because they know that once we start taking a real look into alli baba's cave, some of that stuff will be impossible to defend to the american people. it wasn't fair when it first went in. it has never been in through its sordid history in the tax code and it is not sitting well in the tax code now. these are things we should get rid of even if we didn't need it for the debt and deficit. this is special interest crony can'capitalism at its worse. and we intend to have a look at it in these discussions. if you listen in the budget committee, the republicans said is plainly: not a penny. not a penny of tax loopholes can go for deficit reduction. now, they've said they're willing to move the treasure around a little bit in ali baba's cave as long as it still

gets used for corporations and the wealthy. that's not a guess, by the way. that is the way the republican budget ^+budget is structured. that's their budget numbers. awful it to lower -- all of it to lower tax rates for corporations and the rich. they're willing to spread the wealth around, as long as it stays in the same hands. we're at the gates of ali baba's cave, this special treasure-trove of earmarks for the rich and connected. we're at that place where the lobbyistists queel the special x deals. we're knocking on the door of tax spending that has been completely untouched, completely untouched in the deficit reduction so far. and our republican colleagues are getting a little twitchy. come on, fellahs. out of nearly $14 trillion in

tax spending and earmarks, can't we put just 7% of it, just 7% of it toward the debt and the deficit? our proposal is to leave 93% of the treasure in the cave. that's not unreasonable. what's unreasonable, what's unbalanced is the republican desire that not a nickel in loophole closing can go towards our debt and deficit. i could go through innumerable comments by our republican colleagues warning us about the dire danger of our debt and deficit, warning about the terrible injustice to future generations, warning about the threat to our national security and to our national welfare,

dire, serious warnings about the epic nature of the danger of our debt and deficit and the importance of curing it. but when you actually stack it up, it's less important to them than every loophole in the tax code. and my point is, you can't have it both ways. you can't be telling the american people that the debt and the deficit is the number-one threat to the well-being of of our beloved country but is also less important than every deduction, every lobbyist ever squirreled away for every special interest in the tax code. both things cannot be true. and so we must persevere to get into ali baba's cave of tax

treasures in the loophole side of this equation, and i hope very much that we will. i think that is nothing more than reasonable, nothing more than balanced. indeed, one could argue it's actually a lot less than balanced, because we only want 7% and we'd be letting them keep 93%, and we'd be doing far more on spending than we would on revenue and loopholes combined. so it's not balanced in the even-steven sense of the word. but at least it's generally fair. the republican proposal is that it should be all spending and zero loopholes is unbalanced, and i object to it. so i thank the presiding officer, and with that, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono:i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 6:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: the request from the senator from hawaii will be approved, without objection. ms. hirono: i also ask unanimous consent for unanimous consent that jim burkes be granted floor privileges until the end of next week. the presiding officer: the motion of the senator from hawaii will be approved, without objection.

ms. hirono: mr. president, since the infamous tailhook scandal in 1991, every secretary of defense has proclaimed that our military has a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment and sexual assault. zero tolerance is the policy our military should have, but in reality it doesn't. we know it doesn't because we have heard too many stories from women and men in the military who have been attacked, assaulted, or raped by their peers in uniform or by their superiors. we have heard too many stories in which the assailants go unpunished. we have heard too many stories about commanding officers using their authority to set aside court-martial convictions or to decide simply not to have a trial at all. we have heard too many stories about survivors being drummed out of the service by misinformed dying know sees of mental illness or by a chain of command that ignores the

assailant and instead turns around and charges the survivor with bad beample -- with bad be. we have heard too many stories about survivors who are so disillusioned by this broken system that they don't even bother to report these crimes. instead, these men and women, warriors all, are forced to live in silence and with an unjustice feeling of shame. we all agree that commanders are responsible for maintaining good order and discipline in their units. this includes creating an atmosphere of dignity and respect for everyone under their command. commanders must create an environment where sexual crimes do not occur. our proposed changes to the military justice system do not be a solve the commander of these -- absolve the commander of these responsibilities. it is still their job to prevent these crimes, but when these crimes do occur, survivors should have the ability to seek

justice and the gillibrand amendment will help the survivors do just that. i'm glad our civilian and military leaders have committed to help the survivors of sexual assault, punish the predators and end these terrible injustices. when the service secretaries and chiefs tell me that fixing the problem of sexual assault is a top priority for them, i believe them. i believe they care deeply about this problem. unfortunately, incremental changes has not been and is not good enough. commanders bear the responsibility for creating a culture where these crimes do not happen in the first place. congress must also do its part to ensure there is a system in place that both holds people accountable and doles out punishment that actually serves as a deterrent against future assaults. over the years congress has

passed a variety of measures intended to fix these problems, and we have many good provisions in both the house and senate versions of the mdaa which we are considering. but i do not believe these steps are enough. we must make a major change. we owe it to the men and women who serve our country in uniform. we owe it to their families and loved ones, and the loved ones of those who serve because the trauma of sexual assault often extends beyond the trauma experienced by the survivor. we must do all we can to provide an environment where those who put their lives on the line for our country each and every day are not sexually assaulted. and if they are, we must provide a fair system of justice where the survivor is heard and not ignored, is helped and not shunned. that requires, i believe, vesting the decision about

