foundation of our legislative staff during her tenure. She was, in fact, the first legislative aide that I hired. It did not matter--although was a shock to some--that she had no previous experience in DC. I knew she would dive right into her responsibilities with attention to detail and skill. In fact, within 2 years on the staff, she assumed responsibility for my government reform portfolio, which encompassed the issues that I focused on most intently during my first 6 years in the Senate. During that time we promoted her four times and continually increased her responsibility. In each case, she performed beyond even my highest expectations. There was no challenge and no issue Nichole could not tackle. Nichole's policy accomplishments are too many to number. She was our lead staffer on earmark reform work; whistleblower legislation for both Federal employees and contractors; our complex regulatory reform efforts; everything and anything that had to do with empowering our inspectors general. She led all the office work on screening policies at the airports along with handling innumerable challenging situations with the GSA in regards to Missouri and was the lead staffer in writing bills to curb some of the excesses that we discovered in that Agency. She also patiently waded through all of the difficult policy and politics of energy issues, including the challenging and politically sensitive debate on cap and trade. There was no detail too small for Nichole to master and no nuance she could not grasp. One of her earliest policy responsibilities had to do with an energy issue much smaller than cap and trade, however. She prepared legislation dealing with the measurement of gasoline as it relates to temperature--hot gas was not the most exciting issue. It involved no bright lights and no headlines, just hard, complicated, solid, public policy work--the exact kind of thing Nichole thrived at. Those issues that take more than a cut-and-paste memo were Nichole's specialty. I have known Nichole since she was 8 years old, as the granddaughter of a strong public servant, Carole Roper Park Vaughn, who served with me in the Missouri State Legislature. As Nichole ran around Carole's Jefferson City office, Carole helped instill in her that leadership spark. In 2004, when I ran for Governor, I hired Nichole for the first time to help run our Kansas City volunteer crew. By the end, most people on staff thought she was the one really running our KC office-- and for all intent and purposes, she was. By our 2006 Senate race, she became my rural outreach director, helping us find some of the gems of our campaign, like Sweet Corn Charlie. On both campaigns she was always willing to do whatever was needed at any level from literally boosting me up onto an RV so we could grab a picture of our ``McCaskill for Senate''-wrapped RV in front of my family's old flour mill in Houston, MO, to walking into a field office unannounced one day and saying she was there to go door-to-door, despite her senior role on the campaign. She is a take-charge kind of woman but taking charge by immersing herself in a subject. That became her trademark. We all grew to expect her remarkable technical competence on very complicated issues and her penchant for digging deeper to find the real answer. Of course, at times, she let her desire to dig deep bleed into her personal life, too. Just ask her new husband Ryan what her first two responses to his marriage proposal were: ``Are you serious?'' Because of this knack for asking the right questions and learning the detailed answers, I always listened to what she had to say--I did not always agree, of course, but listened nonetheless. As one of her male colleagues said, ``She looks tiny and sweet, but everyone is a little terrified of her because she's tougher and smarter than most everyone out there.'' And have no doubt, when Nichole believes something, she will let you know, and she will fight for it. I cherish this attribute because in this kind of job you need people who aren't just smart, aren't just aggressive, but who are real and honest. Now no one stays terrified of Nichole for too long because they figure out how genuine she is, and funny too. The gifted members of our staffs are both intense and blessed with great humor. Our legislative correspondents have been lucky to have her as a mentor, as well--someone who expects a high level of performance, gives praise when it is due, and encourages professional development. It is no accident that one of the first LC's to work for her grew into one of my staff's most important legislative assistants today. It is always bittersweet for me when these kinds of junctures happen--these times when you want your staff to blast forward and make you proud as much as you want them to stay--because they have been so essential to your work. With Nichole now working as a senior advisor within the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at the EPA, she is providing the kind of public service that embraces intellect, curiosity, and precision. It is why they brought her on, of course. They quickly saw what we already knew. They are benefiting greatly from her deep vein of common sense and her refusal to stop working until she has asked every question and gotten every answer. I am proud to say thank you to Nichole Distefano as 2013 comes to an end, to express my deep gratitude for all she has done for me, for Missouri, and for our great Nation over so many years. I am proud to see her continue to grow and excel. I know she is doing exceptional things in her new position. She is my friend. She is a rock. And I miss her.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask that the Senate join me in honoring the life of Albert Henry Haas. Albert was killed November 29 in a mortar attack at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, where he was serving as a civilian aircraft mechanic. Albert had a long career in service to our country, dating back to his service in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war and continuing in the Army Reserves during the conflict in Bosnia. Following 30 years of military service, Albert retired and began a 30-year career in aircraft maintenance for companies such as TWA and American Airlines. Albert had a passion for life that he shared with those around him. He especially enjoyed spending time with his grandchildren and learning about different cultures. He was fascinated with and very knowledgeable about all mechanical things that move like trains, helicopters, and planes. Those around him will remember him as a comical person who was able to make all around him feel comfortable and welcomed. As the daughter of a caring, loving father who always told me I could achieve anything, and that there were no jobs too tough for me, I was especially happy to hear about Albert's advice for his two daughters. He instilled in them from an early age that they could do anything they put their mind to, without regard to their gender. This resulted in them helping rewire the entire house and working on roof repairs with Albert. Just as I am thankful on a daily basis for the lessons my father taught me, I know Albert's children are thankful for the memories and teachings of their father. On behalf of the Senate, I wish to offer my condolences to Albert's wife of 41 years, Bay Thi, their three adult children, Thao Haas of Texas, Tina V. Smith of Belleville, IL, and Lisa R. Carnahan of St. Louis, MO, and his eight grandchildren. Albert's life was an example to those around him and I hope his family can take comfort in the memories they shared with him.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Blunt for his comments and appreciate his hard work on the Armed Services Committee as we tackle an issue that all of us have an emotional commitment to for all the right reasons. I thank Senator Gillibrand. We both want fundamental reform. We are both working as hard as we know how to get it. We have a fundamental disagreement on how best to obtain that goal, and I would like to go through some of that disagreement for the next few minutes. The 26 historic reforms that are in the bill are going to make our military the most victim-friendly criminal justice system in the world. In no other system does a victim get their own lawyer. In no other system will they have the protection, empowerment, and the deference we are creating for them in this bill. In my years of experience in handling these cases--hundreds of them with victims--I would have given anything if that victim had had the confidence of independent advice. I think it would have made a tremendous difference in the staggering number of victims who refused to go forward. This is the most personally painful moment of anyone's life. Make no mistake about it, no matter what we do in this Chamber and no matter what this bill accomplishes, we will never be able to get every victim to come forward because of the nature of this horrific crime, but we have to do better. Like Senator Gillibrand, I have talked to dozens and dozens and dozens of victims. I have talked to and spent