Jack Reed

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

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

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2013 to ensure that 1.3 million unemployed Americans, including 4,900 Rhode Islanders, will not lose unemployment insurance at the end of the year. Unemployment insurance, UI, is a vital lifeline for individuals and the economy. It provides a temporary weekly benefit t5o those who are looking for work and were laid off through no fault of their own. Economists across the spectrum agree that maintaining unemployment insurance will grow our economy, spur consumer demand, and help businesses, States, and job seekers. Alternatively, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the failure to renew UI could cost our economy 310,000 jobs in 2014. Extending unemployment insurance is a key part of keeping our economy moving forward. Indeed, continuing UI is part of a broad range of pro- growth and pro-jobs policies we should be enacting. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Stabenow, Harkin, and Whitehouse, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and pressing for action on this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. When sexual abuse occurs in a military unit or when a servicemember is a victim or a perpetrator of sexual abuse, we have failed. Certainly the military has failed, but Congress with its constitutional mandate to ``make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces'' and to ``provide for . . . disciplining the militia'' shares in that failure. This is why the efforts of Senator McCaskill, Senator Gillibrand, and indeed all of my colleagues are so important and so commendable. They have elevated this debate and challenged this Congress and our military to act. They have recognized, through their passionate advocacy, that sexual abuse not only is a violation of an individual, but it is a corrosive force that can undermine the trust that is essential for the functioning of any military unit. The essence of military service is selfless service in which every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman must be prepared to give his or her life for a comrade. Sexual abuse is the antithesis of that ethic. It represents predatory behavior and exploitation, not selfless sacrifice and protection of those you serve with. It has no place in the military, and if not eliminated, it will insidiously destroy our military. No technology, no amount of military resources can assure military success if courage and character fail. Sexual abuse is a cowardly act that betrays the ethic and character of the military. I believe we are united on this point. This debate is about preventing sexual abuse, a shared goal of every Member of the Senate, of Congress, of the military, and of this Nation. The question is how best to achieve this essential goal. I believe it requires leadership at every stage: recruitment, training, evaluation, promotion, retention, and punishment. I believe commanders must be involved in every step. They must be responsible and their subordinates must recognize this responsibility and their authority. To remove the commander from any of these responsibilities will, in my view, weaken his or her effectiveness in every one of these dimensions. I had the privilege of commanding a company of paratroopers in the 82nd Airborne Division. I was responsible directly for nonjudicial company-grade punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But it was clear to me and to my troops that the battalion and brigade commanders and the division commander had court-martial authority and would necessarily confer with their subordinate commanders in the execution of this authority. This reality, this authority, permeated everything we did and reinforced the policy orders of every commander, including myself. I will admit that my experience is decades old, and it preceded the integration of women into combat units such as an airborne infantry battalion, but the central role of the commander has not diminished. Moreover, the experiences of the sixties and the seventies also reveal a military struggling with serious and corrosive problems, principally racial integration and drug use. Congress ultimately dealt with these problems, not by bypassing commanders but by holding them, and through them every member of the Armed Forces, to a higher standard. Today the American military is the first institution anyone points to when noting the progress we have made in racial equality and opportunity. This was not always the case. Incidents with racial overtones plagued the Vietnam period [and the post-Vietnam era.] Among the most widely publicized were a race riot among prisoners in a stockade in Vietnam in 1968 and several incidents aboard naval vessels in the early 1970s. In one of these incidents in 1972 on the carrier Kitty Hawk, there was a 15-hour melee between Black and White sailors. Effectively, that carrier, that ship--a capital ship of the Navy--was absolutely ineffectual. They weren't prepared to fight the enemy, they were fighting each other. In May of 1971, there were 4 days of rioting at Travis Air Force Base in California ignited by racial incidents on the base; over 100 individuals were arrested and more than 30 Air Force personnel were treated for riot-related injuries. The Marine Corps saw serious racial clashes at Camp Lejeune, NC, and Kaneohe Naval Air Station in Honolulu. In the Army, especially in Germany, there were frequent racial clashes. In December of 1970, a special investigating team reported to President Nixon on the situation in Europe and declared that black troops were experiencing ``acute frustration'' and ``volatile anger'' because of their treatment. Interestingly, this report cited as a major cause of this frustration ``the failure in too many instances of command leadership to exercise the authority and responsibility in monitoring the equal opportunity provisions that were already a part of military regulations. . . . '' The military has made significant progress on racial opportunity. I am sure more can and should be done, but the progress to date has been driven principally by command leadership at every stage, including the enforcement of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The point was made by Charles Moskos and John Sibley Butler, two of the utmost authorities on race relations in the military. In 1996 they wrote: Perhaps surprisingly, no Army regulation deals solely with race relations or equal opportunity. Instead, these issues fall under Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, whose broad concern is ``Army Command Policy.'' This title is more than symbolic. The Army treats good race relations as a means to readiness and combat effectiveness--not as an end in itself. This is the foundation for the Army's way of overcoming race. Racial concerns are broadened into a general leadership responsibility, and commanders are held accountable for race relations on their watch. Once again, the emphasis is on commanders, not specialized legal procedures that bypass commanders. My best judgment is we will make the most progress addressing the issue of sexual abuse by holding commanders accountable, not by excluding them from a critical aspect of military life. Under the leadership of Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe, the Armed Services Committee made significant changes to provisions regarding sexual abuse in the military. Moreover Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, and Fischer will make additional changes in their proposed amendment that will further strengthen our commitment and ability to respond to the crisis of sexual abuse in the military. But it is also important to describe the ongoing efforts by the Department of Defense to deal with sexual abuse in the military. I am drawing on testimony of LTG Flora D. Darpino, the Judge Advocate General of the Army, and she described policies effective in the Army, but generally there are equivalent procedures in the other services. The Army began a major effort to combat sexual abuse beginning in 2004 with the creation of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, the SAPR Program, and the implementation of restricted reporting. This allows victims of sexual assault to confidentially disclose a crime to specifically identified individuals and receive medical treatment and counseling without triggering the official investigative process. This program has evolved into a comprehensive effort ``fielding a capability of over 11,000 personnel, deployable and available 24 hours a day,'' to respond to the victims' needs. Included in the procedures available under the SAPR Program are new reporting options for the victim, expedited transfers, access to victim advocates and, most recently, access to victim counsel. In addition, this program has a significant educational component that ``saturates Soldier training from the first days of initial entry training to senior leader forums.'' The training focuses on bystander intervention and is linked to ``Army values that bond Soldiers as a team.'' It reinforces the military ethic of selfless service over predation and self- gratification. ``In 2009, the Army recognized the need for improved training and resources for the prosecution of these crimes.'' Special Victim Prosecutors were created in the Judge Advocate General's Corps and sexual assault investigators were created in the Criminal Investigative Division, CID. Together, these specially trained and experienced professionals work only special victim cases. They are able to apply unprecedented expertise. In addition, all JAG prosecutors and defense counsels have received enhanced training regarding cases of sexual abuse. With all of these changes, Lieutenant General Darpino still identifies the commander as the ``critical'' element. In her words: ``The most critical element of this institutional effort, however, is the focus of commanders.'' As such, she points out: The Army, like the other services, has moved aggressively to hold commanders accountable for setting a command climate that encourages reporting, deplores conduct that degrades or harasses individuals, and provides a safe environment, free of retaliation, for victims after they come forward. To support this effort, officers and commanders are receiving enhanced training at every level. Specifically, ``the officers entrusted with the disposition of sexual assaults, withheld to the 0-6 (Colonel) Special Court Martial Convening Authority, are required to attend Senior Legal Orientation Courses at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School with a focus on the proper handling of sexual assault allegations. General officers, who will serve as convening authorities, are offered one-on-one instruction in legal responsibilities, again with a focus on sexual assault.'' Most significantly, in my view, and most recently, the Secretary of the Army, on September 27, 2013, directed that every officer and noncommissioned officer will be rated on how well he or she ``fostered a climate of dignity and respect and adhered to the Sexual Harassment/ Assault Response (SHARP) Program.'' Secretary McHugh and General Odierno have made it clear that commanders and senior leaders are responsible. Their advancement, their retention, their standing in the Army will rest with an annual, explicit, written review of their efforts to combat sexual abuse. I wish to return for a moment to my discussion of the racial challenges facing the Army while I served. Let me also return to the comments of Charlie Moskos, the most respected academic authority and also an Army veteran. In 1986 he wrote: More important for blacks than the new race relations curriculum was the revision of the efficiency report, a performance evaluation that carries a lot of weight in all promotions. Starting in the early 1970s, a new category appeared in the official report for officers and NCOs: race relation skills. Filling out this section was mandatory and the requirement was rigorously enforced. More blacks received promotions. Some officers with a poor record on race were relieved of command. All of this set a tone. If for only self-interest, Army officers and NCOs became highly sensitive to the issue of race. Today-- He is talking about 1986. one is more likely to hear racial jokes in a faculty club than in an officers' club. And in an officers' club one will surely see more blacks. I think we have made great progress, finally, by focusing on the evaluation and efficiency reports that every officer and NCO must receive each year. Now in the context of what the military is doing to combat sexual assault and in the context of glaring examples of what it is not doing and what it is failing to do, the Armed Services Committee adopted provisions that should rapidly and dramatically combat sexual abuse within the military. The Secretary of Defense has already taken administrative steps to implement some of these provisions. Senator McCaskill will offer additional provisions with her amendment that I wholeheartedly support. It is important to recognize the comprehensive and critical nature of these provisions that are already in the National Defense Authorization Act--from improving measures to prevent sexual assault, to protecting victims when it does happen, and strengthening the judicial process to discipline those who commit such heinous crimes. The bill makes important changes that will improve the prevention of sexual assaults. First, the bill prohibits the commissioning or enlistment of individuals convicted of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or incest, or attempting to commit these offenses. