[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3397-S3400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 601, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 601) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be divided and controlled in the usual form.
  Mrs. BOXER. While we discuss how we are going to proceed, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls 
be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Military Sexual Assault

  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the sexual assault 
crisis that is facing our military and the need to act immediately to 
address this problem.
  Last week, the Department of Defense released a report estimating 
that over 26,000 servicemembers--and this includes men and women--were 
sexually assaulted in 2012, and this is up from approximately 19,000 in 
2010. This is astounding and totally unacceptable.
  Even more alarming is the fact the number of cases actually reported 
remains just a fraction of the total. Only 13 percent of these cases 
are actually reported. Let me repeat that: Only 13 percent of assaults 
were actually reported in 2012.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee and a Senator from North 
Carolina, home to the third largest military population in the country, 
I find these statistics appalling. The brave servicemembers who put 
their lives on the line should not have to worry about their personal 
safety on bases in the United States and around the world. The men and 
women who are already tasked with so much, who have vowed to serve and 
protect our country, should feel they are afforded the same protection 
in return, but they are not.
  The stories I hear from our female servicemembers are astounding. One 
woman marine was raped by an acquaintance, her fellow marine, in her 
barracks one night. No one heard her cries for help. The next day she 
did report the assault to her chain of command. An investigation was 
launched from there. While that investigation was underway, from June 
to January, she was heavily alienated by her peers. She was called 
derogatory names, and her sergeant major even told her the assault was 
her fault because she must have given her rapist a reason to think it 
was OK. In the end the official investigation found her claim was 
``unfounded'' because there were no witnesses, and she did not know at 
the time she should have gone to the hospital and had a rape kit 
analysis done.
  Other servicemembers--women who have served on forward operating 
bases in Afghanistan--have told me they limit their water intake 
throughout the day so they do not have to use the latrines in the 
middle of the night and by doing so put themselves at further risk of 
being assaulted. No one should ever have to deal with those kinds of 
concerns, especially when they are already putting their lives on the 
line to protect our Nation.
  The Department of Defense has reported that half of all 
servicemembers who were victims of sexual assault say they are actually 
afraid to report out of fear of retaliation or that their 
confidentiality will not be maintained. Others believe reporting the 
crime will jeopardize their military career. They fear they would not 
receive opportunities for advancement--opportunities they have earned 
through service to our country.
  This is just totally unacceptable. The men and women of our Armed 
Forces deserve far more. We have to deal with this problem once and for 
all, and I am encouraged the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 
includes specific directives to reduce the alarming number of assaults 
that take place and often go unreported.
  Specifically, these provisions include independent review boards to 
examine how sexual assault cases are handled, the creation of a special 
victims unit, ensuring convicted offenders are permanently barred from 
the military, improving how the military collects data on this topic, 
and several other needed provisions.
  During his confirmation process, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel 
said he was committed to fully implementing these directives, and I 
urge Secretary Hagel to report to Congress on the progress made as 
swiftly as possible. I still believe Congress should and must do more. 
The steps I believe we should consider are, first, the creation of a 
special victims counsel that would include advocates who can support 
victims and help them report incidents of sexual assault.
  As I mentioned, too many victims do not come forward because they are 
either afraid of retaliation, they do not believe their confidentiality 
will be maintained, or they do not have faith in the military justice 
system. As in the case of the woman I described who had been raped, she 
did not know she should have had an analysis of rape actually done. 
These victims advocates would have given her that advice.
  Second, we are fortunate in the Senate to have a number of former 
prosecutors engaged on this issue. Over the last 20 years, they and 
their colleagues have made great strides in handling sexual assault 
cases in the civilian world, and I believe we should take the lessons 
learned from that process to improve the military's response--lessons 
including proper training for tackling evidentiary issues and 
addressing victims' needs.
  Third, commanding officers can overturn verdicts of jury trials, as 
happened in the Air Force earlier this year. These are commanding 
officers, they are not appellate judges; they are not legally trained. 
They should not have the authority to overturn a verdict. I believe we 
should review that authority as it applies to sexual assault cases, 
something Defense Secretary Hagel has indicated should be a priority.
  Finally, we need to explore whether the present Uniform Code of 
Military Justice is up to the task of addressing the problem of sexual 
assault. I believe both the Armed Forces and the cause of justice would 
be well served by a vigorous debate in Congress on whether sexual 
assault cases can be effectively handled within the chain of command or 
whether this process needs to occur independently. Significant 
overhauls of the Uniform Code of Military Justice should not be 
approached lightly, but we owe it to our servicemembers to think 
outside the box and consider all possibilities.
  These men and women of our military cannot wait another day, and they 
should not have to wait another day for this problem to be addressed. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in taking concrete steps to address this 
issue and to