whether or not to go to trial with an impartial experienced military lawyer and not with a commander in the chain of command who has an inherent vested interest in the case. it is undeniable that the current system does not work. according to the department of defense, there were an estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact in 2012. we've heard about trainers at lack land air force raping new amnesties. it is undeniable we have a problem. the incremental steps we have taken are not enough. the story of marine second lieutenant helmer is one skpapl pell -- example of this broken system. she told her story in the documentary the invisible war

and it has been included in an cnn inview and the houston chronicle. i ask unanimous consent that the houston chronicle article be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, that is so ordered. ms. hirono: it tells the following account: lieutenant helmer was stationed at marine barracks washington in 2006, just a few blocks from the senate chamber. one night after she was ordered to go bar hopping with her colleagues, a superior officer called her into his office and attacked her. she remembers him slamming her head into his desk and then she blacked out. when she woke up, she was wearing her superior officer's shores and she knew she had been raped. she asked a colonel to call an ambulance and instead the colonel warned her she would be charged with public intoxication and conduct unbecoming an officer if she reported the

attack. when lieutenant helmer finally made it to a military hospital the sexual assault victim advocate warned her these cases never go anywhere. lieutenant helmer pressed her case anyway but after many months here is the only thing that happened. lieutenant helmer was charged with fraternizeation and conduct unbecoming an officer and the superior officer who attacked her was later promoted. this story should outrage us all. this story shows when sexual assault occurs the current system does not work. it is time to make fundamental changes to how sexual assault cases are handled in the military. senator gillibrand's would take cases out of the chain of command and place it in the hands of an experienced military

officer. this change would improve the judicial process by increasing transparency. it would also eliminate potential bias and conflict of interest because unlike a commanding officer, the military lawyer would be unconnected to either the survivor or the accused. just the perception of such bias or conflict of interest could discourage a survivor from reporting a sexual assault and thereby allow the attacker to prey on others again and again. many survivors of sexual assault tell us the main reason they do not report these crimes is because they think nothing will happen. the current processes too often do not work. it is unacceptable to allow this situation to continue. the problem of sexual assaults is a scourge on our military for which there is no silver bullet. but at the very least, what we need is a military justice

system where a survivor feels confident that his or her case will be fairly examined and if deemed to have sufficient evidence, be sent forward to trial. sexual assault in the military is something that most people don't want to talk about. we don't want to think that the men and women whose service we honor on veterans day are being preyed upon by their colleagues, or even worse, that they themselves may be sexual predators. there is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of our military men and women serve our country valiantly and with honor, and we should take care not to tarnish them with suspicion. in fact, we owe it to them to act. it is for these reasons that i am a proud cosponsor of senator gillibrand's military justice improvement act. i urge my colleagues to support it. to my colleagues who are opposed or undecided, i want to say

again that keeping disposition authority within the chain of command has not worked. one of the arguments that i have heard against making this change is that doing so would interfere with the commander's ability to maintain good order and discipline. good order and discipline should not rest upon a commander's ability to decide whether or not to prosecute a sexual crime. the time has come to make a significant change, and i believe this is the change that needs to be made. i want to commend our colleague, senator kirsten gillibrand for her tireless efforts and courageous leadership in this effort to help survivors of sexual assaults in the military. i yield back the floor.

mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

#

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from is recognized. mrs. gillibrand: thank you. i had the privilege of listening to my colleagues, senator hirono and senator blumenthal who have been addressing this issue of sexual assault in the military, and both of them said so persuasively and articulately that our military justice system is broken because the sense of trust that a man or woman who is serving in the military today who is subject to rape and sexual assault has been broken not just between them and the assailant in their unit, but between them and their commanders, that in fact that trust that the commander will have their back, that they will have these crimes be investigated and their perpetrators will be brought to justice has been broken. even general amos, commandant of

the marines, said so. he said, i can see why a female marine might not report a case of sexual assault. they don't trust us. she doesn't trust the chain of command. this is our challenge, and we have to reform the system because these are some of the best men and women in the world that make our military as strong as it is. but we are subjecting them to not only these great acts of violence, but then the second heartbreak, the second revictimmization of having a military justice system that tkphots have their back -- does not have their back where they might be retaliated against for reporting, the number one reason 23,000 cases last year went unreported was because victims believed nothing would be done. they did not trust their chain of command to have these cases be prosecuted. the second reason they didn't report these cases was because

they feared or they witnessed retaliation. and that's not surprising because of the 3,000 brave survivors that did report their sexual assault or rape, 62% were retaliated against. that is a huge number. so there is a failure within our military, our military who has promised for 25 years zero tolerance for sexual assault and rape in the military, as far as i'm concerned, all we have had is zero accountability. because of those brave 3,000 survivors that did come forward, 62% retaliated against, means those dmanders failed to maintain a command climate where retaliation is not taking place. now, in our underlying bill, we're actually going to fix that. we're going to make retaliation a crime, giving commanders more tools to go after perpetrators