hundreds of hours with prosecutors--military prosecutors, women and men, veterans, commanders, active and retired--and just as there is not agreement among all the women in this Chamber, there is not agreement among all the victims, there is not agreement among all the veterans, there is not agreement even among all the commanders, although most women commanders have acknowledged that even though this sounds seductively simple, it is much more complicated, and we will be creating more problems than we will be solving if we make the change as advocated by Senator Gillibrand. Let's get at what we are trying to do. We have no disagreement that there are too many of these crimes and that they are not reported enough--complete agreement. The goal here is how do we get more reporting. There is a theory that if we do this--if we take this decision away from any command at all to go forward, that that will magically have victims come forward. Senator Gillibrand talked about our allies. I am grateful we have their experience because we can look and see what happened. Our allies have done this, and not in one instance has reporting gone up. We know this is not the silver bullet because if it were, we would have seen an increase in reporting in all the countries that have adopted this system. The response systems panel was put in place by the Armed Services Committee to recommend to the Pentagon changes in this area. We know they have formally acknowledged that our allies--many of whom did this to protect defendants' rights--have not seen an increase in reporting. If the theory is that reporting can only go up if we do this, then why are we seeing a spike in reporting right now? There is a 46-percent increase of reporting this year over last year. That is because some of the military are already putting in the reforms we are codifying in the underlying bill. They are giving victims their own lawyers. They are ramping up the protection, information, and deference they give victims. That is the single most important factor, based on all of my experience, that will dictate whether a victim has the courage to come out of the shadows, and finally that somehow doing this will stop retaliation. That unit is still going to know that that crime was reported. Keep in mind that currently, and under our reforms, the victim does not have to report to the chain of command. Right now the victim does not have to report to the chain of command. Many of my colleagues didn't realize that a victim has many places they can report this crime. Under our reforms, they will immediately get a lawyer and have that level of protection immediately. They will also have the information that they don't have to report to the chain of command. I am trying to understand how reporting, investigating, and deciding half a continent away--a group of lawyers making that decision--stops retaliation. How does that keep the people in your unit from acting inappropriately toward you because you have reported a crime? There is nothing magical about that. In most instances the word will get out. Let's use our common sense. Say you are back in your unit after having been assaulted. Which way are you going to have more protection? Will you have more protection if a group of colonels a half continent away is looking at the facts of the case or if your commander has signed off? Of course, if your commander has signed off, because that sends a message to the unit: We are getting to the bottom of this. Probably the most telling fact about this debate is: Is this happening now? Because at this time outside investigators investigate these cases, and outside JAGs make recommendations. We have that in our system now. So the question is: If these outside lawyers are recommending that we go forward based on their independent investigation, are commanders shutting them down? Are commanders saying: We will not go forward? No one can find me a case where that happened and the prosecutors said: We need to go and the commanders said no. On the other hand, over the last 2 years, there have been 93 separate times the outside lawyer said: You know, this case is too weak, this case doesn't have enough facts--93 times. You know what happened in every one of those cases? The commander said: We are going to get to the bottom of it. So almost 100 victims over the last 2 years would not have had their day in court under Senator Gillibrand's proposal. In Senator Gillibrand's proposal, when the lawyer says no, it is over, whereas, in our proposal, if this were to ever happen, even though we know this is not a problem now, we have review after review after review. No one is going to be able to turn a victim away from her day of justice without accountability, checks and balances, and oversight. There will be a difference in that unit because now retaliation is a crime and the commander is going to be evaluated on how they are handling this issue within their command. There are also practical problems--and some of my colleagues will come to the floor today and talk about this. There are a number of implementation issues that I don't think have been thought through, and this is the real world here. We are talking about appeals and challenges. We are talking about not even having enough colonels right now to staff this. We are talking about risking the ability to get a speedy trial. We are talking about eliminating the ability to plea bargain. Let me tell the Presiding Officer, having handled these cases, I think people sometimes make the assumption that a plea bargain is about copping out, it is about not protecting the victim. Talk about stories of victims, I can tell story after story of real people whom I dealt with who came forward and said: Yes, I think I can do this. I will never forget this one woman who came to me and said: My mental health counselor said that testifying in court will set me back so far I can't do it, but can you get something on him? In those instances, do you think that defense lawyer is going to plead to a sexual offense or even a serious offense? But many times we were able to get something on him so the next time, if it happened, we at least had a better shot. Many times plea bargains are dictated by victims. Military prosecutors are telling me this, that it will really limit their ability and create serious due process concern. In her proposal, this outside lawyer picks everybody--picks the defense lawyer, picks the jury, and picks the prosecutor. How is that going to stand up to a due process claim? It is not clear who picks the judge. That is left silent. I don't know who picks the judge. It is not clear. That is another question: Who is going to decide who is going to actually pick the judge? It eliminates the option of nonjudicial punishment. Take the case of the Air Force airman who was just recently tried in civilian courts. He was initially charged with a sexual offense. It was reduced to a simple assault. If that had been within the military, they couldn't have done that because it wasn't a serious offense so it goes back over to the convening authority within the command and then that soldier knows they are not going to do a trial--they can't--and all he has to do is turn down nonjudicial punishment. Some of these difficulties will be explored in more detail, as I say, throughout the day. Here is the one I don't understand. If a person believes deeply in the policy he or she is advocating, why in the world would that person then proactively limit the ability to resource it? In the language of the Gillibrand amendment, it actually says there shall be no funds authorized for this, no personnel billets authorized for this. The military has estimated over $100 million a year just in personnel costs because they have to create a completely different system outside the system they currently have, which will still be operative for some offenses that are related to the military and that are low-level offenses. But we have to have a whole new system for arson, robbery, theft, murder, and for sexual assault. Yet she proactively in her amendment says we can't resource it. That is truly one that makes me scratch my head. There are a lot of problems surrounding this amendment, but let me emphasize our goals are the same and our motives are pure. We believe-- and we believe this is borne out by the data--we will have more prosecutions because it will be very easy for lawyers who are a long way away--overworked, underresourced--to say: This is a consent case. It is a little messy. Everybody was drunk. Let that one go, and then it is over. Let me briefly talk about what we have in our amendment because it is also very important, once again empowering victims further. In our amendment we are going to allow victims to formally weigh in, whether they would prefer, if there is concurrent jurisdiction, for the civilian authorities to handle the case in addition or whether they would rather the military authorities handle the case. It strengthens the role of the prosecutor because it provides another layer of review over the prosecutor's decisions. It increases the accountability of commanders making this evaluation on their forms and adding that other layer of review. It eliminates the good soldier defense. It is irrelevant whether someone is a good pilot if they have sodomized or raped someone in the military, and our amendment will make it irrelevant and inadmissible. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time. I know we have others who want to visit on this, and I will be happy to be back later in the day to talk specifically about some of the other issues in this bill. I do not see anyone else here right now, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Would the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. So that commander who has to now send----

