[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 153 (Wednesday, October 30, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7639-S7647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF ALAN F. ESTEVEZ TO BE A PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 
                               OF DEFENSE

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Alan F. 
Estevez, of the District of Columbia, to be a Principal Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form 
prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                           Millett Nomination

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are debating whether the Senate is 
going to be allowed to vote on the confirmation of Patricia Millett. 
She is nominated to fill the vacancy that our current Chief Justice 
John Roberts previously occupied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
DC Circuit.
  If she is confirmed, as of course she should be, she will be only the 
sixth woman to serve on the DC Circuit in its more than 120-year 
history. She is an extraordinary nominee. She has impeccable 
credentials for this important appellate court.
  I, like so many others across this country, hope that her 
confirmation is not going to suffer from the partisanship and gridlock 
that consumed Congress earlier this month.
  Ms. Millett was born in Dexter, ME and now calls Virginia home, but 
growing up she lived in Kansas, Virginia, Ohio, and Illinois. She 
earned her undergraduate degree, summa cum laude, from the University 
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and her law degree, magna cum laude, 
from Harvard Law School. She served as a law clerk for Judge Thomas 
Tang on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Phoenix, AZ.
  Patricia Millett has had a brilliant legal career. She has argued 32 
cases before the Supreme Court. Until recently, she held the record for 
the most Supreme Court arguments by a woman attorney before the court. 
She has argued dozens of cases in the Federal courts of appeal. She has 
briefed numerous cases in the Supreme Court and also appellate courts 
across the Nation.
  Ms. Millett has extensive experience on issues that come before the 
D.C. Circuit. She served for 15 years in the U.S. Department of Justice 
in both Democratic and Republican administrations. She worked for 4 
years on the appellate staff of the civil division. She argued cases in 
Federal and State appellate courts, including the successful 
constitutional defense of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and 
the inclusion of ``In God We Trust'' on Federal currency.
  She spent over a decade in the Solicitor General's office. Her 
stellar reputation led a bipartisan group of seven former Solicitors 
General to praise her as ``unfailingly fairminded.''
  In 2004, Republican Attorney General John Ashcroft awarded Ms. 
Millett the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award for 
representing the interest of the United States before the Supreme 
Court.
  Since 2007, she has led the Supreme Court practice in the Washington, 
DC, office of Akin Gump. Her work in private practice spans commercial 
litigation, administrative law, constitutional matters, statutory 
construction, and even criminal appeals. She has represented Army 
reservists and business interests, including the Chamber of Commerce as 
well as civil rights plaintiffs.
  Ms. Millett is a nominee with unquestionable integrity and character. 
She has committed herself to pro bono work. She has done this 
throughout her career. She has also engaged in some very significant 
community service. She helps the neediest among us, volunteering 
through her church to prepare meals for the homeless and serving 
regularly as an overnight monitor at a local shelter. Twenty years 
after serving as a law clerk in Arizona, Patricia Millet will return 
next summer with her family for a mission trip with the White Mountain 
Apache tribe in Fort Apache, AZ.
  It is interesting that in a press conference I held yesterday when we 
had spouses of people in the military, we talked about another aspect 
of her career. Her husband is now a retired Navy reservist, but as a 
military spouse when he was called up, Ms. Millett has a personal 
understanding of the sacrifice we ask of our servicemembers and their 
families.
  At the very height of her legal career, her husband was called on to 
deploy as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Of course he left, as those 
who are called to serve do, but she was left at home with two young 
children. And what did she do? She did what spouses all over this 
country do. She filled the role of both parents at home while her 
husband served in the Navy overseas.
  In fact, just the other day the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution 
to honor families like Ms. Millett's family. We commemorate October 26 
as the Day of the Deployed.
  Not only is she committed to her own military family, she has helped 
to secure employment protections for members of our National Guard and 
Reserve through her pro bono legal work.
  I know the distinguished Presiding Officer is concerned about the 
Guard and Reserve in his State of Massachusetts as I am in my State of 
Vermont. Ms. Millet also knows the strains that they face. In a case 
decided by the Supreme Court in 2011, Ms. Millett represented an Army 
reservist who was fired, in part, because some of his coworkers who 
stayed at home didn't like his military absences. She stood up for 
every Guard member and every reservist in Vermont or Massachusetts or 
any other State in this country. The successful arguments Ms. Millett 
helped craft have made it easier for all members of our Reserve and 
National Guard to protect their right under the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
  Through her legal work, she has earned broad bipartisan support. This 
includes the support of Peter Keisler, Carter Phillips, Kenneth Starr, 
Ted Olson, Paul Clement, and a bipartisan group of 110 appellate 
practitioners, as well as 37 Deputy Solicitors General and assistants 
to the Solicitor General from both Republican and Democratic 
administrations.
  She is supported by both the national president of the National 
Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury; the Deputy Commissioner of 
the New York Police Department, Douglas Maynard; the President of the 
National Bar Association, John Page; and Andrea Carlise, the current 
President of the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations. Ms. 
Millet has the support of the military community including Major 
General Clark H. McNair, Jr., U.S. Army, Retired; Michael Hall, Command 
Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, Retired; Blue Star Families; and the Gallant 
Few.
  Based on Ms. Millett's advocacy in private practice, she has the 
support of former executive vice president at the Chamber of Commerce 
Litigation Center, Robin Conrad, who declares that Ms. Millett is:

     a non-ideological, non-partisan, `lawyer's lawyer,' who has 
     proven herself to be a trusted advisor to business with a 
     practical appreciation of the challenges faced by businesses, 
     large and small. She is open-minded, fair, even-tempered and 
     superbly qualified to serve on the District of Columbia 
     Circuit.

  In fact, the list is so long, I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  If a President was to be given a textbook about the type of nominee 
to send to the Senate, or if Senators were given a textbook of the type 
of person to confirm, this would be the golden standard right here. We 
should not even be having this debate. She should have been confirmed 
unanimously weeks ago. She is the kind of nominee we should support 
because hers is a great American story of dedication, diligence, 
patriotism, and extraordinary professional ability.

[[Page S7640]]

  I hope nobody is going to get involved in partisan politics and 
choose to filibuster her nomination. She deserves to be confirmed.
  I understand that some Republicans have newfound concerns about the 
number of judges on the D.C. Circuit. During the Bush administration, 
Senate Republicans voted unanimously to fill four vacancies on the D.C. 
Circuit--giving the court a total of 11 judges in active service. Today 
there are only eight judges on the court. What has changed? It is not 
the caseload--that has remained fairly constant over the past 10 years. 
The only thing that has changed is the party of the President 
nominating judges to the court.
  Incidentally, a Republican President nominated a man named John 
Roberts to the seat Ms. Millett has now been nominated to. When his 
nomination came up for a vote on the Senate floor, as I recall, all 
Democrats and all Republicans supported him for that seat. While 
Democrats did not agree with him philosophically on all issues, we knew 
he was highly qualified, and he was confirmed.
  I don't think it is any stretch to say she is just as qualified. It 
is the same seat, but the only difference is it is a Democratic 
President who has nominated her. The standards should be the same. The 
same standards that allowed John Roberts to be confirmed to that seat 
with a Republican President are the same standards that should allow 
her to be confirmed to the seat with a Democratic President. She should 
be confirmed.
  I want to talk about the caseload. The caseload was 121 pending 
appeals per active judge when President Bush was in office. The 
Republican-controlled Senate had no problem in confirming the 11th 
judge to that court.
  Now, when the caseload is 185 pending appeals per active judge 
instead of 121 with a Democratic President, we are told: Gosh, we have 
to cut back. We have too many judges. It doesn't pass the giggle 
test. The fact is that this is what Republicans said. They voted for 
nominees to fill these 11 seats. Now, when three of those seats are 
vacant and we are trying to fill one--the same one John Roberts had--
some are saying maybe we have too many judges. Back then we had 121 
appeals pending per active judge and now we have 185. No matter how we 
do it, the issue simply comes down to, is this nominee qualified?

  I have had the great privilege of serving in this body for almost 40 
years. I have voted on thousands of judges nominated by both 
Republicans and Democrats. I voted to confirm the vast majority of them 
whether we had a Republican President or a Democratic President. 
Thinking back through all of those thousands of judges, I have a hard 
time finding even a handful who were as well qualified as this woman is 
or where there is as much of a need to have somebody in there.
  This is important. This is not only important on the merits--and on 
the merits it is an easy case--but there should be no delay based on 
politics. At a time when the American people are looking at the 
Congress and saying: What are you people doing--first the shutdown and 
then other things--we should not allow one more example that will bring 
the scorn of the American people toward this great body by saying no to 
somebody when every single person, no matter what their politics are 
and no matter what part of the country they are from, knows how 
qualified she is.
  I was thinking yesterday about when the group representing spouses in 
the military spoke about what she did to maintain her legal career but 
first and foremost to take care of her family while her husband was 
abroad and even then to do such things as help provide food to food 
kitchens for those less able and less fortunate. When we see a 
background such as this, we think it is too good to be true, but in 
this case it is all true. So let's confirm her.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Letters Received for Patricia Millett