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to report on whether legislative action is required to modify the UCMJ to prohibit sexual acts and contacts between military instructors and their trainees. The next step is to ensure that all servicemembers understand how they can and must prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault. Each of the services is conducting a variety of training programs on sexual assault prevention and response. This bill requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the adequacy of this training and to then prescribe in regulations such modifications to address any inadequacies identified by this review. The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to review the adequacy of the training, qualifications, and experience of individuals assigned to positions responsible for sexual assault prevention and response, to retrain or reassign any individual who does not have adequate training or qualifications, and to improve the requirements for selection and assignment to sexual assault prevention and response billets. Servicemembers who have been sexually assaulted or raped should have every resource available to report the incident, to receive care, and to see that justice is done. In crafting this bill, the committee acknowledged that many victims do not report such incidents because of a fear of retaliation from their peers and leaders. So this legislation includes a provision that makes retaliation against servicemembers for reporting criminal offenses a punishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This will ensure that both victims and witnesses to such crimes are able to report the occurrence without facing retaliatory action or threat of such action. This bill also requires the DOD inspector general to review and investigate allegations of retaliatory personnel actions for reporting a rape, sexual assault, or sexual misconduct. Next, the bill expands certain existing protections to victims who are members of the National Guard and Reserves, and members of the Coast Guard. First, it requires the service secretaries to ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserves have access to a sexual assault response coordinator not later than 2 business days following the request for such assistance. These coordinators explain the reporting process, address the victim's safety and security needs, and offer expertise and available services, including medical care, counseling, and legal support. Second, it clarifies that an existing requirement for the expedited change of station or unit transfer requested by a victim of sexual assault also applies to members of the Coast Guard. The bill requires the service secretaries to provide a special victims' counsel to provide legal advice and assistance to servicemembers who are victims of a sexual assault committed by a member of the Armed Forces. This resource was initially created by the Air Force, in a program that began in January of this year. Since the committee's markup of this bill, Secretary of Defense Hagel has directed each of the services to implement such a program. This provision will codify administrative action that has already been taken. The bill also authorizes the service secretaries to provide guidelines to commanders regarding their authority to temporarily reassign or remove from an assignment a servicemember on active duty who is accused of committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault offense, not as a punitive measure but solely for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline within the member's unit. In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of Defense to provide information and discussion of this authority as part of the required training for new and prospective commanders at all levels of command. The bill also makes several changes to further strengthen the judicial process. First, the bill eliminates the element of the character and military service of the accused--the so-called good soldier defense--from the factors a commander should consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense. I should add that Senator McCaskill's amendment further limits the defendant's use of good military character as evidence. Second, the bill requires the defense counsel in courts martial to make requests to interview complaining witnesses through the trial counsel, and, if requested by the witness, requires that defense counsel interviews take place in the presence of the trial counsel, counsel for the witness, or outside counsel. This is to protect against the abuse of this process. Next, the bill changes Article 60 of the UCMJ to limit the ability of a convening authority to modify the findings of a court-martial to specified sexual offenses. In other words, this provision eliminates a commander's ability to overturn a jury's conviction for sexual assault, rape, and other crimes. Additionally, the bill requires a mandatory minimum sentence of dismissal or dishonorable discharge of a servicemember convicted of a sexual assault offense. The bill also eliminates the 5-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for certain sexually related offenses, and requires that substantiated complaints of a sexually related offense resulting in a court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or administrative action be noted in the service record of the servicemember, regardless of the member's grade. Importantly, the bill maintains and strengthens the role of commanders in the judicial process. During the markup of this bill, the committee adopted an amendment on a bipartisan basis that preserves the ability of commanders to initiate court-martial proceedings. Removing this authority, which some of our colleagues advocate, would weaken accountability and undermine efforts to combat sexual assault. Commanders have the responsibility to train their subordinates, they are charged with maintaining good order and discipline within their units, and they are responsible for the safety of the men and women they lead. The commander is essential to instilling among the members of his or her unit that sexual assault and related behaviors will not be tolerated and will be adjudicated. The bill includes several provisions that address the role of the commanding officer. First, it requires commanding officers to immediately refer to the appropriate military criminal investigation organization reports of sexually related offenses involving servicemembers in the commander's chain of command. Next, the bill requires automatic higher level review of any decision by a commander not to prosecute a sexual assault allegation, with the review going all the way to the service secretary in any case in which the commander disagrees with the military lawyer's recommendation to prosecute. If a legal counsel advises prosecution, and the commander does not do it, ultimately it will be resolved by the service secretary. Most commanders do not want their decisions reviewed by the service secretary. I think this will add more sense and more purpose to their efforts to combat sexual abuse. All of these changes take significant steps forward in addressing these horrible crimes. However, we must remain committed to further improving both prevention and response. That is why the bill includes several provisions related to the review that is currently under way by the independent panel created by last year's Defense authorization bill--the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel. This committee is assessing the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault. The bill we are considering today assigns additional issues to be considered by this panel and requires the panel to produce its report no later than 1 year from its first meeting, which occurred in July, rather than 18 months, as originally laid out in last year's law. As I mentioned before, Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, and Fischer are proposing an amendment that further strengthens all of these provisions that are already in the committee's bill. First, their amendment requires the special victims' counsels to advise victims of the advantages and disadvantages of their cases being prosecuted in a civilian court with jurisdiction or through the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The victim may express his or her preference, and this preference must be afforded great weight in the determination to prosecute the offense by court-martial or by a civilian court. The amendment codifies the decision by the Department of the Army to evaluate the performance of soldiers in adhering to the standards regarding sexual assault prevention and response. It extends this provision to every service in the Department of Defense. As previously noted in the context of race relations, this provision is likely to make a profound and lasting contribution to the prevention of sexual abuse. That is what we are about here--preventing sexual abuse. This could be one of the key drivers in that effort. The amendment also improves accountability of commanders by requiring that a command climate assessment be performed after an incident involving a covered sexual offense, as defined in the legislation, for both the command of the victim and the command of the accused, if they are in separate commands, or a single assessment if they are in the same command. These assessments will be completed promptly and provided to the military criminal investigation organization conducting the investigation of the offense concerned and to the next higher commander in the chain of command of the affected unit. You will know, if you are a commander, if there is an incident in your unit that all the details will be known by your battalion commander, your brigade commander, your division commander, and all the way up. That will be another strong incentive to make sure that nothing happens in your unit. That is part of the amendment proposed by my colleagues. This provision, particularly in conjunction with the requirement to evaluate servicemembers' compliance under the official report, will go a long way to provide the accountability and the emphasis on commanders to do their jobs. GEN Bruce Clarke, a distinguished officer wounded in the Battle of the Bulge and who was awarded the Silver Star--one of the great heroes of the U.S. Army--famously instructed his units that, in his words, ``an organization does well only those