of retaliation, but retaliation has always been a good form of discipline. it has never been acceptable, but still it exists. too many victims do not come forward because they fear it. so what i want to do, mr. president, which is what my colleagues have done, is i would like to speak on behalf of these survivors, these advocates, these champions, these leaders in reform. i want to tell their stories. they can't be here on the senate floor right this moment, but i can be here, and i can speak their stories, i can tell you what happened to them. sara plumber, raped as a young marine in 2003. she said i knew the military was notorious for mishandling rape cases, so i didn't dare think anything good would come from reporting the rape. having someone within your direct chain of command doesn't make any sense. it's like being raped by your

brother and having your dad decide the case. another survivor, trina mcdonald, who at 17 enlisted in the navy. she was stationed at a remote base in alaska. within two months, she was attacked, repeatedly drugged, drugged and raped by superior officers over the course of nine months. can you imagine that being your daughter? can you imagine this young woman who literally wants to serve our country and even die for our country being repeatedly drugged and raped by her supervisor. she said at one point my attackers threw me into the bering sea and left me for dead in the hopes that they would silence me forever. they made it clear that they would kill me if i ever spoke up

or reported what they had done. thank god trina mcdonald survived, because i will read her testimony from the united states senate floor. she is being heard in this debate. listen to army sergeant rebecca havrilla, served in afghanistan, raped in 2007. said reporting the crime to her commanding officer was unthinkable. there was no way i was going to go to my commander. he made it clear he didn't like women. or listen to airman first class jessica himes. she was raped in 2009 by a co-worker who broke into her room at 3:00 a.m. she said two days before the court hearing, his commander called me on a conference at the jag office, and he said that he

didn't believe the offender acted like a gentleman, but there was no reason to prosecute. being raped and broken into someone's room, not being a gentleman. obviously, that commander does not understand that rape is a serious crime. quote -- "i was speechless. legal had been telling me this was going to go through court. we had a court date set for several months, and two days before, the commander stopped it. i later found out that the commander had no legal education or background, and he had only been in command for four days. her rapist was given the award for airman of the quarter. she was transferred to another base. now, many of those listening tonight will think this is just a crime against women, but one of the most disturbing facts is

that more than half of these crimes are against men. it's not a gender issue. the crime of rape, sexual assault, are crimes not of passion but are brutal crimes. are crimes of aggression, are crimes of dominance, are crimes of control. these are not cases of dates that have gone badly. blake stevens, now 29, joined the army in january of 2001, just seven months after graduating high school. the verbal and physical attacks started quickly, he says, and it came from virtually every level of the chain of command. in one of the worst incidents, a group of men tackled him, shoved a soda bottle up his rectum and threw him backward off an elevated platform onto the hood of a car. when he reported the incident, stevens says his drill sergeant told him you are the problem. you are the reason this is happening, and refused to take

action. blake said you feel trapped. they basically tell you you're going to have to keep working with these people day after day, night after night. you don't have a choice. his assailants told him that once he deployed to iraq, they would shoot him in the head. they told me they were going to have sex with me all of the time when we were there. now, if these stories aren't enough, please do listen to some retired generals, commanders, jag officers, veterans who have known from years of experience that the status quo is an injustice to those who serve and our approach is the right way forward. this september, three retired generals gave public support for our proposal, including lieutenant general claudia kennedy, the first woman to achieve the rank of a three-star general in the u.s. army. brigadier general lori sutton, formerly the highest ranking psychiatrist in the u.s. army.

brigadier general david mcginnis who most recently served in the pending as the principal secretary for the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs. lieutenant general retired kennedy wrote me -- quote -- "having served in leadership positions in the u.s. army, i've concluded that the military leadership -- if the military leadership hasn't fixed this problem in my lifetime, it's not going to be fixed without a change to the status quo. the imbalance of power and authority held by commanders in dealing with sexual assaults must be corrected. there has to beient oversight over what is happening in these cases. simply put, we must remove the conflicts of interest in the current system. the system in which a commander can sweep his own crime of a decorated soldier or friend under the rug protects the guilty and protects serial predators, and it harms our military readiness. until the leadership is held accountable, this will not be corrected. to hold leadership accountable

means there must be independence and transparency within the system, permitting professionally trained prosecutors rather than commanding officers to decide whether to take a sexual assault case to trial is measured first step toward such accountability. i have no doubt the command climate, unit cohesion and readiness will be improved by these changes. brigadier general retired lori sutton also wrote and said failure to achieve these reforms would be a further tragedy to an already sorrowful history of inattention and ineptitude concerning military sexual assault. in my view, achieving these essential reform measures must be considered as a national security imperative, demanding immediate action to prevent further damage to individual health and well-being, vertical and horizontal trust within units, military institutional reputation, operational mission

readiness and civilian military compact. far from stripping commanders of accountability as some detractors have suggested, these improvements will remove the inherent conflict of interest that clouds the perception and all too often the decision-making process under the current system. implementing these reforms will actually support leaders to build and sustain unit cultures marked by respect, good order and discipline. brigadier general david mcginnis who also served as a pentagon appointee wrote to me -- i fully support your effort to stamp out sexual assault in the u.s. military and believe there is nothing in the military justice improvement act that is inconsistent with the responsibility of authority of command. protecting of victims of these abuses and restoring american values to our military culture is long overdue. retired air force general major general martha raville, the