       June 24, 2013--Robin Conrad, Former Executive Vice 
     President, National Chamber Litigation Center, Chamber of 
     Commerce
       July 2, 2013--Independent Group of Private Attorneys, Law 
     Professors, and Former Judges
       July 2, 2013--Jefferson Keel, President, National Congress 
     of American Indians
       July 3, 2013--Barbara Arnwine, President and Executive 
     Director, and Jon Greenbaum, Chief Counsel and Senior Deputy 
     Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
       July 3, 2013--Stuart Bowen, Jr.
       July 3, 2013--Solicitors General at the Department of 
     Justice, 1989-2009
       July 3, 2013--Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court Counsel, 
     National Association of Attorneys General
       July 3, 2013--Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, State and 
     Local Legal Center
       July 8, 2013--Jessica Adler, President, Women's Bar 
     Association of the District of Columbia
       July 8, 2013--Silvia Burley, Chairperson, California Valley 
     Miwok Tribe
       July 8, 2013--Major General Clark H. McNair, Jr., U.S. 
     Army, Retired
       July 8, 2013--Leonard Forsman, Chairman, Tribal Council of 
     the Suquamish Tribe
       July 8, 2013--Lilly Ledbetter
       July 8, 2013--Judge Timothy Lewis, Former Federal Judge of 
     the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
       July 8, 2013--Carter Phillips and Peter Keisler, Attorneys
       July 8, 2013--Douglass B. Maynard, Deputy Commissioner, 
     NYPD
       July 9, 2013--Chuck Canterbury, National President, 
     National Fraternal Order of Police
       July 9, 2013--David Diaz, Co-Chair, Endorsements Committee 
     of the Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia
       July 9, 2013--37 Assistant, Deputy, and Acting Solicitors 
     General
       July 9, 2013--Ofelia L. Calderon, President, Hispanic Bar 
     Association of the Commonwealth of Virginia
       July 9, 2013--Nancy Duff Campbell and Marcia D. 
     Greenberger, Co-Presidents, National Women's Law Center
       July 9, 2013--Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, Police 
     Executive Research Forum
       July 9, 2013--Wade Henderson, President, and Nancy Zirkin, 
     Executive Vice President, The Leadership Conference on Civil 
     and Human Rights
       July 10, 2013--John Page, President, National Bar 
     Association
       July 11, 2013--John E. Echohawk, Executive Director, Native 
     American Rights Fund
       July 17, 2013--Maryse Allen, President, Virginia Women 
     Attorneys Association
       July 17, 2013--Gene Rossi, Assistant U.S. Attorney and 
     Chief of the Specials Unit, Eastern District of Virginia
       July 17, 2013--Douglas Kendall, President, and Judith 
     Schaeffer, Vice President, Constitutional Accountability 
     Center
       July 23, 2013--Mary Grace A. O'Malley, Attorney
       July 23, 2013--Catherine M. Reese, Attorney
       September 11, 2013--Andrea Carlise, President, National 
     Conference of Women's Bar Associations
       September 29, 2013--Matthew Crotty, U.S. Army and National 
     Guard Veteran
       September 30, 2013--Karl Monger, Major, Retired U.S. Army 
     Reserves, and Executive Director, GallantFew, Inc.
       October 1, 2013--Michael Hall, Retired from the U.S. Army 
     after 31 years of active duty, Command Sergeant Major, 
     Retired U.S. Army
       October 4, 2013--Karen Kelly, wife of General John F. 
     Kelly, the Commander of the United States Southern Command

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate right now is considering 
the Estevez nomination, and the time is equally divided between both 
sides.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of 
a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Alan F. Estevez, of the District of Columbia, to be a 
     Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.
         Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Robert Menendez, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Jack Reed, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Debbie Stabenow, Christopher 
           Murphy, Patty Murray, Tom Harkin, John D. Rockefeller 
           IV, Bill Nelson, Benjamin L. Cardin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.

[[Page S7641]]