things the boss checks.'' Well, we are checking each individual to make sure commander and noncommissioned officer--they are doing their best. We are checking each unit, if there is an incident in that unit, and we are living up to the advice of General Clarke. It will get done because, finally, it will be checked consistently, thoroughly and appropriately. The amendment also establishes a confidential process that will enable a victim of a sexual assault who is subsequently discharged to challenge the terms or characterization of his or her discharge in order to correct possible instances of retaliation. This provision will help ensure that a discharge accurately reflects the service of the individual, taking into consideration the effects of sexual assault and also helping to remove the concern that reporting sexual abuse could influence the character of a military discharge. Reporting such a crime should never influence the character of a military discharge. The amendment strengthens the role of the prosecutor in advising commanders on courts martial. The committee language requires the civilian service secretary review all cases where a commander does not choose to prosecute when his or her legal counsel/judge advocate recommends prosecution. The amendment extends that mandatory review if the prosecutor recommends prosecution and the commander demurs. In effect, if either the prosecutor or the legal counsel/judge advocate recommends prosecution and the commander demurs, the case will automatically be referred to the civilian service secretary. You will have the highest ranking civilian in the uniform service making the final call. Every commander will know that. The amendment modifies the Military Rules of Evidence to prevent defendants from introducing evidence of good military character as a general defense of a charge. Such evidence may only be admitted if that trait is relevant to an element of the offense for which the accused has been charged. Too often, the good soldier defense has been seen as overcoming specific evidence directly related to a crime. This appearance undermines the essential perception that a verdict is determined by direct evidence supporting the elements of the crime, not the previous reputation of the defendant. This provision builds upon a section of the underlying bill that eliminates the character and the military service of the accused from the factors a commander should consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense. Finally, the amendment ensures that all of the protections of this legislation are extended to the cadets and midshipmen of our service academies. The McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer amendment strengthens the committee bill. Through enhanced accountability of commanders and additional changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we will strengthen prevention and prosecution of sexual abuse. Those who argue for the exclusion of the commander from the judicial process point to the policies of our allies, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Israel. These countries have removed commanders as convening authorities and use independent military or civilian prosecutors to make charging decisions. While it can be useful at times to draw comparisons between our Armed Forces and those we serve alongside, there are several points to be made with respect to our military justice system that do not align. First, none of these countries changed their system in response to a sexual assault crisis among their ranks or to protect rights of victims more generally. In most cases the system was changed to protect the rights of the accused. Second, none of the allies can draw a correlation between their system and any change in reporting by victims of sexual abuse. Many argue that removing the commander as the decisionmaker will remove a significant hurdle that victims face in deciding whether to report sexual assaults. There is no statistical or anecdotal evidence that removing commanders from the charging decision has had any effect on victims' willingness to report crimes in these judicial systems among our allies. In materials provided to the Response Systems Panel, the deputy military advocate general for the Israeli Defense Force noted an increase in sexual assault complaints between 2007-2011, attributing no specific reason for the increase but noting that it could represent an increase in the number of offenses or it could be a result of campaigns by service authorities to raise awareness on the issue. Similarly, the commodore of Naval Legal Services for Britain's Royal Navy has assessed that recent structural changes to their military judicial system had no discernible effect on the reporting of sexual assault offenses. Third, the scope and scale of our allies' caseloads are vastly different, primarily because of the much greater size of the U.S. Armed Forces. For example, the Canadian military only tried 75 to 80 courts- martial last year, which is roughly comparable to one U.S. Army division's annual caseload. But several of our allies who have changed their military justice system have indicated that the changes have resulted in the process slowing down and taking longer. Frankly, that is one of the issues victims have raised in terms of why they aren't reporting and why they are so terribly frustrated--because of the length and duration of the process. Furthermore, most allies cannot conduct courts-martial in a deployed environment. BG Richard Gross, the legal counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, stated in a letter: One critical feature of our justice system is its expeditionary nature--the ability to administer justice anywhere in the world our forces deploy. Notably, the Army alone tried over 950 cases in deployed areas over the past 10 years. In one case in Iraq, four soldiers committed multiple crimes in a single night. The commander referred all four soldiers to court-martial, and they were charged with consuming alcohol, breaking into local Iraqi homes, and stealing property and money from the locals. Because the commander in Iraq had authority to refer these cases to trial, the first trial was underway within 2 months of the incident. All of the co-accused and many defense witnesses were in the same unit, and local Iraqis were available as fact witnesses. Because the commander had a fully deployable military justice system at his disposal, he was able to send a strong message to the unit that such conduct would be dealt with swiftly and decisively. Simultaneously, he was able to restore positive relations with the local community. The Army has also cited instances of allied soldiers committing sexual assault crimes against U.S. soldiers, and because of the allied nation's system removing the authority of the chain of command and removing the process from the battlefield, our commanders would demand but not receive timely information on the status of any prosecution. We had a soldier victim, and they could not find anything about the process that was going on. Tragically, sexual assault is a crime that historically is underreported, and this is not only with respect to the military. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network cites Department of Justice crime surveys that show that an average of 60 percent of assaults in the last 5 years were not reported to police. However, in numbers released earlier this month, DOD showed that more servicemembers are coming forward to report sexual assaults. From October 2012 to June 2013, 3,553 sexual assault complaints were reported to DOD. That is a 46-percent increase over the same period a year ago. These cases include sexual assaults by civilians on servicemembers and by servicemembers on civilians. A significant number of the reported incidents occurred before the victim had even entered military service. Another argument for removing the commander's authority is that independent JAGs or even civilian authorities will prosecute more cases. However, statistics show that commanders from all services have exercised jurisdiction and pursued courts-martial for sexual assault cases over the determination of civilian authorities. Over the last 2 years, Army commanders have exercised jurisdiction in 49 sexual assault cases the local civilian authorities declined to pursue, and 32 of those cases were tried by court-martial, resulting in 26 convictions. The U.S. Marine Corps exercised jurisdiction in 28 sexual assault cases, all of which were tried by court-martial, and 16 cases resulted in conviction. This goes on throughout every service. Commanders also have an interest in pursuing a court-martial as a way to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime and its impact on unit discipline, not merely because of the quantity or quality of evidence that a crime occurred. On June 4 the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the legislative proposals to address sexual assault in the military. We heard from four colonels from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. They all spoke about the importance of seeking legal advice from their command judge advocate and having the responsibility to adjudicate crimes within their command. COL Donna Martin, commander of the Army's 202nd Military Police Group Criminal Investigation Division, stated: It is of paramount importance that commanders are allowed to continue to be the center of every formation, setting and enforcing standards, and disciplining those who do not. The commander is responsible for all that happens or fails to happen in his or her unit. She went on to say: The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides me with all the tools I need to deal with misconduct in my unit from low-level offenses to the most serious, including murder and rape. I cannot and should not relegate my responsibility to maintain discipline to a staff officer or someone else outside the chain of command. When asked about whether a commander might be more likely to pursue a court-martial than even an outside independent officer because of the desire to send a message to his or her unit, Marine Colonel King replied that he considers ``achieving justice for whatever crime was committed and also the message that I send to the thousands of Marines that are actively watching what's going on. So I can, even if I fail to achieve a conviction at whatever level, still send a powerful message to them that this kind of conduct, even alleged, even not proven, is completely unacceptable.'' Col. Jeannie Leavitt, commander of the 4th Fighter Wing, stated: I could absolutely see the scenario where a prosecutor may not choose to prosecute a case or recommend prosecuting a case because of the likelihood of conviction. However, as the commander, I absolutely want to prosecute the case because of the message it sends so that my airmen understand that they will be held accountable. And then we'll let the jury decide what happened in the case and whether or not it will be convicted. But that message is so important, whereas an independent prosecutor may not see the need to take it to trial if the proof is not necessarily going to lead to conviction.'' Additionally, our service JAGs have expressed several concerns about the proposed amendment my colleague from New York is introducing. I will take a moment and talk about the amendment. I thank and commend Senator Gillibrand because without her persistence and passion, we would not be here today. She perhaps has done more than anyone else to focus our attention on this incredibly heinous crime done to individuals and the threat to good order, discipline, and efficiency of the military. Her objective--the elimination of sexual abuse in the ranks of our military--must be our objective, and it must be realized. She and her cosponsors have determined, in their view, that the removal of the commander from the application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for a wide variety of offenses is the best approach to achieve the goal of ending sexual abuse in the military, but, as my previous