first woman in the history of the national guard to serve as a state adjunct general and serve in the military for 27 years, including 14 in command positions wrote -- "as a former commander, endorsing a change that removes certain authority for military commanders has been a tough decision. it was driven by my conviction that our men and women in uniform deserve to know without doubt that they are valued and that they will be treated fairly, with all due process should they report an offense and seek help or face being accused of an offense. when allegations of serious criminal conduct have been made, the decision whether to prosecute should be made by trained legal professionals. fairness and justice requires sound judgment based on evidence and facts. independent of preexisting command relationships. that's the crux of the problem here. you have commanders who have biases. maybe they don't want women in the military.

maybe they don't believe gay members should serve openly. maybe they need or appreciate or like the assailant more. maybe the perpetrator has done great things in battle. maybe he is more experienced, more important, maybe he is more popular. those biases color his decisionmaking because when the decisionmaker actually weighs evidence or the fundamental -- one of the fundamental pieces of evidence in these cases is the testimony of the victim and the accused. if that commander doesn't value the victim because she is new, he may not believe her. when he sees the perpetrator is a family man with two kids, a lovely wife, how would he possibly do that, he has been to iraq five times, i don't believe her and i believe him. he has weighed the evidence through a colored lens. that's not justice. that's not fairness. that's not what our democracy's based on. we believe in justice being blind. we believe in the scales of

justice not being weighed for the victim or the accused. justice is blind. it's fair. it's impartial. it's objective. and if that decisionmaker is not even a trained lawyer, how do we hope they're going to get it right? colored with biases, colored with self-interest. no commander wants to say the rape's happening under their command. that's a failure. it's a failure of military readiness. it's a failure of good order discipline. it's a failure of good command climate. why would they want to report their own failure? many times, they don't. that's why the deck is stacked against victims of these crimes in too many cases. now, we have had a recent ruling that i think is incredibly

important. the department of defense for 50 years has had a panel called the dacowicz panel. it's a panel of advisors that are asked by the secretary of defense for the past 50 years to please tell him what policies and proposals are most important to protect and to support women in the military. the whole purpose of the committee is to look at this issue and say what's the status of women in the military, how are they fairing? well, this panel actually has been studied sexual assault in the military for decades. they have actually been focused on it, having hearings, learning about it, opining on it, giving recommendations for a very long time. they have looked at this proposed legislation, they have studied it, and they have actually recommended every piece of this legislation to be passed by this congress. they have actually recommended the decisionmaking go outside the chain of command. the vote for that proposal, ten in favor, six abstained, none against. the ten in favor, nine out of

ten all former military. five of them senior officers. the one nonmilitary was a woman who is head of the women's law center. they want every aspect of this reform put into law. they are the experts. even secretary hagel says he looks at this group with great regard, with high authority. he regards them as the preeminent advisory panel for women in the military. we also have a lot of support from other retired members of the military, retired u.s. army major general dennis leach, retired jag officer patrick murphy, military certify diane mazer and rachel nadleson. now, when the dacowits panel voted in support of the measure,

they say they believe that these are the forms that will make the difference. they say they must implement these reforms to make sure the status of women in the military is protected. secretary hagel places a great premium on this panel. we also have the support of leading veterans' groups, veterans groups who actually have served, they are veterans, they understand what happens. -- quote -- "quote -- "we want to be clear, a vote for military justice improvement act is a vote for our troops, a vote for a stronger military. we should listen to our veterans. so i think it's time that we restore trust. the military has had 25 years to deal with this problem. they've been saying zero tolerance for 25 years. they keep saying we've got this. they keep saying we can handle this. just give us more time.

well, this happened to my son or daughter, how much more time do you need? how many more thousands of victims are going to be raped and assaulted in the military and have no hope for justice? how many more good men and women are we going to lose to sexual assault and rape who are retaliated against and pushed out being told they are the problem? how much are we going to lose in terms of military readiness, in terms of unit cohesion, in terms of troop morale, in terms of good order and discipline to the scourge of sexual assault in the military? i don't think we should wait another day. i don't think we should wait for another panel, another report, another study, another, another, another. we have boxes of studies over the last 25 years making recommendations. but until you create a

transparent, accountable military justice system, don't have a hope of solving this problem. until you give the decisionmaking authority to an actual trained lawyer who is not biased, you don't have a hope. all of our allies have done this. all of them. the ones we fight side by side with. israel, the u.k., canada, australia, netherlands, germany, these are allies. they said -- they said it's a serious crime. let the decisionmaker be unbiased, let the decisionmaker be trained. did they have a falloff of good order and discipline when they let these decisions be made by trained prosecutors? they told us no. when we tried to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," military commanders said you can't possibly do this. this will undermine good order and discipline. we wanted women to be able to serve in the military they said you can't possibly do this because of good order and discipline.