  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Alan F. Estevez, of the District of Columbia, to be a 
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 91, the nays are 8. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 15 of the 113th Congress, there 
will now be up to 8 hours of postcloture consideration on the 
nomination equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon 
today all postcloture time on the Estevez nomination be yielded back 
and the Senate proceed to a vote on the nomination without intervening 
action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no 
further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in 
the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BEGICH. For the information of all Senators, we expect a voice 
vote on the Estevez confirmation. The next vote in order will be 
cloture on the Archuleta nomination. Senators should expect a rollcall 
vote at noon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know we are in the postcloture time on 
the Estevez nomination. I wanted to explain why it was necessary for me 
to put a hold on this nomination this last March. This is a very 
important position, the second ranking acquisition official at the 
Department of Defense.
  Actually my objection does not have anything to do with Mr. Estevez 
personally, who I trust will do an admirable job in this very important 
position. But the reason I put a hold on the nomination was so I could 
try to get the attention of the Department of Defense to protest the 
Department's business relations with a notorious Russian arms dealer. 
For the last few years, the Pentagon has been buying helicopters, Mi-17 
helicopters, from Rosoboronexport, a Russian arms dealer, to supply the 
Afghan military. But this is the arms dealer, of course, who is 
supplying Bashar al-Assad with the weapons he is using in Syria in that 
civil war to kill his own innocent civilian population.
  The Pentagon itself has confirmed that Bashar al-Assad security 
forces have used these very same Russian-made weapons to massacre an 
untold number of civilians. Yet the Department of Defense has 
stubbornly refused--I do not think arrogant is too strong a word--
stubbornly and arrogantly refused to end its relationship with Assad's 
personal arms supplier.
  In fact, since 2011, the Pentagon has given more than $1 billion--$1 
billion--to Rosoboronexport in no-bid contracts. It is planning to 
spend another $345 million on the company's Mi-17 helicopters in 2014.
  Let me be clear. By purchasing Mi-17s from Rosoboronexport, our own 
Department of Defense is effectively subsidizing the mass murder of 
Syrian civilians, which is, by all accounts, simply outrageous.
  To make matters worse, the Mi-17 program is apparently plagued by 
internal corruption. According to published news reports, there are at 
least two separate ongoing criminal investigations into the U.S. Army 
office that manages the procurement and sustainment contracts for the 
Mi-17s. Last month, I joined 31 of my congressional colleagues in a 
bipartisan letter to the Attorney General of the United States, urging 
him to utilize all available resources to support these criminal 
investigations.
  For that matter, I have also joined with 12 of my Senate colleagues 
in a bipartisan letter to General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, asking him for assurances that its 
contracts with Rosoboronexport are not being abused by corrupt Russian 
officials.
  Americans have good reason to be concerned. It is their tax dollars 
that are being used to buy these helicopters from Russia for the Afghan 
military.
  Russia has a particularly bad track record. They received an abysmal 
grade of D-minus in Transparency International's latest Government 
Defence Anti-Corruption Index. In 2011, Russia's chief military 
prosecutor publicly stated that 20 percent of his country's annual 
military equipment budget is being stolen by corrupt officials and 
contractors. One independent watchdog believes that figure could be as 
high as 40 percent.
  In short, there are plenty of legitimate reasons and questions about 
why American tax dollars are going to Rosoboronexport. On a per-
aircraft basis, the U.S. Army is paying Rosoboronexport more than 
double what the Russian military itself is paying to buy nearly 
identical helicopters. About 1 year ago, I convinced the Pentagon to 
conduct a formal audit of the Army's 2011 no-bid contract. 
Unfortunately, that audit went nowhere due to persistent stonewalling 
by--you guessed it--Rosoboronexport.
  In other words, we still have a lot of questions and the Pentagon and 
Rosoboronexport still owe us a lot of answers which we don't yet have. 
One question is what prompted the Department of Defense to buy Russian 
helicopters in the first place? To my knowledge, there are plenty of 
American manufacturers of helicopters that would be anxious to compete 
for this no-bid contract. By relying upon Moscow to supply the Afghan 
military with essential equipment, we have given the Kremlin 
significant leverage over U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, equipping the 
Afghans with Russian helicopters will make it virtually impossible to 
achieve any real level of interoperability between the U.S. and Afghan 
helicopter fleets.
  The Department of Defense has repeatedly and disingenuously claimed 
that a 2010 study of Afghanistan's helicopter requirements shows the 
necessity of buying Mi-17 helicopters from Russia. In fact, the 
unclassified portion of that study found that the ideal aircraft for 
the Afghan military was a particular American-made helicopter.
  Why are we buying Russian helicopters when there are American 
manufacturers that can meet that very same requirement? It makes no 
sense whatsoever, and the Department of Defense has steadfastly refused 
to cooperate with reasonable inquiries into why in the world they 
continue to persist along this pathway.
  The reality is the Department of Defense has plenty of alternatives 
to buying Mi-17s from Russia, but for some reason or reasons known only 
to them, they steadfastly refuse to consider any of these alternatives. 
The most sensible and cost-effective alternative would involve keeping 
many of the Mi-

[[Page S7642]]