comments clearly indicate, I disagree. Indeed, given the nature of military service, which is significantly different from civilian life, I believe that without the active involvement of commanders in every phase of military life, this goal cannot be effectively and rapidly achieved. The approach in the amendment proposed by my colleague from New York poses significant problems in practice that could unwittingly complicate rather than accelerate efforts to end sexual abuse. The amendment attempts to divide crimes designated by specific articles of the UCMJ into two broad categories: traditional military offenses subject to command adjudication, such as AWOL and insubordination, and a broad category of serious offenses that would typically constitute civilian criminal offenses, such as murder, robbery, and rape and sexual crimes. In fact, here is a chart depicting the division of the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This second category of offenses would be removed from command adjudication and would be referred to an independent prosecutor. This independent prosecutor must be at least a full colonel with ``significant experience in trials by general or specific court martial'' and be ``outside the chain of command of the member subject to such charges.'' This bifurcated system--especially considering the scope of crimes excluded from the chain of command--will have profound effects on the ability of commanders and units to function effectively. Let's take the case, which is not uncommon, of a soldier who writes five checks on five separate occasions for $30 each to the PX knowing he doesn't have the funds to cover his purchases. The Criminal Investigations Division investigates and informs the commander. Under the Gillibrand amendment, the CID must refer this case to the independent prosecutor because it falls under article 123a. These are referred to special prosecutors if they fall under the category. The five separate incidents, although they individually have a maximum punishment of 6 months, would be charged together, leading to 30 months, which exceeds the 1-year threshold for the Gillibrand amendment. As a result, this would be sent forward to the special prosecutor. I hardly think that charging this soldier for writing bad checks is the intent of the Gillibrand amendment, but it will be the effect. It also raises the very practical questions of how the independent prosecutor will deal with an onslaught of cases like this when the expectation is that he or she will be focused on sexual abuse and other serious crimes, such as murder. There is a practical issue: Are you going to take a bad check case when you have 15 pending attempted murders, assaults, rapes, et cetera? That is a practical issue, and I think the answer is probably no. Under the amendment, the independent prosecutor has the choice of convening a special court-martial or a general court-martial. A special court-martial consists of a panel of at least three members or, at the servicemember's election, a military judge sitting alone. There is a prosecutor, referred to as the trial counsel, and a defense counsel. In comparison, a general court-martial is the military's highest level court where servicemembers are tried for the most serious crimes-- roughly analogous to a civilian felony court--and the maximum punishments are increased. Before any charge can be sent to a general court-martial, an Article 32 investigation must be conducted, which is a hybrid of a civilian grand jury proceeding and a preliminary comprehensive discovery proceeding. The Article 32 investigation is intended to be more than a mere formality; it is a valuable right for the accused and a source of information for the commander. The general court-martial may consist of a military judge and not fewer than five members or a military judge alone if the defendant chooses. Capital cases require 12 members. As we can see, these proceedings are intensive in terms of time, in terms of commitment of military personnel, and in terms of investigatory efforts. In fact, the average length of special court- martial proceedings ranges from 3 to 5 months. General courts-martial can take anywhere from 5 to 8 months. In cases involving sexual assault, both special and general courts-martial take longer--an average of 9 months. Again, this is probably going to delay the process, not accelerate the process. Given the time and resources involved in a general or special court- martial, in the case of a young soldier writing bad checks and the longstanding practice of reserving general and special courts-martial for the most serious offenses, I seriously doubt that an independent prosecutor would take this case. At some point, the independent prosecutor will inform the commander, which raises another issue. If this notification is delayed extensively, there is a related problem of what to do with the soldier under suspicion. Do you deploy him or her subject to recall? Do you leave him behind? So all of these issues are important. The independent prosecutor's decision is binding on any applicable convening authority for a trial by court-martial on such charges. It is binding on every commander. The amendment, however, does attempt to preserve authority to punish these types of offenses by declaring that the independent prosecutor's decision ``shall not operate to terminate or otherwise alter the authority of commanding officers'' to employ a summary court-martial or to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. But this authority is absolutely an illusion. Under the UCMJ, every soldier has the right to turn down a summary court-martial or an Article 15. Once he is informed by counsel that he will not be subject to a general court-martial or a special court- martial, and he can turn down a summary court-martial and article 15, the soldier will invariably refuse the summary court-martial or article 15. Ironically, in doing so he will demand a court-martial. But the commander cannot comply, as he can now, because he has already been preempted by the independent prosecutor. This scenario will play out over and over again. A unit is plagued by a series of barracks thefts which, if unchecked, erodes good order and discipline. The commander has information that one soldier is boasting about ripping off people but he has no other evidence. During a routine health and welfare inspection, an iPhone valued at over $500 and reported missing is found in the boasting soldier's room. Under the Gillibrand amendment, the commander must refer the case to the independent prosecutor and again you will have the issues of whether the independent prosecutor takes such a case, and if not, the likelihood that the accused will refuse a summary court-martial or an Article 15 and walk free. Incidents like this--and this is not the intent of the legislation, but this is what will happen--will erode unit cohesion and raise questions at least implicitly: Who is really running the unit? The commander? An unseen and unknown JAG, hundreds of miles away? Or individual soldiers who may appear to be violating the rules with impunity? This question is important here, but it is critical when a commander has to order soldiers to do dangerous things, and ultimately, that is what commanders have to do and soldiers have to have no doubt that the commander, he or she, is fully in charge. As I referenced earlier, the bifurcation of the articles of the UCMJ poses significant challenges. The problem with the drafting of this amendment complicates not just cases of common theft, not just issues that you say we could throw out, but the very issue of sexual assault we are trying to address. Let's take another example of a married couple, both of whom are Active Duty servicemembers, who get into a shouting match in their quarters on post. The husband stabs the wife with a kitchen knife and knocks her unconscious. She provides a statement to CID but later retracts it. They have another argument which results in his assaulting her with an attempt to commit rape. Under the Gillibrand amendment, the first offense of aggravated assault, Article 128, would have to be referred to the independent prosecutor to decide whether to send the case to a court-martial, while the offense of assault with intent to commit rape, which is specified under Article 134, is exempt from the Gillibrand proposal and would be referred to the chain of command. Assuming both the independent prosecutor and the independent commander seek a general court-martial, this particular victim will now have to have two separate Article 32 hearings, two subsequent courts-martial, at least doubling the number of times she must recount her nightmare and prolonging the administration of justice. The accused will demand and likely get two separate panels for each set of offenses, thus doubling the number of officers unavailable for their duties in the command and more than doubling the administrative, personnel, and witness costs associated with the general court-martial. This is a situation where, rather than streamlining, reinforcing, and clarifying the military's efforts to deal with sexual assault, we have confused them, we have delayed them, and we have put commanders in the position of competing with independent prosecutors. This is not going to add to the solution on a practical basis of how we deal with sexual assault. We know so many of the men and women in our Armed Forces serve our nation selflessly. Every day they are prepared to give their lives. Sexual assault is the antithesis of this ethic. It has no place in the Armed Forces, and if not eliminated, it will insidiously destroy our military. I believe preventing sexual abuse requires leadership at every stage and that commanders must be involved in every step. I believe that we will make the most progress in addressing this issue by involving and holding commanders accountable, not by excluding them from a critical area of militarily life. We have worked extensively to include provisions in this bill that will improve the prevention of sexual assault, the protection of victims, and the prosecution of perpetrators. We must pledge to do more, to continue our oversight of these programs and make further changes if needed. We owe it to all those who bravely and honorably wear the uniform of our Nation. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2013 to ensure that 1.3 million unemployed Americans, including 4,900 Rhode Islanders, will not lose unemployment insurance at the end of the year. Unemployment insurance, UI, is a vital lifeline for individuals and the economy. It provides a temporary weekly benefit t5o those who are looking for work and were laid off through no fault of their own. Economists across the spectrum agree that maintaining unemployment insurance will grow our economy, spur consumer demand, and help businesses, States, and job seekers. Alternatively, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the failure to renew UI could cost our economy 310,000 jobs in 2014. Extending unemployment insurance is a key part of keeping our economy moving forward. Indeed, continuing UI is part of a broad range of pro- growth and pro-jobs policies we should be enacting. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Stabenow, Harkin, and Whitehouse, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and pressing for action on this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as regents to the Smithsonian, Senator Leahy, Senator Cochran, and I would like to pay tribute to an individual who has provided exceptional leadership to the Smithsonian Institution as a citizen regent, Patricia Stonesifer. Ms. Stonesifer was appointed to the Smithsonian Board of Regents on December 21, 2001. During her tenure, which included 3 years of service as chair of the Board of Regents, Ms. Stonesifer helped lead the Smithsonian's governance reform efforts.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening Government Oversight: Examining the Roles and Effectiveness of Oversight Positions Within the Federal Workforce.