when we integrated the armed service, commanders said you can't do this, it will undermine good order and discipline. but we did it, every single one of those reforms. congress had an action, elected leaders had a responsibility. we provide oversight and accountability over the department of defense. it is an important relationship. and sometimes we may have an idea or a reform that can make the difference, that can make our military stronger, that can utilize all of our best and brightest. "don't ask, don't tell," we lost 10% of our language speakerrers because of that corrosive policy. how many thousands will we lose to sexual assault and rape in the military? how many good men and women? losing one more is too many. i ask my colleagues to support this bill. it's not a democratic idea, it is not a republican idea. it is a good idea. it is a commonsense reform. it makes perfect sense when people learn about the issue and want a solution.

this is what this place is supposed to be about. it's supposed to be people of goodwill coming together to solve problems, to make a difference. we need leadership here, we don't need followers, we need leaders. people who will do their job and provide oversight over the department of defense especially in an area where they failed so much. this reform will maybe a difference and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the call -- will read the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i'm pleased to be here to join my colleague, senator gillibrand, in expressing my concern about how we address sexual assault in the military. for the past several years, we have all become increasingly aware of the prevalence of sexual assault in our military. personally, i know i share the outrage of all americans that one of our nation's proudest institutions is afflicted by this level of criminal violence. in 1989, secretary of the navy h. lawrence garrett iii established the policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment and sexual assault. two years later, the tailhook scandal happened at a convention

attended by the secretary and the chief of naval operations. on june 2, 1992, secretary garrett wrote a memo to his military leaders that said -- and i quote -- "while each individual must be accountable for his or her own actions, commanding officers have a unique responsibility for leadership in ensuring appropriate behavior and attitudes of those under their command" -- end quote. in the end, the tailhook scandal resulted in 90 victims, 83 women and seven men. 140 officers facing possible punishment and zero criminal prosecutions for incidents of assault. all of these events occurred under the same zero tolerance policy that military leaders espouse today. the tailhook scandal was only the beginning of our awareness of the silent crisis within the

military. since that time there have been numerous scandals in every service. yet 20 years later, we're not only told that the system works but that the status quo maintaining the chain of command on this issue is vital to solving the problem. this, of course, ignores the reality of the sexual assault crisis. in fact, according to the department of defense, sexual assault prevention and response office, 26,000 of the cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assault occurred in 2011 and that was an increase of 37% since 2010. clearly, something must change and it must change now. thanks to the hard work of senators gillibrand, boxer, blumenthal and hirono, along with so many supporters on both sides of the aisle, this issue is back at the forefront of our

national debate. and we now have an historic opportunity, not only to make additional meaningful commonsense reforms to our military criminal justice system and i think that the defense authorization bill that we are going to take up before the end of this year, hopefully, has a number of very critical proposals to address sexual assault in our military, and i certainly support those, and i was pleased that it got -- those provisions got unanimous support within the committee. but i don't think we went far enough in that bill. we also need to send a powerful message to the tens of thousands of victims, many of whom have been suffering quietly for decades, that what happened to them in our military is unacceptable. in too many of those cases it's criminal and it will no longer be tolerated. the military justice improvement

act of 2013 addresses what victims tell us is the number-one problem in the current system. victims decide not to report sexual assault because they fear their commanding officers will not take the issue seriously and they will be retaliated against or nothing will be done. according to the department of defense sexual assault prevention and response office, 50% of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believes nothing would be done with their report. and 25% of women and 27% of men who received unwanted sexual contact indicated that the offender was swul actually someone in their own military chain of command. our legislation addresses the chain of command issue. it removes the decision of whether to go to trial from the chain of command and puts it into the hands of experienced

prosecutors. this is a straightforward change, it's designed to promote transparency and accountability in the prosecution of these crimes. it would also ensure that impartial individuals, specifically trained to handle these cases, determine whether they move forward, which permanently eliminates the conflicts of interest that exist in the current system. we need all victims to know that if they come forward, their cases will be handled fairly and impartially. several days ago, in america we celebrated veterans day. many of us went home to our home states to honor the men and women who throughout our history have served in our military. our military's traditions of honor and respect are too important to continue to be plagued by the issue of sexual assault. that's why i urge my colleagues to support the military justice

improvement act, because we strengthen our military when victims of sexual assault have the confidence to come forward and report crimes, and when we remove fear and stigma from the process. we strengthen our military when we create a process to deliver fair and impartial justice on behalf of the victims of these crimes. every man and woman who wears the uniform deserves these rights, and after more than 20 years of waiting, it is way past time we come through for them. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum

be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendars number 309, 302, and 421 and all nominations on the secretary's desk and the coast guard, the nomination be qirbled en bloc, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, no further motion be in order to any of the nominations, any related statements be printed in the record, president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the senate proceed to house message number s. 252. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a message from the house. the clerk: resolved, that the bill from the senate, s. 252, entitled an act to reduce

preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematureity do pass with amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask the senate concur in the house amendments and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 295, 296, 297. the presiding officer: the -- is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motion to reconsider -- motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. reid: i would ask, madam president, the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 245. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 245, s. res. 292, expressing support for the victims of the typhoon in the philippines and surrounding region. the presiding officer: is there

objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate proceed to s. res. 284. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 284, calling on the governor of iran to immediately release sayid abidini and all other individuals detained on account of their religious beliefs. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: now, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until