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

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I too thank my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins for making an effort today to highlight the work that has been done on this important issue. I would be less than candid if I did not say it has been frustrating to have one policy difference dominate the discussion of this issue over the previous few weeks, without anyone even realizing the historic reforms that are contained in this bill. So I welcome the opportunity to come with my colleagues who may disagree on one policy issue but do not disagree on the goal and are taking a moment to recognize the work that has been put into this bill by not just the women of the Armed Services Committee but also the men of the Armed Services Committee. After the hearings--and some of us have spent literally hundreds of hours pouring over trial transcripts, spending time visiting with prosecutors--I think we have fashioned historic and amazing changes that are going to forever change the successful prosecution of rapists in our military and go further to protect victims. I come to this issue with a great deal of experience. I think it is not hyperbole or overstating it that I have stood in the courtroom prosecuting sexual predators more than any Member of the Senate. I have handled hundreds and hundreds of cases and dozens and dozens of jury trials. No one in this Chamber has intersected with victims of sexual assault more than I have. I do not think anyone has more of an understanding of the particularly complicated problems that these cases present, especially when there is a ``consent'' defense. Keep in mind that the vast majority of these cases in the military are consent offenses. You have two options in a sexual assault case. One is ``it wasn't me,'' and the other is ``it was consensual activity.'' It does not take someone much to understand the principle that in this instance most of these cases are going to be consent defenses. Why do I emphasize that? I emphasize it because it is relevant. It is particularly relevant to the reforms that we embrace in the underlying bill. The time period in which a victim decides she is going to come forward out of the shadows and hold her perpetrator accountable is invariably very close in time to the time of report. It is how she is treated at that juncture more than anything else, more than whether she has been victimized in the military or whether she has been victimized on the streets of your hometown--she is coming forward with the most personally painful moment of her life. Keep in mind if you are coming forward with the most personally painful moment of your life how complicated that gets if you know the defense is going to be that you wanted it, that it is consensual, and then it is even more difficult. That is why the vast majority of these crimes in our country are never reported, ever. It doesn't matter whether we are talking military or civilian. So how can we, at that critical moment, make sure that victim gets the help and support she or he needs to do the unthinkable, and that is to lay herself or himself bare to the public about what has happened. The way you do that is through the reforms my colleague Senator Murray stressed and that we have incorporated in this bill, and that is that every single victim gets their own lawyer. I don't think many Members understand how extraordinary that is. That reform alone will make our military the most victim-friendly criminal justice system in the world. In no other criminal justice system anywhere--civilian, military, United States, our allies--does a victim get that kind of support. That is what is underlying in these reforms. We already know it works because it has been a pilot program in the Air Force. Unlike those who say reporting will never go up unless we make another policy change, reporting is spiking in our military, up 50 percent just this year. That is because the victims are getting the word, not only do you not have to report to the chain of command, you are going to begin to get the resources and help and knowledge you need to navigate the choppiest waters, emotionally and personally, you will ever encounter. Not only have we done that in the underlying bill, we also have done other work such as stripping commanders of their ability to abuse this system by changing the outcome of a trial--very important. Making the crime of retaliation a reality in the military--it should be actionable in a criminal court within the military if you retaliate against a victim who reports. Now not only will the victim know that retaliation is a crime, not only will the unit know retaliation is a crime, the victim has her own lawyer who can help press those charges if that occurs. Think of the practical consequences of this reform. You go back into your unit, you are retaliated against, you call your lawyer: You will not believe what they did to me today. Your lawyer helps you bring charges against those who might retaliate. It requires automatic discharge from the military for rape or assault convictions. There will be other opportunities to debate the policy difference we have about how these cases are handled in the military, but I cannot say how grateful I am to the dean and to Senator Collins for doing this today. It is very important that we not lose sight that this is not about a bumper sticker. It is not about one side versus the other. This is about doing the very best job we can on the policy so we can protect victims, prosecute offenders, and get them the hell out of our military. That is what this is about, and with every fiber of my being I believe we are going to accomplish that with the reforms we are embracing. I will come back to the floor to talk more about the amendment I will be offering on the floor to go even further with some of these reforms that we think are necessary. I am so grateful that my colleagues have taken a moment to recognize the obvious; that what we have done is historic; that what we have done we do in agreement; and what we have done is going to make a difference.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues for what I think was a very vivid way in which they laid out the severe damage that is occurring because of the shutdown and the potential that one of the most important economic powers, if not the most important economic power in the world, is fooling around with the notion that we not pay our bills on time. I wish to compliment various newspapers around the country that are doing their best to point out to people that this isn't some kind of exercise that is just about all of us here in Washington. This isn't about the politics or the posturing. This is about real people and the pain they are feeling. This morning in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the headline was ``Shutdown is casting a wide net of grief.'' In that article, it went through a number of different people's lives and how they were hurting because of the shutdown--people such as Nancy Jones. Nancy retired from the Army 4 months ago, and she was at a food pantry this weekend because her retirement check had not processed through yet, and now it is not clear when she is going to get her retirement check. She moved back to St. Louis to help with her four grandchildren, and now she is putting her head on her pillow tonight not knowing when her pension, which she has earned, will actually come through because of the shutdown. As a result, she is going to a food pantry at a local church to get two bags of groceries. Then there is Rasheedah Whitfield. She went to the Social Security office in St. Louis to do something very simple, and that was to replace her lost Social Security card. She knocked and no one was home. The Social Security Administration has furloughed people who do things such as getting a replacement for people's lost Social Security card. Why is that so important? Well, because Ms. Whitfield needs her Social Security card in order to fill out her Section 8 application, and time is running short for her to find housing for herself and her small child. She is unsure what she is going to do if she can't get that replacement card. Then there are the people who have been furloughed who clean one of the Federal office buildings in St. Louis. They work for $11 an hour cleaning the Goodfellow Federal Center in north