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., to hold an East Asia and Pacific Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Assessing the Response to Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance and the Subcommittee on Economic Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Present and Future Impact of Virtual Currency.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my deepest sympathy to the senior Senator from Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and his wife Kay on the sudden and untimely loss of their son, Dr. Perry Inhofe, this weekend in a plane crash. I extend my thoughts and prayers to the entire Inhofe family. Perry Inhofe was an orthopedic surgeon as well as a licensed pilot and flight instructor, with a family of his own. Flying is integral to the Inhofe family--I know that from my service with Senator Inhofe on the Armed Services Committee and as cochair with him of the Army Caucus, a caucus he created along with Senator Dan Akaka to support the men and women serving in the Army. I know of his intense involvement in flying. I hope, certainly, that the memories and the time he had with his son will help sustain and comfort him in the days ahead. Senator Inhofe is a man of great integrity, with great dedication to his faith, to the Nation. Again, at this time of loss, I only hope the memory and the example of his son, his son's service and his courage and faith and love will sustain the Inhofe family.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Madam President, it is clear we have honest disagreements about how we should address our budget. I believe the path forward should be fair and balanced. That is not what we have seen to date. We have enacted $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts. These cuts put tremendous pressure on important domestic investments in areas such as education, health care, and national security. I do not believe cutting domestic programs that invest in our future and help low- and middle-income American families is the right thing to do, especially when we can close egregious tax loopholes that benefit multinational corporations and some of the wealthiest Americans. Again, we have made significant progress in deficit reduction. The bulk of that has been cutting programs that invest in the country and help families. To go forward, we need a balanced approach, selective cuts, but we also need to close some of these egregious loopholes that are benefiting--not the small business man or woman living in Rhode Island--but multinational corporations--not working wage earners in Rhode Island--but some of the wealthiest Americans. I know some of my colleagues disagree with me. But in order to address our long-term fiscal challenges, the brinkmanship has to stop. Drawing lines in the sand and daring people to cross them has to stop. What we need is not to surrender our principles but to reach principled compromise. That is why we should provide immediate certainty that the shutdowns and the threats to wreck the economy are totally off the table. We can do this by agreeing to adequate top-line numbers for the appropriations process for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 and eliminating the job-killing sequester. Then we can move forward to a long-term debate about our fiscal challenges. We can then build consensus and reach this principled compromise. In reaching that compromise, I would urge my colleagues to include policies that focus on jobs and economic growth, that restore fairness to our Tax Code and preserve hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits. Looking over the last few years, the uncertainty and the brinkmanship according to most economists has robbed us of growth. That growth, in and of itself, not only would have put more Americans to work, but it would have contributed to deficit reduction, even more than we have already been able to do to date. If we are serious about deficit reduction, if we are serious about narrowing the gap in terms of equality in our society, then we have to emphasize not only wise fiscal policies that reduce the deficit directly but wise fiscal policies that encourage growth and also reduce the deficit. Let's agree to those top-line numbers. Let's also eliminate the sequester and let's move forward. That is why we were sent here. Americans want us to keep the economy moving forward and to get the economy working for them. They do not want to see us engage in procedural maneuvers that simply leave us without adequate progress on these issues that are extraordinarily important to them. We are recovering from the most recent self-inflicted wound--the government shutdown and near default. That manufactured crisis was absolutely unnecessary and it was particularly unnecessary to threaten the credit of the United States. A vast majority of Americans are clear that at a minimum we should keep the government open and we should pay our bills. We have always done that. Only in the last few years and harking back to when Mr. Gingrich was Speaker did the other side engage in this sort of brinksmanship. This does not work for Americans. They do understand we have differences in policy. They do understand we have to debate these various differences. But at a threshold level, government has to be working for them, not sporadically but constantly. And we cannot threaten the credit of the United States. Jumping from these manufactured crises to crises is no way to do the job. As I said before, there are immediate tasks before us. We have to have a reasonable expenditure level for our budgets for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Sequester must stop. Then we have to start to look at longer term problems that are being driven by demographics. We know the sequestration is harming our job growth. CBO has estimated that the 2013 and 2014 sequester will cost the economy 900,000 jobs. Simply suspending or limiting the sequester, if we can generate 900,000 jobs, most Americans would say that is the right policy. If you can just do that and create jobs, then do it. It is obvious the sequester is not workable. The House of Representatives, our colleagues, have had very difficult times passing bills that adhere to sequestration, bills that traditionally passed overwhelmingly, like transportation and infrastructure bills. If we cannot even do that under the pressure of the sequester, then, again, we are back to a dysfunctional government. It might be formally open, but it is not helping people and it's not doing the things we have to do: getting economies to grow, letting States build bridges, sewers, and highways. Senator Mikulski has done an extraordinary job as the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. She has been working hard to make sure we bring bills to this floor that not only have the support of our Members, our colleagues, but also meet the needs of the American people. I have the privilege of chairing the interior subcommittee. We have been able, working with my colleague Senator Murkowski from Alaska, to propose--we have not brought it to the subcommittee or full committee-- but to propose a mark that would respond to the real needs of this country in terms of clean water and drinking water infrastructure--which is vital to the economy of every American community. On the other side, the House is proposing a cut of $1.756 billion, more than 75 percent. That cut would devastate these programs and result in 97,000 fewer jobs. These are the good kinds of construction jobs, high-paying jobs, that allow families to stay above the water and allow communities to prosper. The workers who are putting in those infrastructure projects are also going to local supermarkets, local restaurants, paying the fees and dues to the Little League teams, and doing the things we expect every family should be able to do and we hope every family can do. In the Transportation bill, for example, we were able to maintain our promise to fund transit, airport, and highway systems. We have been able to set aside more than $1 billion for the popular TIGER grant program and a new initiative to replace bridges in critical transportation corridors. This is an effort that can benefit every State in this country in terms of infrastructure projects. Looking across the Capitol at the House Republican Transportation bill, they are cutting by $7.7 billion--even more than last year's sequestration level. It not only eliminates the TIGER grants for 2014, it reaches back to 2013 TIGER grants and cuts them by $237 million. These kinds of cuts are untenable. They also signal a very different attitude here. It was at one time clear that transportation was one of those issues that united us, Republicans and Democrats, the North, the South, the East, and the West, because it was something that every community needed and every community understood. Now we see this dichotomy, and that is unhealthy for our government and for our economy. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers said last July when these draconian cuts forced House leaders to pull the bill from consideration: With this action, the House has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just three months ago. Thus, I believe that the House has made its choice: sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end. Even the chairperson of the House Appropriations Committee is signaling that sequestration is untenable and unworkable. On this side of the Capitol, Chairman Mikulski has been a strong voice echoing--not only echoing, but asserting--that position constantly. We can't get rid of sequestration with spending cuts alone. We can't cut our way to prosperity. Revenue has to be part of the solution. In fact, as we have done over the last several years, we have cut discretionary spending dramatically. We are down to not fat but bone, and so we need additional revenues. There is some good news. There are loopholes, egregious loopholes, that in and of themselves should be closed, regardless if we were dealing with the issues of deficit and sequestration. They are not appropriate, not efficient, and they do not add to the overall economic benefit of the country. They do benefit very narrow interests. It comes down to whether my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to see these special preferences prevail or whether the national economy and the families across this country will benefit. We have to move forward. We have to emphasize things that will help us, for example, create more manufacturing jobs in this time and for the future. I think at one point we thought manufacturing was passe. We discovered it is not only not passe but it is absolutely vital, because we can't take new innovation, new discoveries, at which we are so good, commercialize them, and then create new products in that commercialization process, unless we have manufacturing. We learn a lot on the manufacturing floor. We have seen products we have developed intellectually become not only manufactured but improved by other countries who have the ability to manufacture, we have to get back to doing that. We have to be able to align our workforce and our education system so that we have the skills for the next century. Job training has to be competent, efficient, and adequate. All of this requires investments in resources, not simply cutting away and cutting away. Ultimately, as we understand, and as our predecessors, particularly my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, understood, education is the engine that pulls this country forward. We used to assume we were the most educated. We were the country with the best record of college graduates. We were the country that advanced public education for everyone. We look around the world and we have slipped in terms of college graduates. We have slipped in terms of skills. Our public education system needs to be reinvigorated. Not only with suggestions from the sidelines, not only with new approaches, but also with real resources. These investments have to be made. It is a multifaceted approach, but I think we have to begin with only the simple understanding, as