2:00 p.m. on monday, november 18, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired and the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the filing deadline for amendments to h.r. 3204 be 3:00 p.m. on monday and the second-degree amendment filing deadline be at 4:00 p.m. on monday. further, at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of robert wilkins to be united states circuit judge for the d.c. circuit with the time until 5:30 equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to the cloture vote. and that if cloture is not invoked, the senate resume legislative session and immediately vote on the motion to invoke cloture on h.r. 3204, the drug compounding bill. if cloture is invoked on that bill, all postcloture time be yielded back, any amendments be withdrawn and the senate vote on passage of h.r. 3204, and that

upon disposition of 3204, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 1197, the defense authorization act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so there could be up to four roll call votes on monday at 5:30. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

you can see the president's news conference on our companion networking, c-span, tonight at 8:00 eastern. here on c-span2, a few minutes from the president's announcement. >> the other problem that has received a lot of attention and concerns. americans who have received letters from their insurers that may be losing the plans they bought in the old individual market. often because they no longer meet the law's requirement to cover basic benefits like prescription drugs or doctor visits. as i indicated earlier, i completely get how upsetting it can be for a lot of american. particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan they liked they could keep it. and to those americans, i hear

you loud and clear. i said that i would do everything we can to fix this problem. today i'm offering an idea that will help do it. already, people who have plans that predate the affordable care act can keep those plans if they haven't changed. that was already in the law. it was called a grandfather clause, it was included in the law. today we're going ebbing tend the principle both to people's plans who changed since it took effect and the people who bought plan since the law took effect. state insurance commissioners have -- the bottom line is they can extent current plans otherwise canceled in to 2014 and americans whose plans have been canceled can choose to reenroll in the same kind of plan. we're also requiring insurers to extend current planses to inform customer about two thing.

one, what protections these renewed plans don't include. number two, that the marketplace offers new options with better coverage and tax credits that might help you bring down the cost. so if you received one of these letters, i would encourage you to take a look at the marketplace. even if the website isn't working as mootly for everybody yet. the plan comparison tool that let you brows for new plan near you is work just fine. this fix won't solve every problem for every person. but t going help a lot of people doing more will require work with congress. and i've said from the beginning, i'm willing to work with republicans and democrats to fix problems as they arise. this is an example of what i was talking about. we can always make this law work better. you can see all of president obama's conference at 8:00 eastern on c-span tonight.

senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, issued a statement about the president's plan saying, quote, president obama's announcement doesn't even come close to fixing the problems that so many americans are facing right now. as a result of canceled h.b. plan, and skyrocketing premiums. a group of republicans senators told stories today about constituents in -- several democratic senators spoke in defense of the president's health care law. here is a look. from oo. >> the president -- we had about 25,000 ohio. every one of these town hall we do a poll asking the most important issue. of the town hall we have done which is one a month. every time it's jobs and the

economy. until last night. last night it was health care. that's because most of the questions i got were about health care coverage and people concerned about losing it. let me read a letter from one of my constituent. it's indicative of what. i'm hearing around the state. this is from dean in ohio. ever since i lost my job in 2009, i've been purchasing my own health insurance. last month i received a letter in the mail stating my plan is canceled due to the aca. i was told to look at plans on the exchange, which i did. and i found a comparable plan over twice the cost of what i have now. in addition, it's over half of my monthly pension. i simply can't afford this. i have been a responsible, hard working person. now due to the action of our government. for the first time inspect many my life i will not have any health insurance coverage. i'm 59 years old and need the coverage. i'm outraged to say the least. how can our government do this

to us? i will remember this come election time. please get rid of this insane law. this is unacceptable. to dean and my own constituents, i agree with you. it is unacceptable. we should repeal the law. replace it with forms that reduce the cost of health care and keep the promise the president made. people can keep the health care they have. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. president. >> senator from indiana. >> mr. president, the president has -- publicly promised all americans you like the plan, you can keep it. if you like the doctor, you can keep the doctor. all the changes -- [inaudible] well, citizens from new albany who are not supposed to be citizen who are not supposed to

be effected by the obamacare. she received a letter telling that she and her husband no longer can keep their medicaid advantage plan. it was terminated. so they found another plan. much higher cost, much higher premium, much higher deductible. contribute ya, i'm a self-employed and purchase health care privately. i'm a single parent with a mortgage payment and a child in high school. i was given estimate for my plan was canceled and i was given an estimate for a replacement plan almost double of what i'm paying today. mr. president, you have not kept your promises for seniors. you have not kept your promise to single working mother. you have not kept your promise to families. you have not kept your promise to the people i represent. how can americans trust this government takeover will work if you can't keep your promises to the american people?