St. Louis. It is an $11-an-hour job. These people aren't sitting on a big cushion. These people are trying to figure out now, without that $11-an-hour job, if they can either pay the rent or make the car payment, but probably not both. Then there is Jill Ketchum who works and who is fortunate that her child, her 5-year-old daughter, goes to the Head Start school. She is not sure what she is going to do because she has been told by the Grace Hill Settlement House that the Head Start program cannot last through the month if the shutdown continues. That mother, who is working and uses that important Head Start program to make it work for her family, will have no place to take her daughter. What does she do? Does she have to quit her job? What about all the other single mothers out there with young children who have the rug pulled out from under them because Head Start can no longer operate? Jill and Rasheedah and Nancy don't deserve this. They are playing by the rules. They are doing everything they should be doing in this great country. They are not asking us to do them a favor. They are just asking us to do our job. Here is what I am so frustrated about. This pain is being inflicted on millions of Americans, and this pain grows every day. Somebody likened it the other day to when the power goes out at our home. In the first couple of hours, we are getting candles out and getting out the board games, and we think, Oh, this is kind of fun. I got the feeling around here the first couple of hours that we didn't understand the gravity of what this meant to so many people throughout this country and to so many people in my State. But after the electricity has been off a few hours, all of a sudden it is not funny anymore. We start to lose our food in the refrigerator, and we wonder how we are going to replace it. We wonder about what is going to happen with our jobs. We wonder about keeping warm. That is what we are getting to now. We are getting to the point where these families across America cannot believe this is going on day after day. Here is the weird part. What are we doing? It is not even clear to me what the other side wants. It started out with a goal that was not only irrational, but unreasonable--that somehow the election last November didn't matter; that somehow a faction of one party in one House in one branch of this great government could say: If you don't give us our way, we are going to turn out the lights, and we are going to cut the power. So it was about blowing up ObamaCare. Now it is not about that anymore. I listened with interest this morning as the Republicans in the House of Representatives spoke about what this is about, and it is not clear to me at this point what it is about. What is it that is the problem? Because it is not ObamaCare anymore. Is it entitlement reform? Is it a grand bargain? Speaker Boehner walked away from one of those not too long ago. Is it about how much we are spending? We have been asking for a conference on our budget. For years, we were getting political criticism over the fact that the Senate had not passed a budget. So we stayed up all night, took dozens and dozens and dozens of votes, and passed a budget. Then we asked to go to conference. For month after month after month, the junior Senator from Texas and others blocked our ability to go to conference and talk about the budget. So I don't even understand at this moment what this is about. It is not about ObamaCare anymore. Is it about reforming Medicare and Social Security? That is not clear. Is it about how much money we are spending? That is not even clear. It feels as though we are boxing shadows. I am really hopeful about my colleagues across the aisle in the Senate, many of whom I have worked with on many different issues and a lot of whom I have worked with on bringing down spending. My colleague from Alaska said we cut our deficit in half last year. It is a good thing we are spending less money. Most of us here think we should continue in a thoughtful way to spend less money. It is my hope that my colleagues who rejected--the majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected the effort of the junior Senator from Texas to say, ``Us too,'' to the goal that was irrational and unreasonable, shutting down ObamaCare. Those Senators who knew this was not a game that should be played, I am hopeful they will help us reach a resolution that will not only allow the government to reopen but allow us to quit playing the very dangerous game of saying to the rest of the world that we are not the United States of America; that we are not the grandest and most glorious democracy ever created; that we are dysfunctional deadbeats. If it gets to be Thursday and we have not gotten this wrapped up, the rest of the country is going to see this democracy as dysfunctional--a democracy that so many other countries have tried to copy and emulate because we have always managed to work it out. To me that is the saddest part of this whole thing, that we are actually playing around with the essence of what makes our country great, and that is our democracy, our ability to compromise, our ability to negotiate, our ability to not throw tantrums and say we either get our way or we shut the place down. And the phoniest argument of all that is being made, the most disingenuous, misdirected reason we have gotten is this notion that somehow this is all about if we would just stop the congressional exemption under ObamaCare. Members of Congress and their staffs are the only people in America who are required to shop on the exchange. Let me say it again. Members of Congress and their staffs are the only people who are required to shop on the exchange. The only issue here is whether or not we get an employer contribution. That is the only issue. Every Republican in my State who works for the State government gets an employer contribution. Every Republican who serves in Congress from my State gets an employer contribution. They do it right now; they get that employer contribution. If it is so immoral, if it is so bad to get an employer contribution, give it up. Step up, set the example. Set the example, Say, ``No more employer contribution. It is evil.'' Until they step up and give up their employer contribution, I think it is beyond offensive that they would threaten the young lady who answers my phone with her employer contribution or the young man just out of school with a heavy debt load who thought he was going to get an employer contribution when he came to work for the Senate, who lives in Columbia, MO, and doesn't make a huge amount of money. You do not come to work for the government if you want to get rich. You come to work for the government if you want to serve. The notion that for political purposes we are threatening the employer contribution of the people who work in our offices is, frankly, about as low as it gets. So I do not want to hear it anymore unless somebody is giving up their employer contribution. They all can. The minute I hear the Republicans who are advocating this position have given up their employer contribution--right now--then we can have a discussion that has misled the American people into thinking somehow--somehow-- this is some special deal for Congress. Real people are getting hurt. We are not even sure what the other side wants. We are threatening the essence of what makes America great, which is our democracy, and we are misleading the American people in ways that are tremendously unfair to the great people who work for all of us across this city and, importantly, across all of our home States. So I will continue to talk to my friends across the aisle. Even today, on Sunday, all of us are having these conversations. It is my understanding our friends down the hall in the House of Representatives went home. We are having conversations. One week ago I do not think the Speaker could utter a sentence without saying the word ``conversation.'' We are having conversations today. I hope they will continue into the night and that tomorrow will be a better day for this democracy that we all like to brag about but we are threatening to blow up. Thank you. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I find the position we are in right now beyond frustrating, and I can imagine what the American people must be thinking right now. It is very hard from a distance to figure out who has really lost their minds--one party, the other party, all of us, the President. But I really want to boil down what has occurred because it is stunning when you boil it down. The House sent us a piece of legislation where they wanted to defund the health care reforms--ObamaCare--and that was the price they were demanding in order for the government to stay open. The ticket to admission for an open government was our getting rid of the health care bill. Well, we took that up and we defeated that bill. By a 10-vote margin, 54 to 44, we defeated that bill, and we sent it back to them with just the ticket to keep the government open--without an extra price of admission. This is where it gets interesting. What happened after we sent that back? Did they take it up and defeat it? No. No. They didn't vote. I want to make sure the American people understand this. All of the Members of Congress who were elected to serve the people of this country didn't get a chance to vote because the Speaker decided there wouldn't be a vote in the House of Representatives on the Senate-passed measure. Somebody said: Well, it is the Hastert rule. I have searched the Constitution, and I can't find the Hastert rule. It is not there. So the question we have to ask right now is, Why won't they let the House vote? Maybe they will defeat a clean attempt just to keep the government open. By the way, nobody here is against negotiating or compromise. We have compromised on the number in this continuing resolution, and we are perfectly willing and, in fact, we have been desperately trying to negotiate and compromise on the budget for months. Senator Cruz has blocked our attempts to go to conference on the budget. So it is not that none of us are willing to compromise. Maybe some of us aren't, but there is a good healthy bipartisan margin of Senators who want to compromise on issues surrounding Federal spending but not on keeping the government open and not on paying our bills. Let's get those done. Let's get those done. That is basic. Let's get it done. So my plea today to Speaker Boehner is this: Quit making decisions on behalf of all your Members--a small group of you huddled in a back room--because that is what is happening. There are two or three men in a back room down the hall, and they are deciding whether they are going to allow the elected representatives of this country to vote. I say let the House vote. I think the American people may be surprised that there would be a healthy bipartisan margin to, in fact, keep the government open when the clock strikes midnight tonight. Elections matter, and elections are what dictate what happens around here. We had an election last November. I remember it very well. I stood for election last November. There were two candidates for President of the United States, and every American citizen had a chance to decide who they wanted to lead this country. The contrast was very clear. One candidate said he was going to repeal ObamaCare on the very first day he was President. He was going to, by Executive order, wipe out ObamaCare on day one. The other candidate said: I am going to implement ObamaCare. That candidate won, and it wasn't even close. Every single Democratic Senator who ran for reelection and voted for ObamaCare was reelected. Red State, purple State, blue State--all of us were reelected who voted for ObamaCare. In fact, a couple more were elected in States where Republicans had represented those States. We didn't lose seats, we picked up seats. Even in the House of Representatives, the raw votes, there were more Democratic votes cast in the House of Representatives than Republican votes. They have the majority because of the way the districts are drawn. And I understand they control that House, but should they control whether people get to vote? Let the House vote. They say: ObamaCare is so unpopular; the American people don't want it. Now, I get that the polling is not good for this reform, and I am perfectly willing, as we implement it, if we need to, to make tweaks and changes to make it better. I hope my friends across the aisle will quit using this as a political 2 by 4 and help us make it as good as we can possibly make it because this isn't about any plot, this is about accessible and affordable health care for all Americans with a free market solution. These are all private insurance companies. There is not a government program in this. People are going to be able to choose between various private policies and various options, and they are never going to have to pay more than 9\1/2\ percent of their income for their insurance. The insurance companies aren't going to be able to swallow fat profits for golden parachutes for big CEOs anymore. They are going to have to spend 80 cents of every dollar for your health care. But it is all free market. This was a Republican solution in the beginning. The candidate for President forgot that--former Governor Romney--this was his solution for Massachusetts when he was Governor. Now, I will give the Republicans this: It is unpopular in the polls right now. But let's take this proposition: Guess what background checks for guns polls right now? I know the Presiding Officer knows painfully well what those numbers are because of the tragedy in his State. It is much higher, frankly, than those who say they think ObamaCare should be repealed--the Americans who support background checks on weapons purchases. So what would everyone on the other side of the aisle think if we decided, well, you know, we are going to shut down the government if you won't pass background checks on guns. It is what the American people want. We will just shut down the government if you won't pass it. That is not the way we legislate. That is not the constitutional framework our Founding Fathers put together. There would be outrage that we would try to shut down the government over background checks on guns. Yet the very same premise would apply to what they are doing. The President won. The majority of the Senate are in fact individuals who support this valiant attempt to try to do something with a health care system that was headed off the rails, becoming more and more unaffordable every day. By the way, everything that is bad now is ObamaCare. I laughingly made a joke in my State that our university's team didn't do very well in offense during the first half. I said, it must be ObamaCare. Because no matter what is out there that people are upset about, somehow they manage to paint it with the ObamaCare brush. I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised. It is not going to be as intrusive as some of the talking heads warned. It is going to provide a marketplace where people can pool risk and get a better deal. It is going to provide a lot more nights where parents can rest easy because they are not rolling the dice every day and depending on the emergency room for their day-to-day health needs. My message today is very simple. All of this is premised on the notion that one should be able to shut down our government because they don't get their way in an election. I don't think that is the role model we want to serve to the other governments in the world, much less to our kids. I think we can compromise on a lot. We can even work on making this bill better. But let's keep the government open, let's pay our bills, and then let's sit down and have some meaningful negotiation and compromise about Federal spending. I am somebody in my caucus who is always open to other ways we can cut spending. Some in my caucus don't feel as strongly as I do about that, but I am willing to listen to all sides and negotiate around the budget. Let's not hold our economy hostage in the process. Real people are going to be hurt. This isn't just about who is on the Sunday morning shows, who is your primary opponent, what are they saying on cable news. This is about real folks, and we need to be focused on them. I implore Speaker Boehner, let the Members vote. Just let them vote. Put it on the floor. He can do it in an hour. Put it on the floor and let them vote. If it is defeated, then let's talk. I will bet it won't be. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the Senate will take votes in relation to the Manchin amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. I was unable to be present for this vote, due to a pre-scheduled commitment in my home State for which my attendance was confirmed before the timing of these votes was set. Because my presence would not have changed the outcome of either vote, I honored my previous commitment. Had I been present I would have voted in support of Senator Manchin's amendment. We are facing a crisis. On July 1, interest rates on new subsidized Stafford student loans doubled, from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Already, officials at the Federal Reserve, the Department of the Treasury, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have all warned that student borrowing threatens to dampen consumption, depress the economy, limit credit creation, and pose a threat to our Nation's financial stability. Students and graduates in my State are already heavily in student loan debt. Two out of every three Missouri students will leave college with student loan debt. At a time when a higher education is vital to expanded opportunity for so many young people and with a 21st Century economy that increasingly demands workers with the skills earned as part of a college education, we cannot make it even more difficult for young people to financially achieve a college education. We need to act. While not perfect, the Manchin amendment is the product of bipartisan compromise, forged and supported by Members from both sides of the aisle. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation because it will provide relief to our Nation's students by lowering interest rates for America's student loan borrowers. This relief will not only apply to subsidized Stafford loans; it will apply to loans to undergraduates, graduate students, and the parents of students seeking to pay for their education. Importantly, this legislation also includes interest rate caps; without this feature, I would not have been able to support this bill. I would have also supported the second-degree amendment put forth by Senators Reed and Warren because it is consistent with my commitment to keeping rates low. The Reed-Warren amendment would provide certainty to students and families by ensuring that interest rates will go no higher than they would under the fixed rates in current law without adding to our deficit. I believe this is a responsible measure that deserves bipartisan support. To be clear, addressing the issue of student loan interest rates is only one piece of the puzzle of ensuring that higher education is affordable and attainable to those who seek it. We must also examine the issues of the rising costs of college attendance and the rapid growth of the proprietary college sector, where the share of Federal student aid payments and loan defaults is disproportionately and alarmingly high. I will continue to work with my colleagues on all of these issues. Congress has an important role in helping American students attain the higher education opportunities they seek, to ensure that our Nation remain a global leader in the 21st century economy.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to offer tribute to a truly passionate team from Columbia, MO--Eliot and Muriel Battle--who together became key to forever changing race relations throughout Columbia. One local newspaper recently wrote: ``You could not have Eliot without Muriel. What they accomplished, they accomplished together.'' And what they accomplished was astounding--a testament to the power of leadership by example. Over the last decade, the city of Columbia and the University of Missouri have lauded this couple with various citywide recognitions and, for Eliot, an honorary degree, in honor of their lifelong efforts. Yet the most poignant recognition of all was the decision to name Columbia's newest high school ``Muriel Williams Battle High School.'' Education served as the backbone of the couple's series of first-ever accomplishments as they became pioneers in the desegregation of the city's public schools. Seeing the new high school open became one of Eliot's last goals. And he met it with pride. Despite his declining health, he walked to the podium on June 2 to a standing ovation, spoke loud and clear, and received a second standing ovation at the end of his speech honoring his wife, who had passed 10 years earlier, in 2003. Nine days after the ceremony, he passed on too. It is amazing how life works sometimes. Their story is one for all to know and understand. I would like to share a few highlights. They moved to Columbia in 1956 in the heart of the civil rights movement, just a year after Rosa Parks would not give up her seat on the bus. In this era, many civil rights leaders had more radical approaches to change, but the Battles did not fit into these molds. Even though they also wanted quick change, they were a couple who lived ``quietly yet determined and unwavering,'' as one newspaper columnist noted, working behind the scenes of social justice and modeling the racial acceptance they wanted their community to adopt. Both of the couple's first education jobs in Columbia were at Douglass School--Eliot as an assistant principal and, later, Muriel as a social studies teacher. Both had come from families that emphasized ``education was the answer'' for African Americans, Muriel once said. ``We grew up,'' she said, ``knowing we were going to college.'' It became clear quickly that both Eliot and Muriel wanted all Columbia children to have the same chance they did. In 1960, Eliot became the first African-American faculty member at a newly integrated Hickman High School, serving as a guidance counselor. His approachable manner helped ease the tension of desegregation by mediating between some African-American families and White educators. After Muriel's stint at Douglass School, she spent 30 years at West Junior High School, where she worked as a teacher, department chairperson, assistant principal, and principal. She retired as the school district's first female associate superintendent of secondary education. Muriel was known for making all people of all ages and race feel valued and welcome even down to her school motto: ``We're glad you're here.'' Long into their retirement from education, the couple continued their efforts to promote diversity. Eliot became a founding member of the Minority Men's Network, served on the Columbia College board of Trustees, and wrote the 1997 book: ``A Letter to Young Black Men.'' Muriel formed the Battle Group, an education consulting firm that provided strategies to school districts, parent-teacher associations, and juvenile justice facilities, and dedicated time and money to building a Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial. Their efforts toward overall community acceptance reached far beyond their professional lives. Two of their four children became the first African-American students to attend Grant Elementary--the first of Columbia's schools to be integrated. They also integrated neighborhoods, being one of the first African- American families to move beyond the redlining real estate limits in Columbia and into a White neighborhood. Despite the hateful letters they received--and even after having a White neighbor shoot their family dog, Bingo--the couple led by example and continued to tell their children that these neighbors feared change and they had to push on. As one local newspaper recounted, Battle's daughter said her father would routinely say ``They don't understand, and they are afraid. We have to live our lives and do the best we can, and if they knew better, they would do better.'' The community of Columbia was so lucky to have had this team move into its community and change it forever. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the lives and accomplishments of Eliot and Muriel Battle.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the nearly 70 volunteers who have faithfully dedicated their time to operating the Kirkwood Amtrak Train Station for the past 10 years. In recognition of their outstanding service, a celebration has been planned for them this weekend, on June 29, 2013, in Kirkwood, MO. In 2002, the City of Kirkwood was on the verge of losing its historic train station due to budget constraints. However, the residents of this community rejected that possibility. Instead, they banded together and the City of Kirkwood arranged to purchase the station from Amtrak. In doing so, the citizens saved the 120-year-old branch from destruction and preserved an iconic landmark in downtown Kirkwood. Following the purchase, the City of Kirkwood called on volunteers to staff and operate the facility. Nearly 200 people responded. Today, almost 70 regular volunteers answer questions about schedules, recommend Kirkwood sites and attractions, help passengers board trains, issue parking passes, and keep the station open and running in accordance with the Amtrak train schedule. Some may question whether an all-volunteer run train station can compete with other staff-operated stations across the country. Let me tell you--Kirkwood Amtrak Train Station's honors and awards speak for themselves. In 2004, the Kirkwood station volunteers were recognized with Amtrak's prestigious ``Champion of the Rails'' award, marking this station as the only non-employee station to ever receive the award. Perhaps more impressively, the Kirkwood Amtrak Train Station's recent customer satisfaction scores placed it No. 1 in the country. With friendly smiles and warm service, the Kirkwood station volunteers have set themselves apart from all other Amtrak stations, logging over 50,000 hours of service to the City of Kirkwood, and welcoming more than 500,000 visitors and passengers through the station doors. I am proud these deserving citizens hail from my home State of Missouri. Their generous commitment to the City of Kirkwood and to travelers from all over the country serves as an inspiration to the people of Missouri. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the volunteers of the Kirkwood Amtrak Train Station for their distinguished service to the residents and visitors of Kirkwood.