[[Page S3398]]

protect the men and women who sacrifice so much for us each and every 
day.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senators Boxer and Vitter have worked hard 
for days now to come up with a finite list of amendments to complete 
work on this very important bill, the Water Resources Development Act. 
In just a minute I am going to ask consent that we postpone the vote 
scheduled for 12 today until 2:30. We will come back in session, I 
hope, at 2:15 today. When we come back in session I want Chairman Boxer 
to report to the Senate if they have been able to work out an agreement 
between the two of them. If they have, I want her to ask the consent 
and when she asks that consent, if there is an agreement, we will work 
through a number of amendments they have come up with to complete work 
on this bill.
  If there is no agreement at 2:15 when she comes in, then we will vote 
at 2:30 on cloture. I hope that is not necessary. But I am not going to 
have any ``I'm objecting on behalf of somebody else.'' If it is not 
done, I don't care who objects, we are going to move to cloture. That 
is what I believe should be done.
  It is a lot of work to get this agreement. I think tentatively it has 
been done. We know how things work; one Senator can block all this. I 
hope that is not the case. I know the block will not come from our 
side. Senator Boxer has the complete confidence of all members of our 
conference. They recognize that she has worked hard on this and has 
done the right thing--as she always does.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture 
on S. 601 be moved to 2:30 p.m.
  I will ask, while she is on the floor, the Senator from California, 
the chairman of the committee, is there anything I have missed in my 
statement?
  Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will yield, through the Chair, I think he 
has covered it. Basically what I want to make sure people know as they 
go to their various conference meetings this afternoon is that we have 
a very fair list. I think it probably has more Republican amendments 
than Democratic amendments. We have done everything to reach an 
agreement.
  But I also want to support my leader. If there is objection to this 
important list of amendments, we will go straight to cloture. I want 
everyone to understand, without this bill there will be no more water 
infrastructure projects because there is no path forward. Since we 
ended earmarks, this is the one bill that will make sure there is a 
path forward. Without water infrastructure earmarks you cannot keep 
commerce moving at the ports, you can't do flood control, you can't 
restore the Everglades or the Chesapeake. I strongly support what my 
leader is doing but I also hope colleagues will please allow us to move 
forward, make the cloture vote unnecessary. But we are going to have 
that cloture vote, if necessary, at 2:30.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on S. 601 be moved to 2:30 p.m. this afternoon; that if cloture 
is invoked, it will be considered as having been invoked at 12 noon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                               The Budget