>> mr. president? >> senator from north dakota. >> in north dakota, we've got a lot of farmers and lot of ranchers. they're small business people. they run a small business. and they're being hit very hard by obamacare like other small businesses across this country. a rancher contacted us, his name is wayne, and he ranches there, you know, an area where we have a lot of cow boys and tremendous rodeo. they compete nationally and have great livestock herds there. he write and says, i'm not one to get too upset about things, but this deal really has me mad. we got a letter a few week ago that said they were dropping our policy. i've paid my own insurance for years and years. when i got that letter it just hit me. because somebody in washington

decided i was too stupid to figure it out if my policy was right for me or not. i don't pay at lough attention to politics, but usually what gets decided in washington doesn't slap you in the face like this law has with me, he says. i've gone on health care.gov and used the estimators that direct you to. i could be going from a $25 00 deductible to something between $10,000 and $12 ,000 the way it looks to me. this is going to cost me a a lot more for something i don't even want. yet, if i could, i would like to read another short story from a couple in grant port on a marriage penalty that obamacare creates. she writes in, my husband and i met with the primary health

insurance carrier north dakota and we're told that our current coverage under the guideline of the affordable care act will cost us at least another $400 more a month and our deductible will increase from $2,000 to $12 ,000. and because we're married, we cannot choose individual plans which would be a lower deductible. in essence, we're being punished for being married. we are looking at paying more than $1500 a month in health care because we are only 61 years old and not eligible for medicare for another four years. $18,000 a year for health care? we were told that part of the problem is the provisions in the law is the provisions in the law require us choose a plan that has maternity benefits. how does this make sense for

seniors to be forced to buy coverage that does not apply to that? we agree the benefits shouldn't be not denied to people, but it's not fair to be forced to buy coverage that doesn't even apply. >> mr. president? >> senator from nebraska. >> mr. president, i rise today to speak on behalf of nearly 3,000 nebraska people who have contacted my office with their concerns about obamacare. their stories are, unfortunately, not unique. skyrocketing premiums, and cancellation of plans. they were promised they could keep. kurt from lincoln, nebraska, wrote to tell me he has seen his blue cross blue shield premium rise a shocking 300%. david, a father living in oklahoma -- omaha is facing a potential total increase of $16,000 a year

for his family's coverage. $16,000. another constituent will see his family's deductible more than double last year. he ask, how is this the affordable care act? an apology now won't help the hard working nebraska people who have lost or soon lose their current coverage. one constituent wrote, folks shouldn't need a second mortgage to pay for obamacare. i agree. i yield the floor. >> senator from wyoming. >> senator from wyoming -- i get called every weekend talk to people when i was them to weekend. and veteran's day and was in the target store and ran to a small business owner of a small electrics company he runs. he has four people that work with him. and somebody i operated on.

a former patient of mine. he told he was one of the 4 million americans who had gotten that letter he lost his insurance. he said, you know, the president promised that this would be easier to use than amazon.com. he said i can't get on. he said it would be cheaper than the cell phone bill. that's not the case. the president said if you like what you have you can keep it. clearly not the case. what is wrong? what is wrong with this? how can we fix it? i got it another letter from a rancher i need read from you, mr. president. he said, we're ranchers who buy our own health insurance. currently we pay $6 50 for an 80-20 policy. our maximum family out of pongt is $10,000 a year. we don't carry maternity insurance. she said, because we have completed our family. she said i'm 45 years old and she said i've had a history recollect my. so she said i recently called my insurance agent out of fear our policies would be canceled. well, he said it would be

canceled at the renewal time. she said that he told me that their policy didn't meet obama's requirement because of maternity coverage and they would have to choose a policy from the exchanges. remember, she's doesn't need or want or ever going to usma tenderty coverage. she said that the insurance agent quoted rate for a comparable policy of $1300 to $16 00 a month. the insurance agency told me they could take a bronze policy much less coverage than they currently have for $900. still $250 a month higher than they have to pay. but the out of pocket costs then was much higher. much more difficult for the family. she said, we're being forced out of a good policy, which we pay for with hard-earned money, and which we choose -- she said in a dangerous financial and health care situation with less coverage and which puts my husband and i, who

are proud of our sustainability on to what we consider the welfare rolls by needing a government subsidize to afford a plan that we don't want or need. she said, to say we are angry is an understatement. why is this happening? why can obama force me in to in? we feel helpless? what are we supposed to do? follow like sheep until we bankrupt or welfare recipients? mr. president, this is not what the president of the united states promised the american people. it's not what every democracy in this body who voted for the health care law promised the american people. the american people deserve better. they deserve to be able to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. none of that has come true under this health care law. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. >> senator from mississippi. >> mr. president, the more my constituents learn about the administration's so-called affordable care act, the more it

becomes clear that major changes should be considered. i recently heard from a constituent who had learned from accessing the obama administration's enrollment website that the plan with the lowest cost available to him has a $7,000 yearly deductible. with a $12 ,000 out-of-pocket maximum. and a premium of a little over $2,400 a month. nearly twice as much as he and his wife currently pay. this family is just one example of millions of americans who were suffering from sticker shock because of the cost of insurance plans on the president's new health insurance exchanges. it's made worse for those being rejected by the plans that they were told they could keep but

now cannot. it's clear we need to urge the administration to consider going back to the drawing board. we should get together too, here in the senate, and find common ground that makes better sense for the american people. >> thank you. >> senator from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. president. for the last three years, we've heard president obama and our friends on the left promise no guarantee that obamacare will make health insurance more affordable. but day after day we see costs going up for hard working families all across our country. not merely the rich families. not just the 1% but middle class americans. last week, i heard from national natalie, a wife and mother of three in charleston, south carolina. whose health insurance costs are seeing double digit increases.