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, this afternoon the Senate Armed Services Committee--in fact, in less than an hour--will convene and we will begin working on historic changes, unprecedented changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in response to the serious and significant problem of sexual assault in our military. I come to the floor before we convene to explain why I am supporting significant changes as to how we handle sexual assaults in the military but also why I am not supporting completely removing the role senior military commanders play in ordering these kinds of trials to go forward. The discussion of this issue takes me back many years when I began prosecuting rape and sodomy cases as a young assistant DA in the prosecutor's office in Kansas City. For years, I handled dozens and dozens of these cases in the courtroom, both as an assistant prosecutor and as the elected prosecutor. I have had the opportunity, the blessing, the challenge, and the scarring that comes from holding victims' hands, crying with victims, feeling their pain, the permanency of the injuries they have suffered as a result of these unspeakable crimes. I would challenge anyone in the Senate to come to this issue with more experience or more understanding of the unique challenges this crime represents in the never-ending quest for true justice. In my years of experience and the time I have spent with military prosecutors, victims, and civilian prosecutors, I have become convinced that the approach the Armed Services Committee will take today is the right approach to get these predators put in prison. I believe the provision that I expect will receive a bipartisan majority of the votes in the Armed Services Committee will better empower victims and lead to more reporting. The reason it will empower victims and lead to more reporting is because these changes will lead to more and effective prosecutions. Ultimately, no woman wants to come forward and talk about this crime, and certainly no man who has been victimized in the military wants to come forward and talk about this crime. It is personal. It is private. It is painful. So it does not matter whether the perpetrator is a member of the military or a civilian; these are difficult cases to bring forward because of the intensely personal nature of the pain involved. But I believe these reforms will hold the chain of command more accountable and force them to be part of the solution, and it will prevent the unintended consequences of dismantling a system of military justice that has long been a centerpiece of discipline in our military. Make no mistake about it, the changes we are making are aggressive, historic, victim-oriented, and unforgiving to the predators. Commanders under these reforms will not have the ability to dismiss a conviction of a jury. That is the first and most important reform that is occurring. Never again will a commander who has not heard the testimony be able to say ``never mind'' to that victim. Most importantly--and this is very important because the reporting on this issue has not been accurate--most importantly, under these reforms, if the lawyers, the prosecutors, say the case should go forward, and the commander disagrees and says no, that will go straight up, not to a man in uniform, but to the Secretary of the branch of the military where the crime occurred. So no longer will you have the uniforms making the ultimate decision. I would argue we are taking in many ways the convening authority out of the equation because we are allowing that lawyer, if the commander disagrees with them, that prosecutor, if the commander disagrees with them, to go straight up to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force for the ultimate decision by a civilian, not by a member of the military. If the commander decides not to order the court-martial, not to order the trial, the final decision will go to the civilian Secretary. The ultimate authority is with the civilian. This is even a greater level of scrutiny than in the reforms proposed by Senator Gillibrand because you have another level. We heard of cases where the prosecutors did not want to go forward and the command did. There are instances where prosecutors in the civilian world will not file these cases and the military prosecutors will. I am sure there will be cases where military prosecutors will not want to go forward. So the good news is there is someone above the prosecutors who is a civilian who can, in fact, pass judgment also. We know that many cases are not filed in the civilian courts when they are ``he said, she said'' consent defenses in rape cases. I have painfully explained that decision to victims when the evidence simply was not going to meet the burden. But in the military, we have to make sure that it is not just a line prosecutor who has the ultimate authority. We need that civilian Secretary at the top of this decisionmaking power. We need that ultimate authority, especially in the culture of our military. The other thing our reform does that Senator Gillibrand's proposal does not do--and I think this is key--it creates a crime of retaliation. So if this victim comes back to the unit and retaliation occurs, the people who are committing the retaliation are now subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and they can be prosecuted for the crime of retaliation. I think this is a very important, direct approach. Because, ultimately, that is what most victims who do not come forward say they are afraid of: their loss of privacy and retaliation and the impact on their career. The bill also makes many other reforms, giving victims better access to legal counsel, improving the skill of personnel working with victims in the sexual assault response system, making sure victims have a voice in the clemency proceedings, and many others. Ultimately, at the end of the day, if a victim is sexually assaulted, and they come back to their unit, is it more likely the unit will retaliate against them and make their life miserable if outside lawyers have said the case should go forward or if the commander has said the case should go forward? We do not have evidence that this is a problem right now, that commanders are refusing to file these cases. Just the opposite. We heard testimony in committee that they are demanding prosecutions in some instances where the lawyers have said no. I believe these reforms will do a better job of getting predators behind bars and ultimately creating a more supportive environment for victims to come forward. We are not done with this, even after we pass these reforms in committee today, and even after we pass this Defense authorization bill and it goes to the President. But I think we have the best chance of making real progress with a strong bipartisan reform that will get at the heart of the matter, which these reforms do. I believe we will continue to monitor this, and as we go forward, if more changes are necessary, I will be the first in line to work for them. But do not let anyone say the reforms we are doing today are not what is right for the victims of sexual assault or for the proposition that anybody, any coward who besmirches our fine military by committing these crimes--that they should not belong in prison. They belong in prison, and that is what these reforms are intended to help happen. I thank the Chair and I assume I should yield the floor for my colleague from Colorado.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, on Thursday morning, the Senate took cloture votes in relation to motions to proceed to S. 953 and S. 1003, which represent a Democratic and Republican proposal, respectively, to address the interest rate offered on subsidized Federal Stafford loans, a form of Federal student loan available to many who are pursuing a postsecondary education. I was unable to be present for these votes, due to a prescheduled commitment; before the timing of these votes was envisioned, my attendance was confirmed at a women's conference. Because my presence would not have changed the outcome of either vote, I honored my previous commitment. Had I been present I would have voted in support of S. 953 and opposed S. 1003. In my State, over 150,000 students will borrow subsidized Stafford loans next school year. These are need-based loans given to kids who have studied hard and families who have made financial sacrifices and plan to borrow what they need to cover the rising costs of higher education. Rather than reward their efforts, the government plans to add to their burden unless action is taken. On July 1, the interest rate on new subsidized Stafford student loans is scheduled to double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. We are facing a crisis. Already, officials at the Federal Reserve, the Department of the Treasury, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have all warned that student borrowing threatens to dampen consumption, depress the economy, limit credit creation, and pose a threat to our Nation's financial stability. Students and graduates in my State are already heavily in student loan debt. Two out of every three Missouri students will leave college with student loan debt. If we fail to take action, students with subsidized Stafford loans will have to pay over $1,000 more than they would under current interest rates on their loans. At a time when a higher education is vital to expanded opportunity for so many young people and with a 21st century economy that increasingly demands workers with the skills learned as part of a college education, we cannot be making it even more difficult for young people to financially achieve a college education. We need to act. There are several proposals to address this impending crisis. I am a proud cosponsor of two bills that would provide needed relief and give Congress the opportunity to address a long-term solution to exploding student loan debt when it reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. The first, S. 953, the Student Loan Affordability Act, introduced by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, would lock in the current 3.4% rate for subsidized Stafford loans for 2 years while Congress works on a long- term solution to slow the rapid accumulation of student loan debt. This bill would be fully paid for by closing tax loopholes enjoyed by companies that move American jobs offshore, big oil companies, and the wealthiest Americans. I am also a cosponsor of Senator Warren's Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act which would give students the same deal we give to the big banks by allowing those who are eligible for subsidized Stafford loans to borrow at the same rate offered to banks through the Federal Reserve discount window. This is commonsense, and it is fair. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe the solution to this current uncertainty is even more uncertainty. Their solution, S. 1003, would produce variable, uncapped interest rates that would hit low-income students the hardest. Today's votes leave us in the same situation we were in: we need to act to prevent student loan interest rate increases that would additionally burden our students. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve meaningful legislation that preserves the availability of student loans and the economic opportunities they afford as an option for future generations of Americans.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise to express my intent to sustain my objection to the nomination of Lt. Gen. Susan Helms to be deputy commander of U.S. Space Command, Calendar No. 70. I have met with Lieutenant General Helms and discussed my objection with leaders in the Air Force and my colleagues here in the Senate. Lieutenant General Helms has a record of more than 30 years of distinguished military service, in which she became the first American military woman in space, among other significant achievements. Her career is to be celebrated. However, I continue to have deep concerns with Lieutenant General Helms' decision, while a commander and courts- martial convening authority, to overturn the jury verdict of a military court-martial in which the jury found an Air Force officer guilty of sexual assault. She made this decision against the advice of her staff judge advocate. With her action, Lieutenant General Helms sent a damaging message to survivors of sexual assault who are seeking justice in the military justice system: They can take the difficult and painful step of reporting the crime, they can endure the agony involved in being subjected to intense questioning often aimed at putting the blame on them, and they can experience a momentary sense of justice in knowing that they were believed when their attacker is convicted and sentenced, only to have that justice ripped away with the stroke of a pen by an individual who was never in the courtroom for the trial and who never heard the testimony. In overturning the conviction in this case, Lieutenant General Helms supplanted her opinion for that of a jury, the appropriate adjudicators of fact who observe an entire court-martial proceeding. And she did not take the advice of her staff judge advocate, who recommended she affirm the conviction in this case. At a time when the military is facing a crisis of sexual assault, making a decision that sends a message which dissuades reporting of sexual assaults, supplants the finding of a jury, contradicts the advice of counsel, and further victimizes a survivor of sexual assault is unacceptable. Given these circumstances, I will continue to object to any unanimous consent request to approve Lieutenant General Helms' nomination. I will continue to give great scrutiny to any future nomination of any member of the armed services who has, while serving in his or her capacity as a convening authority of a military court-martial, overturned a jury conviction against the advice of legal counsel.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to make a unanimous consent request, but I want to make a few remarks first. At the risk of being patronizing to my colleagues about the Constitution, I wish to give a basic lesson on the Constitution this morning. My understanding is our Founding Fathers in the Constitution devised a system where we had a House of Representatives and a Senate, and they have to agree before something becomes a law. I think this is an amazing decision our Founding Fathers made because what it does is require the Senate, where all of us represent a whole State, to reach agreement with our colleagues in the House, who have much smaller constituencies and, therefore, may be targeted more to one specific area than some of us are. I have listened to lecture after lecture from my colleagues across the aisle about the Constitution. It is almost as if some of them think they are the only ones who have read it or that they are the only ones who understand it. Well, they are not. Here is how the Constitution works: When we pass a bill and the House passes a bill, we go to conference. Why did the Founding Fathers want that? Because they understood that compromise was the mother's milk of a democracy. But here is the bizarre thing about this. As a candidate for office last year, I bet I heard 10,000 times: Why don't you pass a budget? I listened to the leader of the Republican Party stand on this floor--and I would love to put together a montage, because we do a lot of hyperbole around here. We exaggerate, we go too far and say too much-- but it is not exaggerating that the rallying cry of the Republican Party was: Pass a budget. Regular order. Pass a budget. Regular order. Pass a budget. Regular order. So what did we do? We passed a budget in regular order. Here is the bizarre part. Following the Constitution, which my friends like to wave around and pretend they are the only ones who love it, some people on that side now think regular order doesn't matter and, by the way, they do not want to go to conference and they do not want to compromise, blowing up the constitutional premise of compromise between the two Houses--blowing it up. I don't know what the American people think of this, but we have to shake our head at the politics of this. We have got to shake our heads, because here is what is bizarre. They keep moving the goalpost about what it would take to get us to conference. By the way, the people who are going to be conferring on the other side are in the Republican Party. Are my colleagues worried their counterparts in the House haven't read the Constitution and they are not answerable to their constituents who voted them into office as Republicans so that we have to have another budget bill and redo the debate or we have to make sure they can't compromise on anything and we have to put it in the law? They had an opportunity to get their way. It is called amendments. My colleagues could have gotten their way through the amendment process. We had over 100 of them. We were here until 5:30 in the morning voting on them. We passed 70 of them. How many amendments did the Senator from Texas offer on the debt ceiling that he is now saying he has to have before we can go to conference? How many amendments did he offer on that? Zero. He offered 17 amendments, but he didn't offer 1 on the debt ceiling. In fact, there was not one Republican amendment on the debt ceiling--not one. So I have to say it is pretty obvious they didn't want a budget, they wanted a political talking point. They wanted to make it look as though we didn't care about doing our job. They didn't care about a budget. Because if they cared about a budget they would hightail it to conference right now. They would hightail it to conference. It has been 2 months. I hope the American people are paying attention. No wonder they think we are all losers. This is not a game. You can't love the Constitution one day and blow it up the next. You can't be a situational constitutionalist when you don't get your way. That is not the way our democracy works. I got elected fair and square, and so did my Republican colleagues, and that is why we all have to be willing to compromise with one another. We are not serving the American people by playing these games, and they are sick and tired of it. Frankly, I think it makes the body look a little silly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side--motion to instruct relative to the debt limit, and motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Could I inquire of the Senator? I am asking: Is the Senator saying the constitutional provision for a conference between the two Houses--what the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution for conferences--is, in fact, a backroom deal of the Constitution; you don't accept that part of the Constitution?