17s the Afghans already have on hand and life-extending them, instead 
of retiring them early, which is what is happening now. In other words, 
Mi-17s that the Afghans already have are being retired early rather 
than being life-extended because of the Pentagon's stubborn insistence 
on buying new ones to replace these existing helicopters. In fact, a 
majority of the Mi-17s the Afghan military already has have more than 
half of their useful lifetime left in terms of flight hours, and they 
are being retired early so the Pentagon can buy these new helicopters 
to replace them.
  It makes no sense whatsoever, particularly at a time when I know we 
are all concerned about our defense expenditures and making sure the 
Defense Department has the resources they need in order to keep America 
safe and maintain our commitments around the world. Why would the 
Defense Department be acting so irresponsibly as they are in the 
purchase of these Mi-17 helicopters?
  While I don't have any personal objection to the nomination of Mr. 
Alan Estevez, I could not support cloture on the nomination.
  Along with my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am 
going to do everything I can to shine a bright light on the Pentagon's 
troubling relationship with a Russian arms dealer, which is also Bashar 
al-Assad's arms dealer from which he purchases weapons to kill innocent 
civilians in Syria. What reasonable person wouldn't be troubled by this 
tangled relationship?
  Ideally, the Mi-17 program would simply be terminated. At the very 
least, it should be placed on constant and vigorous congressional 
oversight, and that would serve the interests of U.S. taxpayers and 
U.S. national security alike.
  For all of these reasons, I could not support a cloture vote on the 
nomination of Mr. Estevez. I am going to continue to come back to the 
floor and use other vehicles.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee on 
the floor. I know we are going to be taking up the Defense 
authorization bill later on this year, and I will be reaching out to 
him and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to bring an 
end to this troubling relationship with Rosoboronexport and to seek 
alternative means--hopefully, from American manufacturers--for this 
requirement for the Afghan military.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters, 
one dated August 5, 2013, to GEN Martin E. Dempsey, and a letter dated 
September 16, 2013, addressed to the Attorney General of the United 
States, Eric Holder.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, August 5, 2013.
     General Martin E. Dempsey,
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Staff Pentagon, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear General Dempsey: We write to express deep concern over 
     your support for the ongoing Department of Defense (DoD) 
     procurement of helicopters from Rosoboronexport, the Russian 
     Federation's official arms export firm, as well as DoD's 
     seeming blindness to the real risk of both Russian corruption 
     in these deals and overreliance on a potentially hostile 
     power. You are on the record, as recently as your Senate 
     reconfirmation hearing on July 18, saying that we should 
     ``stay the course with the existing program.'' In the 
     interests of national security and proper stewardship of 
     taxpayer dollars, we ask you to reconsider.
       In June, DoD awarded Rosoboronexport a $572 million 
     contract for the procurement of 30 more Mi-17 helicopters for 
     the Afghan Special Mission Wing, ignoring the recommendation 
     of the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction 
     (SIGAR) to halt this procurement. SIGAR, in its June 28 
     report, cast doubt on the validity of the requirement for the 
     aircraft, providing ample evidence that it is based on 
     unrealistic and outdated projections. We request an 
     explanation of DoD's decision. We also understand that DoD 
     plans to buy approximately 15 more of these aircraft using 
     FY14 funds.
       As you know, while Rosoboronexport receives huge payments 
     from DoD, it also continues to serve as a key enabler of 
     atrocities in Syria, transferring weapons and ammunition to 
     prop up the bloodthirsty regime of Bashar al-Assad. DoD has 
     confirmed that Assad's forces have used these very weapons to 
     murder Syrian civilians, and the United Nations estimates 
     that over 100,000 people have been killed. DoD has now 
     awarded well over $1 billion in no-bid contracts to this 
     Russian state-controlled firm, which handles more than 80 
     percent of Russia's arms exports. What's more, as recently as 
     2005, Russia reportedly forgave more than $10 billion of 
     Syria's past arms sales debt. As such, DoD has put American 
     taxpayers in the repugnant position of subsidizing the mass 
     murder of Syrian civilians.
       While DoD's relationship with this firm is troubling on 
     many levels, the prospect that American taxpayers have been 
     made into unwitting victims of Russian corruption demands 
     special scrutiny. Rosoboronexport is an arm of the Russian 
     Federation and a key component of Russia's defense 
     establishment, in which corruption is rampant. In June, the 
     British nonprofit group Transparency International published 
     its Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index, giving Russia a 
     D-minus rating as one of the worst-ranked exporters. This 
     group found ``evidence of organised crime penetration into 
     defence and security establishments, and little evidence of 
     the government's ability to address this,'' and it concluded 
     that several top Ministry of Defence officials have 
     convictions on their records.
       In May 2011, Russia's chief military prosecutor publicly 
     stated that 20 percent of Russia's own military equipment 
     budget is stolen by corrupt officials and contractors each 
     year, citing practices such as ``fake and fictitious 
     invoices'' and ``kickbacks for state contracts.'' The head of 
     Russia's National Anti-Corruption Committee independent 
     watchdog put his estimate at 40 percent. Concerns about 
     corruption in Russia's arms trade also reportedly led Iraq to 
     cancel a $4.2 billion arms deal with Russia last year. We 
     have very serious concerns over where the proceeds of DoD's 
     Mi-17 contracts might be going.
       In September 2012, one of us raised concerns about the 
     price per aircraft that DoD was paying to Rosoboronexport and 
     persuaded DoD to direct the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
     (DCAA) to conduct a formal audit of the Army's 2011 no-bid 
     contract with the firm. In May of this year, we learned that, 
     due to a total lack of cooperation by Rosoboronexport and 
     months of stalling tactics, DCAA had to abandon the audit. At 
     the same time, DoD was negotiating the $572 million no-bid 
     contract with this firm, but failed to use that leverage to 
     secure its cooperation with the audit. DoD should complete 
     this audit.
       We need your personal assurance that American taxpayers are 
     not being cheated out of their hard-earned dollars by corrupt 
     Russian officials and contractors who may be lining their own 
     pockets. Further, we request a briefing on exactly what due 
     diligence DoD did on this issue prior to awarding these 
     contracts to Rosoboronexport, as well as what continuing 
     safeguards DoD has in place to prevent this.
       The strategic vulnerabilities that DoD's Mi-17 program have 
     potentially created are also deeply troubling. DoD argues 
     that its direct relationship with Russia's official arms 
     exporter provides essential benefits, such as recognition of 
     ``Russian Military Airworthiness Authority,'' special tools 
     and test equipment, and engineering ``reach back'' for Mi-
     17s, which it says includes service bulletins, certification 
     of modifications, root cause corrective actions, lifting of 
     life limits on parts, counterfeit part mitigation, special 
     access to technical info, support for future modifications 
     and fielded aircraft. If DoD's dependence on Russia for 
     Afghanistan's future rotary airlift capacity is as complete 
     as DoD suggests, this raises serious questions: (1) If the 
     Afghan military continues to operate Russian aircraft for 
     decades to come, can it ever be fully independent of Russia? 
     (2) Should Russia decide at some point to withhold support 
     for the Afghan Mi-17 fleet, does DoD have a fallback plan to 
     ensure the Afghan fleet's readiness? (3) Does the 
     overreliance on Russia fostered by this Mi-17 program put the 
     U.S. at risk of Russian coercion or blackmail on other 
     security issues, such as the crisis in Syria, Iran's drive to 
     obtain nuclear weapons, U.S. missile defense, arms control 
     negotiations, or the security of former Soviet republics?
       We are concerned by DoD's apparent failure to consider the 
     strategic implications of sourcing mission-critical military 
     equipment from a potentially hostile power such as Russia. 
     DoD's preference for Russian helicopters will also make it 
     highly difficult to achieve robust interoperability between 
     the U.S. and Afghan helicopter fleets, which is in the long-
     term interests of both nations. These problems are self-
     inflicted, and this policy is extremely shortsighted.
       For these reasons, we ask that DoD cancel all current 
     contracts with Rosoboronexport, as it has previously 
     confirmed it has the right to do at any time, and fully sever 
     its business relationship with this firm.
           Sincerely,
         John Cornyn, U.S. Senator; Mark Begich, U.S. Senator; 
           Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Senator; Mark Kirk, U.S. Senator; 
           John Boozman, U.S. Senator; Jeff Sessions, U.S. 
           Senator; David Vitter, U.S. Senator; Charles E. 
           Schumer, U.S. Senator; Richard Blumenthal, U.S. 
           Senator; Kirsten E. Gillibrand, U.S. Senator; 
           Christopher Murphy, U.S. Senator; Roger F. Wicker, U.S. 
           Senator; Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator.