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the continuing 
efforts by a minority of this body to block a Federal budget by 
blocking a conference with the House to find compromise. I spoke about 
this one week ago, but the stalemate continues.
  Today there was an announcement that in my Commonwealth, 90,000 
civilian Department of Defense employees and hundreds of thousands of 
DOD civilians nationally will be furloughed for 11 days between now and 
the end of the year. This furlough announcement--along with ample other 
evidence we have discussed in this body in the last few weeks--
demonstrates that budgetary gridlock, budgetary indecision, and 
budgetary stalling has real-life consequences.
  I rise to implore my Senate colleagues to do what is right and to do 
the job the American public has sent us here to do. This is not only 
about budgets, it is also about something even bigger than budgets. It 
is about something fundamental to the entire system of government we 
have; that is, the willingness to work together to find common ground 
and find solutions.
  I truly view this budgetary stalemate as an attack on compromise. We 
cannot survive as a Senate or as a Congress or as a nation without 
finding common ground.
  I know the Presiding Officer, like me, was out on the campaign trail 
a lot in 2012. I heard a repeated critique of this body during the 
campaign. I heard that this body was unable to produce a budget since 
2009. There were some arguments back and forth about whether that was 
technically accurate. As I looked at it as a candidate, it was at least 
clear that a normal budgetary order in accordance with the Budget Act 
of 1974 had not been followed for a number of years.
  As a candidate and citizen of the Commonwealth and country, I said: 
If I have the opportunity to serve in this body, I am going to work 
with my colleagues to make sure we do the public's business in the way 
that was contemplated in that statute.
  Although I didn't ask, I was assigned to be on the Senate Budget 
Committee as soon as I got to this body. I immediately made clear--
along with many other Members, both newcomers and Members who had been 
on the committee for a while, including the new committee chair, 
Senator Murray--that this body needed to return to normal budgetary 
procedures.
  It seemed as though over the past few years, Congress tried a lot of 
other things--supercommittees, sequesters, and continuing resolutions--
none of which were working to do the Nation's fiscal business. Along 
with many Senators of both parties, I said the right strategy for us is 
to return to normal budgetary procedure. We can make it work just as 
Congresses in the past have made it work.
  I entered the body on January 3--more than 4 months ago--with the 
profound belief that we needed to embrace the normal procedures about 
doing a budget. Those normal procedures are known to all. People read 
in textbooks about how bills become laws. Essentially, in the spring 
the Senate and House, under normal procedure, would each pass a budget. 
Those budget bills would likely be significantly different.
  Even when the parties controlling the two Houses are the same, the 
two House budgets are different. There is then some effort to find a 
compromise between the two differing versions often through use of a 
conference committee. Once that compromise is found, then that 
compromise is sent back to each House for a vote, and it then becomes 
the guidance that is used by the Appropriations Committee to write the 
bill's appropriating dollars for the next fiscal year. That is the 
normal process, and it is the way Congress has operated under both 
parties, under split Houses for many years.
  Here is the good news: The Senate Budget Committee embraced this 
challenge. Chairman Murray worked with staff and members of the 
committee to create a draft budget, and then early in mid-March we had 
robust committee hearings, a full debate, and a full amendment process 
about a Senate budget.
  In March the committee ultimately considered the chairman's mark for 
13 hours, and we had a full amendment process. We voted on over 30 
amendments, the majority of which were made by Republican members of 
the committee. We debated and voted on those amendments. I sat there 
and voted for a number of the Republican amendments to the budget that 
then became part of the ultimate committee product.
  Republican members offered numerous amendments. In response to an 
amendment offered by a Republican member, I remember my colleague from 
Maine, Senator King, asking: If I vote for your amendment, are you 
going to vote for this committee budget? The answer was given in 
public.
  The answer was: No. I want you to vote for my amendment, but I am 
still

[[Page S3399]]

going to vote against the budget. I am going to vote against it because 
the House will produce a Republican budget, the Senate will produce a 
Democratic budget, and then we can get those two budgets together and 
find compromise going forward.
  That was what was said when we met as a Budget Committee. At the end 
of the day, the Senate Budget Committee passed that budget in mid-
March, and passed it without a single Republican vote. The budget was 
passed and forwarded to the Senate floor.
  I know the Presiding Officer remembers this, as it is emblazoned upon 
all of our memories. We took the budget to the Senate floor in late 
March. The budget was the subject of floor activity in this body for 
39\1/2\ hours. We don't do a lot around here for 39\1/2\ hours, but the 
budget was subject to floor activity and numerous speeches by Senators, 
just like me, over the course of that week.
  The entire body then considered, debated, and voted on nearly 110 
amendments to the budget. We passed 77 of the amendments. The 
amendments that were passed were offered by both Democrats and 
Republicans. I remember voting for many of the Republican amendments 
that then became part of the ultimate budget bill. This amendment 
activity--110 amendments, 77 passing--is significantly greater than has 
been the norm in earlier Senate deliberations.
  At 5 a.m. on the morning of Saturday, March 23, the Senate passed its 
first budget in 4 years. Not a single Republican voted to support that 
budget even though many of their amendments had been included either in 
the committee or in the floor amendment process we had during those 
hours in late March.
  I have done a lot of budgets as a mayor and as a Governor. Along with 
my colleagues on the Budget Committee, I worked hard in the committee 
and on the floor. My staff--as well as the Senate Budget Committee 
staff and the staffers of all the members on that committee--also 
worked hard on this bill. I am proud we passed a budget on March 23, 
and I believe firmly if that budget were implemented today, without 
changing one apostrophe, comma, or punctuation mark, it would do a 
number of things: It would help create jobs, it would help the economy, 
and it would deal with our debt and deficit in a fiscally responsible 
way.