mr. president, these are the faces of real people impacted by obamacare. they're not stats. they're not numbers. they don't get waivers. they're taxpayers. middle-income taxpayers. and obamacare is forcing many to choose between saving for college for these three little kids, and paying for health care. they shouldn't have to choose. obamacare and health care.gov are words we now know are synonymous with failure. i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> senator from arkansas. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to tell the story of a constituent that e-mailed me that is so representative of what -- thousand are going through in arkansas. this is mark from little rock. he wrote me after receiving his cancellation notice. here's what he had to say.

i recently received from blue cross blue shield that my individual health insurance policy will not be renewed after 2014 due obamacare. a lot i'm happy with this policy, i'm being forced out of it after 2014. the alternative options under the affordable care act are not very affordable. the closest alternative plan will increase my deductible 25% and increase my monthly premium 300% from $28 5 a month toed 50 a month. he goes on to note his current plan is blue cross, which she describes as not a bad apple provider app and he'll be required for the entire cost of the new plan out of pocket. these are all very serious problems with the program. certainly mark is not alone. >> mr. president? >> senator from north carolina. >> mr. president, i recently received a letter from kathleen

of fletcher, north carolina. who wrote me and described her experience with the affordable care act and the impact on her health care. i would like to read her letter versus to paraphrase it. i recently received a notice from blue cross blue shield of north carolina that my health insurance policy lhd be canceled effective january 1, 2014 because it does not meet all the mandate under obamacare. my doesn't people -- current premium is $4 18. the current replacement policy will cost $921 a month. i don't qualify for subsidizes. i've had continuous coverage with blue cross blue shield for many years. i like my current plan. i'm a 62-year-old woman and will not benefit from the mandatory additions to my plan such as maternity coverage, newborn and

pediatric care. in the past, having a continuous coverage provided a sense of security that my rates could not be raised based on a change in my health status. i experienced such a change in 2012. when i was diagnosed with breast cancer and went underwent seven month of treatment. now? my rates are more than doubling. the security is gone. not because of the change in my health but because of obamacare. when president obama was selling the frajt to the american people, he repeatedly promised if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan period. i'm writing to you today to tell you that i do like my plan and i want to keep it. i'm asking for fairness for myself and for the estimated millions of other americans whoever had their plan taken away by obamacare. sincerely, kathleen. mr. president, how do i answer

kathleen's letter? i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> senator from idaho. >> mr. president, every one of us can stand up here and tell thousands of stories. mine would come from gentleman by the name of clint w. who is a small business owner. received notice he wasn't grandfathered. was being canceled as of the first of the year. people yont went from 320 to $12 00. his deductible went from $5,000 to $7,000. he canceled the policy so he could save money for the future medical expenses. you know what struck me about this? and i didn't get a lot of letters from poor people. i didn't get a lot of letters or contacts from rich people. what my contacts came from was middle class america. which is what this country is. we are a middle class country by and large. with a small sliver of rich

people at end and some people that are deserving of our help at the other end. but primarily effected by this are the middle class of america. now my good friend on the ore side try to claim they're the party that represents the middle class of america. i don't know if they're getting the same letters that we are, but if they are, they realize they've done something horrible. they didn't do a plan here to help this avenge which the republican party has helped with. what they have done is a social experiment that is collectivism or socialism at its worst. it's on it's a failure. these things don't work. the american people over 200 years built up a successful insurance system and health care system in america and in three years this thing has been destroyed. there's 44 days left to make this thing work. and if this -- if this isn't done right they're going to be in collapse come

january 1st. and the american people are going to know exactly who caused it. thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president? >> senator from florida. >> mr. president, one of the things that haven't been discussed the impact obamacare is having on medicare. being from florida we have a significant number of medicare beneficiary and particular people under something called medicare advantage, which is the only program in medicare where seniors goat choose their coverage, the type of coverage they want. my mom is a medicare advantage patient. i wanted to read briefly a letter i received from a constituent of mine named michelle who lives in florida. which is northwest florida. it's a letter she received regarding her existing doctors. she got a letter from one of her providers that talks about the changes that are -- let me read you the e-mail. she sent this attachment. here is a copy i received from the white wilson medical group. as i indicated in my

conversation sacred heart might be affected. i have multiple chronic conditions that require treatment and consultations through several doctors. three of my doctors are with white wilson three with sacred heard. my rheumatologist is a sacred heart. and the only rheumatologist. i'm legally blind so transport to another doctor out of town is difficult and expensive. of the plans that are available that allow me to keep my doctor the annual out of pocket is significantly higher as well as the copayment and deductible for patient visit. my choice has been reduced to finding all new doctors or enrolling in a different medicare slang plan which will cost more. i wanted the senator to be aware that medicare clients are experiencing negative consequences from aca as well. since that time, by the way,