[[Page S7643]]

           
                                  ____
                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2013.
     Hon. Eric Holder,
     Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Pennsylvania 
         Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Holder: We write with great concern 
     about reported allegations of criminal activity by one or 
     more government officials within the Department of the Army's 
     Non-Standard Rotary Wing Aircraft (NSRWA) Project Management 
     Office, which leads the Department of Defense's troubled Mi-
     17 helicopter program. These allegations, if substantiated, 
     would represent not just a violation of the law, but also a 
     breach of the public trust.
       According to an August 29, 2013, report from Reuters, the 
     Defense Criminal Investigative Service has been conducting a 
     criminal investigation and is examining ``questionable 
     transactions'' by NSRWA, including potentially improper 
     payments to Russian companies involved in Mi-17 overhauls, as 
     well as problematic personal ties between one or more Army 
     officials and these foreign entities.
       In addition, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
     Reconstruction has launched a probe into NSRWA's procurement 
     of new Mi-17 helicopters, according to the Reuters report. 
     Since 2011, NSRWA has negotiated and executed more than $1 
     billion worth of contracts for procurement of these Russian 
     aircraft from Rosoboronexport, Russia's state-controlled arms 
     exporter who simultaneously continues to supply weapons and 
     ammunition to the Syrian government.
       The prospect that American taxpayers have been made into 
     unwitting victims of corruption demands special scrutiny. On 
     a per aircraft basis, the Army is paying Rosoboronexport more 
     than double what the Russian military itself is paying right 
     now to buy nearly identical helicopters. These facts, taken 
     together with the news report, raise very serious questions 
     about the Army's entire Mi-17 program, including whether the 
     various contracts for procurement and overhaul were the 
     products of criminal misconduct.
       In light of these ongoing concerns, we urge you to utilize 
     all available resources, including the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, to support any criminal investigation into 
     these matters. If the allegations are founded, we urge you to 
     ensure the guilty parties are prosecuted to the fullest 
     extent of the law. Thank you for your consideration of this 
     important request.
           Sincerely,
         John Cornyn, U.S. Senator; Richard Blumenthal, U.S. 
           Senator; John Boozman, U.S. Senator; Mark Kirk, U.S. 
           Senator; Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Senator; Mark Begich, U.S. 
           Senator; Roger F. Wicker, U.S. Senator; Christopher A. 
           Coons, U.S. Senator; David Vitter, U.S. Senator.
         Rosa L. DeLauro, Member of Congress; Kay Granger, Member 
           of Congress; James P. Moran, Member of Congress; Frank 
           R. Wolf, Member of Congress; John Garamendi, Member of 
           Congress; Jack Kingston, Member of Congress; Michael H. 
           Michaud, Member of Congress; Betty McCollum, Member of 
           Congress; Jackie Speier, Member of Congress; Janice D. 
           Schakowsky, Member of Congress; Elizabeth H. Esty, 
           Member of Congress; Steve Stivers, Member of Congress; 
           Daniel T. Kildee, Member of Congress; Joe Courtney, 
           Member of Congress; Jim Bridenstine, Member of 
           Congress; James P. McGovern, Member of Congress; Steve 
           Cohen, Member of Congress; Alan S. Lowenthal, Member of 
           Congress; Carol Shea-Porter, Member of Congress; 
           William L. Owens, Member of Congress; Juan Vargas, 
           Member of Congress; Tom Cole, Member of Congress; Ken 
           Calvert, Member of Congress.

  Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I very much support the nomination of Alan Estevez to be 
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics.
  Mr. Estevez is a career civil servant who has served under Presidents 
of both political parties since 1981, when he started work at the 
Military Traffic Management Command. Over the last 30 years, Mr. 
Estevez has developed an expertise in military logistics, eventually 
rising to become the first career Federal official to hold the position 
of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, 
a position in which he provides civilian oversight for more than $190 
billion of DOD logistics operations. He previously played a key role in 
reengineering Department of Defense transportation processes and in 
helping to address logistics deficiencies identified during Operation 
Desert Shield.
  Mr. Estevez is the recipient of the 2010 Presidential Rank 
Distinguished Executive Award and the 2006 Presidential Rank 
Meritorious Executive Award, two Office of the Secretary of Defense 
medals for Meritorious Civilian Service, and the 2005 Service to 
America Medal awarded by the Partnership for Public Service.
  He is extremely well qualified for this position. I am pleased we 
have now achieved cloture so his nomination may be voted on at noon.
  I don't know of opposition to him and his personal qualifications. I 
understand the debate over the helicopter issue. He is not the one who 
ordered nor can he reverse it. That issue is an issue which has been 
raised by a number of Senators, including the Senator from Texas. 
Senator Blumenthal has raised it in committee as well.
  The letter that went out to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has not 
yet been answered. However, I have spoken to General Dunford about this 
matter, and I will have more to say about that when this issue is 
raised either on the Defense authorization bill or on some other 
matter.
  For the time being, let me say simply that helicopter is a 
requirement which has been set by our generals, not by our Pentagon 
people, civilians. It is a top priority that the Afghans be supplied 
that helicopter because it is the one they have flown. The Army of 
Afghanistan has used that helicopter. So without getting into the 
merits of this, because this is left for a later time by the Senator 
from Texas, I am grateful the debate cannot be connected to the Estevez 
nomination, where it has no relevance, since he didn't accept the 
requirement nor can he reverse the decision. It will be set for a later 
time--hopefully, after the Senators receive the answer to the letter 
they sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  I very strongly support the Estevez nomination and look forward to a 
confirmation vote, either by voice vote or rollcall vote, as necessary, 
at noon. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak 
on two separate and distinct matters relating to the military.


                      Remembering Our Armed Forces

                            Justin Eldridge

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, no one in this body other than I had 
the privilege to know Justin Eldridge of Waterford, CT. Justin was a 
true American hero, a patriot--a U.S. marine who served our country in 
Afghanistan and who scarcely more than 24 hours ago took his own life 
at his home. My thoughts and prayers are with Justin's wife Joanna and 
their four children and all of Justin's family and friends, fellow 
marines, who grieve his loss at this difficult time.
  I first came to know Justin when he formed a chapter of the Marine 
Corps League in southeastern Connecticut. He believed deeply in the 
Marine Corps and in service to his country, his family, and in the 
values and traditions and ethos of all of our great U.S. marines and 
the men and women who wear the uniform.
  Yesterday, Justin Eldridge lost his own battle--a long battle with 
post-traumatic stress that he fought heroically after serving in the 
Marine Corps for 8\1/2\ years before his medical retirement in 2008. 
Even after he returned home from Afghanistan, Justin had a long fight 
ahead of him. He returned home with the signature wounds of this war--
both traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress--and he worked 
for years to get the specialized treatment he needed. He tried hard to 
be there for his family. According to his wife Joanna, his four 
children loved having him around.
  He faced another all-too-common problem in this country--health care 
at the Veterans' Administration and accessing the care he needed. He 
was admitted to the VA hospital and began a long road of treatment. I 
cannot express in words how deeply sorry I am that treatment evidently 
proved unsuccessful--perhaps not the result of the VA or its doctors or 
its hospital because we are only beginning to learn as a country and 
society how to confront post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain 
injury with the specialized diagnosis and care these diseases demand.