  I also understood this: that the Senate budget we passed was not the 
final product. It was the Senate's best effort to find a budget that 
would move our economy and our country forward. We knew that budget 
would be placed in a conference with the House budget. The House passed 
their budget the same week. We knew there would have to be discussion 
and compromise in an effort to find common ground, but we did our best 
version and the House, I assume, feels as though they did their very 
best version.
  The two budgets are very different. I deeply believe the Senate 
budget is superior and the American people, watching the discussions 
between the two Houses and comparing them, would reach the same 
conclusion. But at the very least I know this: The American public are 
entitled to see that debate and discussion. They are entitled to look 
at the House budget and look at the Senate budget and compare them, 
just as the conferees would be comparing. They are entitled to watch 
that process of dialog and debate and, hopefully, compromise. That is, 
in fact, what they have sent us here to do, and that is what Congresses 
have done for many years and decades.
  The process of a budget conference would not be an easy one because 
the two budgets are quite different, but there is no substitute for 
dialog and compromise. In fact, I think all of us in this body know 
dialog and compromise at its core are what we are about here.
  When the Framers of our Constitution, in article I, set up a 
legislative branch with two Houses--a bicameral branch--and required 
that most items to pass through Congress would have to go through both 
branches, they understood very well what they were doing. They were 
creating a system of checks and balances that required dialog and 
listening and compromise in order to do good for the benefit of the 
Nation. At our very root, a bicameral legislature, existing in a system 
of checks and balances, with a judiciary and an executive branch, 
depends upon public servants who are willing to find common ground.
  Well, since March 23--nearly 7 weeks--a small minority of Senators, 
often one at a time, has done all it can to block a budget conference 
from even beginning and, therefore, to block compromise. As we have 
taken steps to begin a budget conference with the House leadership to 
put these two budgets together and find compromise, again and again 
individual Senators have stood on the floor of this body and, in my 
view, abused the UC rules to block a conference from even beginning. 
Even as budgetary indecision and sequester are leading to furloughs, 
they have blocked a conference from even beginning. Even as we are 
seeing reductions in the number of people who are able to receive Meals 
On Wheels or children in Head Start, they have abused Senate rules to 
block a budget conference from even beginning.
  I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We are working on the 
Defense authorization bill now, and we have the service chiefs come in 
and talk to us every day about the challenges they are facing, about 
the degraded readiness. One-third of our air combat command units are 
standing down because of these budgetary challenges. We hear the steady 
drumbeat, day in and day out, about degradation in readiness and 
challenges to our modernization programs. We had a hearing about the 
Marine Corps this morning. Yet even as we are hearing this testimony in 
hearings in the morning and in the afternoon, Members come to this 
floor and stand and try to block a budget conference from even 
beginning.
  This is very serious. When we are talking about the readiness of our 
military who are facing challenges--just pick up today's paper and read 
headlines about Syria or North Korea or Iran--as we are facing 
continuing challenges in Afghanistan, to have Members in this body 
block efforts to find compromise is very chilling.
  Let's be clear about what this is. This is not just an attack on the 
budget itself, because those who want to attack the budget voted 
against it in committee. Those who didn't like the budget had a chance 
and voted against it on the floor. Even in the event a conference 
committee would produce a budget compromise, that compromise would come 
back and those who didn't like that budget would have a chance to vote 
against it again. That is how we attack a budget. That is how we 
express disagreement with a budget. A Member stands on the floor of 
this body and votes against it. The Members have had a chance to do 
that in committee and on the floor and they will have a chance to do it 
again at the end of the conference process.
  The effort that has been underway in this body since March 23 is not 
fundamentally an attack on budgets, it is an attack on the whole notion 
of compromise. To block a conference committee from beginning so House 
and Senate conferees can sit down and listen to each other and try to 
iron out their differences is fundamentally an attack on compromise. We 
have seen that too much in this body. Anyone in this room knows that, 
if a person is not a hermit, if a person is a member of a family or a 
member of a parish council or a member of the PTA or part of an 
organizing group of a Little League, if a person has a business or if a 
person is elected to a school board or to the Senate--everybody knows 
if we participate in life, it has to be about compromise. Our Founders 
knew it and they created a system that relies upon compromise.
  What we have seen in this body since March 23, after people had a 
full opportunity to amend and vote on a budget, is not about a budget, 
it is an attack on compromise.
  I conclude by saying that just as no family can succeed without 
compromise, just as no community, just as no business, just as no 
school board, just as no group of people can succeed without 
compromise, Congress, the Senate, and our Nation cannot succeed without 
a spirit of compromise.
  So I implore and I ask my colleagues to rethink the path they are on, 
to stand down in this attack upon compromise, to allow the budget to go 
to conference so we can do the tough work of listening to each other 
and finding common ground for the good of the American people.

[[Page S3400]]

  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________