we go forward, we need to provide the economy, our constituents, and ourselves the certainty of an adequate funding level for the government for the next 2 years. We need to suspend, dispense with, postpone--whatever the appropriate term-- sequestration, because it is not going to help us grow the economy. In fact, it will take away about 900,000 jobs. Then we have to certainly make it clear we will not threaten the creditworthiness of the United States by defaulting on our debt. If we can do these things, and I believe we can, we can provide the certainty that our private entrepreneurs need to make real investments in the economy and to grow. In all of this, we have to bring a balanced approach. It is not only cutting, it is expenditure cuts wisely chosen, together with revenue wisely chosen, through closing loopholes that will give us a growing economy, hopefully increase opportunity, and put us back on the path to profound sustained economic recovery. (The further remarks of Mr. REED are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator Grassley, the Government Settlement Transparency and Reform Act. This bill closes a loophole that allows corporations to reap tax benefits from payments made to the government stemming from settling corporate misdeeds. So this bill aims to end the subsidization of illegal corporate behavior by taxpayers. Corporations accused of illegal activity routinely settle legal disputes with the government out of court because it allows both the company and the government to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of going to trial. Under Federal law, money paid to settle corporate civil or criminal penalties is not deductible. But under the tax code, offending companies may often write off any portion of a settlement that is not paid directly to the government as a penalty or fine for violation of the law. Corporations exploit this provision by later characterizing settlement penalties as restitution and a tax-deductible business expense. I think it is common sense that, for example, a corporation should not agree to pay the government $500 million in criminal or civil fines and then when they file their taxes count those fines as a business expense and take a tax windfall. Corporations that do this are effectively using taxpayer money to subsidize their illegal behavior. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that of the 34 companies and $1 billion in settlements they examined, 20 companies took a tax deduction for some or all of the money it paid to the government. Those settlements were silent on whether that $1 billion to the government counted as penalties or restitution. According to GAO, in 2 of those settlements, company representatives said they made a mistake in deducting civil penalty payments totaling $1.9 million and said they would amend their tax returns. The Reed-Grassley bill would address these practices by amending 162(f) of the tax code and requiring the government and the settling party to reach pre-filing agreements on how the settlement payments should be treated for tax purposes. The bill also clarifies the rules about what settlement payments are punitive and therefore non- deductible. Furthermore, it increases transparency by requiring the government to file a return at the time of settlement to accurately reflect the tax treatment of the amounts that will be paid by the offending party. Over a 10 year budget window, this legislation is estimated to raise between $200 to $300 million in revenue. With this legislation we can close this tax loophole that flies in the face of sensible and fair tax policy. The tax code should not be used to subsidize illegal activity by corporations--when a fine is levied that fine should not be construed as a legitimate business expense. Instead, it should be paid in full, with no tax deduction taken. I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with me on this legislation. I would also thank Chairman Baucus who introduced similar legislation in previous Congresses. They have long championed closing this loophole. I urge our colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation and seeking its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleague and my friend, Congressman Mel Watt of North Carolina, who has been nominated by the President to be the next Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency--the FHFA. I have total confidence that Mel is fully capable and qualified to serve as the FHFA Director, and I am not alone. This week, the National Association of Home Builders wrote a letter to Leaders Reid and McConnell unequivocally endorsing Congressman Watt, stating: During Representative Watt's tenure on the House Financial Services Committee, he has proven to be a thoughtful leader on housing policy. The FHFA needs a permanent director with his leadership capabilities. Senator Burr, Congressman Watt's Republican colleague from North Carolina, and Senator Hagan recently shared a ``Dear Colleague'' in which both North Carolina Senators stated clearly, in their words: Congressman Watt has shown himself to be an honest, kind, and capable individual with deep understanding of the housing market. We urge you to support his nomination. He is indeed qualified to serve as the FHFA Director. He is an incredibly decent and honest person who I know will always work diligently toward a decision based on the facts, not on ideology or momentary trends. Democrats know this, and Republicans who have worked and served with him know this. Despite this, there is some question whether Congressman Watt has the technical experience to run FHFA. So let us look at Congressman Watt's record to see if we can peel that back and look closely. He is a graduate of Yale Law School, who for 22 years practiced business, economic development, and real estate law. He is not a theoretician. He understands the impact of foreclosure, not just the macroeconomics but the personal dimension. He understands the role of financial intermediaries, banks and housing agencies. He has been a 21- year member of the House Financial Services Committee, so legislatively he has been engaged and involved in every major business, financial, and housing initiative in the last two decades, and he has seen this from the perspective of a legislator. He has earned the support of his colleagues, but also he has earned the support of his constituents and his neighbors back home. He has the endorsement of the former Republican Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Spencer Bachus of Alabama, who noted: Congressman Watt has played an integral role in the financial services committee's deliberations on housing policy and is known as a serious and substantive legislator . . . In my experience in working with him on a variety of issues, I have always personally respected Congressman Watt for his intellect, attention to detail, and dedication to serving the public. Again, this is a reflection of two decades of service at the heart of the process of legislating with respect to housing policy in the United States. So when we combine his legal training, his practical experience as a lawyer, his two decades of service as a member of the House Financial Services Committee, he is fully qualified for this key position, which is so vitally important now because we have to seriously tackle the issue of housing finance reform, and we have to take into consideration the needs and concerns of all the stakeholders, from investors to homeowners. Again, Congressman Watt has that perspective--knowing the intricacies from his legal training of financial laws, doing what he has to do to protect the interests of his clients, and as a legislator with over two decades of experience in creating housing policy in the United States. The FHFA should be led by a Director, confirmed by the Senate, not an Acting Director. We have to send the signal this is a position that is important and deserves a confirmed Director, notwithstanding the skills and abilities and the great dedication of the current Acting Director. We need to have someone in the position who has been confirmed by the Senate. There are too many critical decisions each day, and too much at stake in terms of housing finance reform not to have a confirmed Director of the FHFA. I urge my colleagues to allow this nomination to come before this body for a vote. Congressman Watt deserves no less, and I indeed urge support for his confirmation. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Servicemember Housing Protection Act along with my colleagues Senators Begich, Whitehouse, Durbin, and Tester. Our country has a strong tradition of ensuring that our service members are protected while they serve to keep our nation safe. Building on such laws and efforts, in 1940, as World War II escalated across the globe, Congress enacted the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act ``to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation.'' In 2003, Congress passed a new version of this law to reflect the new challenges of post- 9/11 service and renamed it the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA. Since that time, Congress has further amended this law, most recently in August 2012, in order to address the country's high foreclosure rates and their impact on service members. Additionally, in 2010, when it became evident that military families needed an entity to serve as a watchdog, provide education, and help monitor and respond to concerns, questions, and complaints about consumer financial products and services, I led the bipartisan effort during the Dodd-Frank Act debate to create a new Office of Servicemember Affairs within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB. The Servicemember Housing Protection Act continues in this vein, and seeks to address one such ongoing challenge--helping service members with their housing needs so they can maintain a focus on the difficult task of protecting our country. First, this bill would make it easier for service members to claim deployment-related financial and credit protections by expanding what could be submitted to constitute ``military orders.'' Currently, creditors require a copy of military orders in order to trigger SCRA protections. However, these orders are often not cut until just before deployment or once the service member is already deployed, placing a burden on some military families as they try to work with banks to secure SCRA protections. Broadening the scope of what could be submitted to trigger protections before orders have been received would further ensure that service members have more time to prepare for deployment and promptly receive SCRA protections, including the interest rate limitation of six percent on qualifying mortgages. Second, this bill would extend foreclosure protections to surviving spouses. Currently, service members have a 1-year window of foreclosure protection following service, to provide time to reacclimate to civilian life and get their personal affairs back in order. Our bill extends this one-year window of foreclosure protection to a surviving spouse who is the successor in interest to the home. After suffering such an unspeakable loss, a military spouse should not have the additional burden of dealing with immediate foreclosure. Lastly, this bill would help facilitate the transition from off-base to on-base housing. Due to the shortage of on-base military housing, many service members temporarily find off-base housing until on-base housing becomes available. When a service member on a waiting list is given the chance to move into on-base housing, he or she is sometimes unable to terminate his or her off-base housing lease. Including an order or opportunity to move from off-base to on-base housing as additional grounds for lease termination would allow service members and their families the chance to move into the military housing community. Several States, including Florida, Georgia, and Virginia, have similar laws, and we should extend this opportunity to service members serving at any of our military bases. While the men and women of our Armed Forces are protecting our Nation overseas, we should do everything possible to protect their families and homes. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Begich, Whitehouse, Durbin, Tester and me, as well as the Military Officers Association of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in supporting this bill, and taking these next steps to add protections for our military families.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Servicemember Housing Protection Act along with my colleagues Senators Begich, Whitehouse, Durbin, and Tester. Our country has a strong tradition of ensuring that our service members are protected while they serve to keep our nation safe. Building on such laws and efforts, in 1940, as World War II escalated across the globe, Congress enacted the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act ``to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation.'' In 2003, Congress passed a new version of this law to reflect the new challenges of post- 9/11 service and renamed it the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA. Since that time, Congress has further amended this law, most recently in August 2012, in order to address the country's high foreclosure rates and their impact on service members. Additionally, in 2010, when it became evident that military families needed an entity to serve as a watchdog, provide education, and help monitor and respond to concerns, questions, and complaints about consumer financial products and services, I led the bipartisan effort during the Dodd-Frank Act debate to create a new Office of Servicemember Affairs within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB. The Servicemember Housing Protection Act continues in this vein, and seeks to address one such ongoing challenge--helping service members with their housing needs so they can maintain a focus on the difficult task of protecting our country. First, this bill would make it easier for service members to claim deployment-related financial and credit protections by expanding what could be submitted to constitute ``military orders.'' Currently, creditors require a copy of military orders in order to trigger SCRA protections. However, these orders are often not cut until just before deployment or once the service member is already deployed, placing a burden on some military families as they try to work with banks to secure SCRA protections. Broadening the scope of what could be submitted to trigger protections before orders have been received would further ensure that service members have more time to prepare for deployment and promptly receive SCRA protections, including the interest rate limitation of six percent on qualifying mortgages. Second, this bill would extend foreclosure protections to surviving spouses. Currently, service members have a 1-year window of foreclosure protection following service, to provide time to reacclimate to civilian life and get their personal affairs back in order. Our bill extends this one-year window of foreclosure protection to a surviving spouse who is the successor in interest to the home. After suffering such an unspeakable loss, a military spouse should not have the additional burden of dealing with immediate foreclosure. Lastly, this bill would help facilitate the transition from off-base to on-base housing. Due to the shortage of on-base military housing, many service members temporarily find off-base housing until on-base housing becomes available. When a service member on a waiting list is given the chance to move into on-base housing, he or she is sometimes unable to terminate his or her off-base housing lease. Including an order or opportunity to move from off-base to on-base housing as additional grounds for lease termination would allow service members and their families the chance to move into the military housing community. Several States, including Florida, Georgia, and Virginia, have similar laws, and we should extend this opportunity to service members serving at any of our military bases. While the men and women of our Armed Forces are protecting our Nation overseas, we should do everything possible to protect their families and homes. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Begich, Whitehouse, Durbin, Tester and me, as well as the Military Officers Association of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in supporting this bill, and taking these next steps to add protections for our military families.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the twin manufactured crises that are facing the country: A hobbled government and the threat of default. I have seen some describe this as a game, and I have heard others say it is just partisanship posturing. But this situation is neither. This is serious business. In fact, I am deeply troubled about this--not only as a Senator representing the State of Rhode Island, but as an American--about where my country is going. I am dismayed that some on the other side have decided that for whatever reason--and those reasons seem to keep changing--the only way to achieve their goal--and their goals seem to keep changing--is to shut the government down and suggest that defaulting on our debt will have no consequences. It would be a nice fiction if we could say: Well, America really didn't have to pay its bills. That we don't have to pay for the trillions we spent in Iraq and in Afghanistan, or for the significant tax cuts under President Bush that benefited the wealthiest Americans. I didn't support the operations in Iraq, and I didn't support those tax cuts. I think we could have invested the money much more wisely and helped America. But the reality is all these bills are coming due, and the United States Treasury has to pay them. Some of my colleagues on the other side are suggesting: Well, we can prioritize payments. No one will be upset. No one will be hurt if we don't pay the bills as they come due. We will just pick the ones we want to pay. But these are not Democratic bills. They are not Republican bills. These are America's bills. They were approved by the Congress of the United States under Republican Presidents and Democrat Presidents, under Republican Congresses and Democrat Congresses. And as they come due, they must be paid. But we are here today in this manufactured crisis that essentially locks out and blocks the American people from accessing their government--from accessing basic government services. Women and children receiving food under the WIC program, Head Start--a whole panoply of Americans who are literally being denied benefits they earned, or benefits that are necessary not just for their health, but for the health and vitality of the fabric of America. Then, on top of that, is the added threat of a default on our obligations--already accrued, already authorized, already appropriated obligations--not new borrowing for new expenditures. These bills are coming due. We have seen this ever-changing theme from the other side about why they have to do these things. At first it was an effort to repeal ObamaCare. Then it was a 1-year delay of health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Then it was just a delay of part of the law. Then it was repealing a tax that was part of the law. Now, we have heard about Canadian oil pipelines, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and cutting Medicaid. The rationale keeps changing and suggesting that the reasons behind this lockout are not only unclear to the American public, they are unclear to the proponents. In fact, some are suggesting that this is also about cutting Social Security and Medicare and other programs that are central to every family in this country. Indeed, it seems as though they have transitioned from ``let's take ObamaCare and repeal it'' to ``let's take the New Deal and repeal that.'' In fact, one of our colleagues in the House apparently suggested he didn't know what he wanted; he just knew he wanted something in exchange for an open government that is functioning and a government that pays its bills. It is hard not to draw the conclusion that many of my colleagues on the other side have simply committed themselves to extracting major policy concessions, whatever they can get, by threatening to default on our debt and by continuing to lock out the American people from its government. They are sadly using potential economic chaos to get their way. Now I don't think Republicans are debating seriously--and we have heard this argument from them for years going back--for decades, in fact--to the initial debate on Medicare, that it is evil socialized medicine. Now I am sure during the discussion of the New Deal, there were criticisms of growing central government, but to seriously take away these programs I think would cause the American people to stand up and say no, since most if not every American fundamentally depends on them. Particularly as they get to the point where they are retired or they are approaching retirement. So now the Republican story has shifted, as they have gotten closer and closer to what seems to be some of their real motivating factors: shrinking government dramatically, not just those parts that are popular. Now they are beginning to hint that this is about something more fundamental. This is about tearing up the basic social contract where people have worked all their lives, paid into Social Security, and will get Social Security benefits. For them, this is about tearing up the social contract that if you have worked, you have paid into the Medicare system, you will get Medicare benefits. Of course now they have shifted their current story again, and now it is all about negotiation, that we have not negotiated. That is why they have to shut down the government and default on the debt of the United States. The irony, of course, is that Democrats have been, indeed, trying to go into serious and bipartisan negotiations about our budget for many months. Indeed, months ago, in March, as I recall, the Senate, after taking 47 rollcall votes, passed a solid, balanced, and sensible budget plan and asked to negotiate with the other body in a conference. Indeed, at the beginning of the year, the Speaker called for following the budget process, for following regular order. At one point, the other side even demanded that Senators and Congresswomen and men should not be paid if there was no budget resolution. But, sadly, months later, after we had passed our budget, a handful of colleagues in this body, on the Republican side, have been blocking us from going to conference. They are insisting that as any precondition to a bipartisan conference we could not talk about raising revenue, or take actions that will ensure the government be able to pay its bills. They have essentially stopped regular order. For his part, the Speaker of the House refused to appoint conferees for months, as well, apparently fearful that Republicans might have to actually vote on some of their proposals that have been incorporated over the years in various Republican budgets with respect to Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. But now as we approach default, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying: Oh, it is time to negotiate on the budget. It was time months ago when we asked to go to conference. It was time weeks ago. Now it is time to ensure that we pay our bills and we open the government. We have come to the Senate floor 21 times so far to seek to go to conference to negotiate with the House on the budget. What do we hear? When we ask to go to negotiate, no. But, when we ask them to open the government, to pay our bills, they say no let's negotiate. That is not the way to conduct the business of this government. It is not the way to provide the confidence our economy needs to go forward. It is not the way to provide families the confidence they need to face the rigors of daily life--of educating children, of taking care of their health care, of contributing to their community. We have had consistent and constant objections, which frustrate our ability to go to conference and negotiate, over many, many, many months. But after all their other rationales--defund ObamaCare, delay ObamaCare, delay the personal mandate--now it has come down to let's negotiate, when indeed, Republicans have rejected that approach 21 times on the floor of the Senate. It is time for the other Chamber to reopen the government and agree to pay our bills. They can do that by bringing to the floor very quickly--and they can procedurally: a clean CR--a term of art that was Washington speak until a week or two ago, but now everyone knows. It simply sets for a few weeks the amount of money we can spend and allows us to open the government. Americans are being hurt by the shutdown, and they will be hurt even more grievously if we default on our debt. It is continually amazing to me that the other side persists in shutting down the government and threatening to default on the debt. But, you have a response by the other side, particularly, that is consistent with what we heard during their primary campaign for the Presidency: Let's shut down some government agencies. Now it is the other side of that coin: Republicans will just open a few government agencies, not the whole government, but the ones--and they change or they increase each day--that they think are important. Each day they seem to have another idea about: Well, we have to open this. It will be a good headline. It will be a good talking point. For example, they have talked about opening the national parks, the Smithsonian, and other museums. But, let's remember that in the House, Republicans have proposed cutting the allocation for the Department of Interior Appropriations Bill by $5.5 billion from last year. So we have to go forward and we have to resolve this situation. We cannot allow this lockout to continue. We have to do what Leader Reid has said quite succinctly: open the government, pay our bills, go to conference on the budget, and then negotiate everything that is within reason to negotiate. Let's do that for the American people. We are ready to do it. I hope our colleagues will agree to do it also. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are 5 days into the government shutdown, but unfortunately there has been no progress in resolving this issue. I disagree with some policies championed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and indeed I sometimes disagree with the President and Members of my own party on specific policy prescriptions. Case in point: raising the student loan interest rate and the so-called JOBS Act. In both cases I tried to make my best argument on the merits of the issue, and then we voted, moved on, and I am still working to try to improve both laws. I haven't given up, but I have not shut the government down because my views didn't prevail. So I say to my colleagues on the other side, the way to change laws you do not like is not to shut down the government at the expense of your fellow Americans and at the expense of our economy; it is to try to build consensus and persuade a broad swath of the American people that there is a better way of doing things and making concrete proposals. It has been pointed out many times before that the House of Representatives has attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act 45 times at last count, I believe, but I have yet to hear any credible plan put forth to replace it or strengthen it or make it work better. And the American people want our constructive efforts to succeed. They would like it modified if it needs modification. But the attitude of some of our colleagues has been to just strip away the whole book of significant legislation--and replace it with what? We don't know. That is irresponsible. This Senate and this Congress is a great institution. Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, set up a system with plenty of room for debate, different points of view, and checks and balances. But checks and balances are not what is happening today. The government has been shut down not because Congress can't agree on levels of funding. We agree. We have actually agreed with the House on their level. The real reason is that some on the other side of the aisle--and I do think it is just a small cadre--have a very different vision about the government itself. And this is not hyperbole. We can all recall that during the Republican Presidential primaries we had candidates seeing who could out-promise whom in terms of eliminating aspects of the Federal Government. They proposed getting rid of the EPA, the Commerce Department, the Department of Education, FEMA, and the Department of Energy--not reforming these agencies, not changing their missions, not making them more efficient or more effective, but just doing away with them--and that spirit is animated in the House today, unfortunately. I am particularly glad that view did not prevail in the last election because these agencies are vital to all Americans. Looking back at Rhode Island, we were victims of serious historic flooding over the last several years. If FEMA had not been there to step in and help us, we would still be trying to pull ourselves together. As a small State, like Connecticut and other States, we do not have the resources to do it. We saw the same thing with Hurricane Sandy. They were there helping efficiently and effectively. And that is one of the agencies my colleagues are not allowing to operate today. Many small business men and women in my community, manufacturers, et cetera, have been aided immensely by the Department of Commerce. That is something else that was on the hit list during the Presidential primaries by Republican candidates. Those of us who enjoy clean water, fresh air, and the importance of a healthy environment--i.e., every American--even if they do not notice it or admit it, their health and the health of their children would be jeopardized severely if EPA was eliminated. There are calls repeatedly to make it more efficient, more effective, make it more businesslike, and those calls have to be recognized and heeded. But the notion that we would just wipe it away and the private markets or private self- interests would ensure that our air is clean, that our water is clean, and that our health is protected is not something that is either realistic or, indeed, even something that is arguable. There is room in this country for a range of views, and I recognize that many of my colleagues, who consider themselves members of the tea party, are simply doing their best to represent the views of those who sent them here. But I would hope everyone who has been entrusted with the responsibility of government could work together to at least make the government function--i.e., to stay open. That is a basic responsibility our constituents entrusted us with when they sent us to Washington. There is nothing patriotic about shutting down the government, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and potentially forcing our country into default. And the hundreds of thousands out of work are not just government employees. As my colleague from Connecticut pointed out, now defense contractors are beginning to furlough. These industries are the heart and soul of so many communities. When these jobs are lost, there is a multiplier effect, which affects the entire community. And this cascading series of economic problems will get worse each day we keep this government closed. Both sides need to work together, but we have already significantly compromised on our side. Again, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, we are voting for a continuing resolution at the House level, not our level--a multibillion-dollar gap. We have accepted that. At least for the interim period, the 6 weeks or so of this continuing resolution, we accept the House's position. And of course, for many of us who have been arguing vociferously to end this sequestration, to increase investment, this was a significant compromise. We are not seeing that reciprocated on the other side; it is ``my way or the highway,''--stop ObamaCare or nothing gets done, Government doesn't work, and we will default on our credit. That is reckless, irresponsible, and does not serve the interest of those who sent us here. It is time for those who are proposing the wild plans of shutting down the government if they don't get exactly what they want to grasp the reality of the situation. We cannot keep this government closed. This closure will last as long as Speaker Boehner wants it to. He can, under the rules of the House, call up this bill within hours--perhaps less-- or Republicans can join Democrats and sign a discharge petition to bring it to the floor regardless of the Speaker's position. Those are two paths that should be taken immediately to open this government. We all have a shared responsibility for the government. As I sense it, one of the basic rationales of this government is to keep the lights on, keep people working. Let's get to the difficult negotiations on how we improve efficiency, how we improve operations, but we have a responsibility to keep our government open--to open it and then keep it open--and the longer this shutdown drags on, the more people will be affected. Cancer patients, young mothers, scientific researchers, Federal employees, people who take prescription drugs all are being negatively impacted. Government contractors are being laid off. Let's work together and reopen the government for business. Let's continue to debate the issues. We have many issues we can debate but not under the sword of Damocles--of a government that is closed and an economy that is beginning to lose more and more of its momentum and strength. That harms the American people irresponsibly and recklessly for a very narrow self-interested principle. There is another aspect here too. It is not just the government shutdown, but we are coming perilously close to a potential default on the debt of the United States. The government closure is affecting our economy dramatically, but a default on our debt could be catastrophic. There is a growing risk that this brinkmanship on the part of the Republican Party could force us to default. We are only 12 days away from a potential default because the tea party Republicans would rather play their games over the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, than choose to do what we have always done--pay our bills. This is not about borrowing more money to spend more. This is about paying for those things we agreed on--Republicans and Democrats-- through congressional appropriations, through legislation creating programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. These are obligations we have incurred, and we won't be able to pay all of them. Indeed, on October 17, unless my Republican colleagues end their obstruction, the Nation will not be able to pay its bills, causing dire consequences for American workers and our economy. Many commentators have pointed out a default will destabilize the national and global economy. It could cause another financial crisis and over the span of a month cause an estimated $106 billion shortfall of Federal spending that would cause a severe economic contraction. If we can't pay our debts, then we will contract federal activity. That contraction will be multiplied in the economy. Our economic growth will slow. In fact, not only decelerate, it could collapse. Ironically, one aspect of that is it will almost overnight increase our deficit as less economic activity produces less revenue, there are more people who are laid off and eligible for unemployment insurance. It is a downward spiral. Economists on both sides agree that it is just the specter of default that has serious economic consequences. In fact, we have already seen the 1-month interest rate of Treasurys jump over the 6-month and the year-long rates. The markets are already voting. They are nervous. They are nervous that the Republicans will carry out these threats, and you can see it in what they are demanding in order to buy the short-term paper of the United States versus the longer term paper.