[[Page S7644]]

  Even in grief we should not forget Justin's service to his country 
and his joy and his pride in that service--and he deserved both joy and 
pride--as well as his long-fought battle here at home.
  I wish to take this occasion to encourage anyone who is suffering 
from post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, or any other wounds 
of war to reach out for help. The Veterans Crisis Line is there to help 
you. Anyone who needs that help can call 1-800-273-TALK. Courage is 
shown not only on the battlefield but afterward upon return when an 
individual in need of help seeks it, as Justin did.
  Justin's story also reminds us of the heroic caregivers who take care 
of our Nation's veterans. We owe thanks to the people who dedicate 
their lives to helping those who have served.
  Joanna also deserves our thanks because she was there for Justin, by 
his side throughout his treatment. She never gave up; she never 
relented; she never surrendered. She was his full-time caregiver, 
participating in the VA's caregiver program.
  Justin himself continued to give back. I will never forget my 
conversations with him at that Marine Corps League event and afterward 
by email and phone.
  Joanna is a strong advocate for all veterans, as we should all be. 
She studied psychology in college and hopes to go to law school. She 
wants to dedicate her life to being a veterans advocate, and I commend 
her and all of our military families, all of our military spouses who 
are there for their loved ones who seek to reach out. We need to keep 
faith with those veterans. We need to know and discover what will 
conquer the demons that often threaten to subdue our bravest and most 
selfless veterans when they come back and to give them the courage and 
the strength they need to conquer these dreaded diseases that we 
ourselves have a complicity in creating. We have an obligation and an 
opportunity to do more and we must keep faith and make sure no veteran 
is left behind.

  My heart and prayers go to Justin's family and, of course, I know I 
am joined by all the Members of this body not only in grieving but in 
offering our help and service if there is anything we can do.
  Madam President, I would like to speak on a topic that has been 
discussed by two of my colleagues this morning, the senior Senator from 
Texas, Senator Cornyn, and the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Chairman Carl Levin. I thank my colleagues for joining me in 
raising a vital issue that must be addressed by this body and by Alan 
Estevez--a well-qualified nominee for the position of Principal Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
  I will vote for the confirmation today of Alan Estevez. I believe he 
is well qualified and has the credentials to perform with distinction 
in this role. I hope that uppermost on his list of priorities will be 
the Mi-17 helicopter acquisition that is so misguided and wrongheaded 
in the way it has been handled by our own Department of Defense.
  If one were to stop at Stella's corner restaurant on Main Street in 
Stratford, CT, for lunch or a cup of coffee and ask the folks there: 
What do you expect from your government? I think one of the things they 
would say is they expect the Congress and all of us here to keep our 
country safe; and that when it comes to buying the equipment for our 
troops and allies, we should do so, hands down, no doubt about it, by 
buying American. It should be made in America, manufactured in 
Connecticut or in the United States. Nothing could be more simple or 
straightforward. Yet somehow that Main Street common sense is simply 
ignored across the river at the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, 
where so many decisions are made.
  Since becoming a member of the Armed Services Committee I have become 
aware the Department of Defense committed almost $1 billion to provide 
Afghanistan a fleet of Mi-17 helicopters. Let me clarify: Russian 
helicopters going to Afghanistan with American tax dollars, bought from 
the Russian export agency that at the same time is selling arms to 
Bashar Assad to kill his own people in Syria.
  Since 2005, the United States has been procuring Mi-17s to build the 
capacity of the Afghan military and is working toward a total fleet 
size of approximately 80 helicopters. The Afghan military had 
approximately 50 Mi-17s as of last year, and this year the Army awarded 
a $572 million contract to purchase another 30, with approximately 15 
more to come, to replace the aging helicopters the Afghan military has 
already run into the ground and failed to maintain.
  The contract to award these helicopters was managed in a way to 
prevent any American helicopter companies from bidding on the work, 
even though the analysis of the Department of Defense in 2010 concluded 
the made-in-America CH-47D Chinook helicopter is the most cost-
effective single platform type fleet for the Afghan Air Force over a 
20-year life cycle.
  I acknowledge I may be partial to helicopters made in Connecticut. 
The best helicopters in the world are made in Connecticut by the 
Sikorsky employees who happen to stop at Stella's on Main Street for 
lunch or a cup of coffee, and I see them there all the time. The H-92 
troop transport helicopter or H-60 should also be considered by the 
Department of Defense for this mission. But at the end of the day, 
``made in the USA'' ought to be the ruling principle. Made in the USA--
American helicopters for the American military and American allies.
  In 2011, the Army contracted with the Russian state-owned arms export 
firm Rosoboronexport. Yes, the very same Rosoboronexport that arms our 
enemies in Iran and is a key enabler of Assad's ongoing slaughter of 
his own civilians in Syria. Women and children in Syria die by the arms 
provided by Rosoboronexport--purchased by Assad with money financed by 
Russian banks and purchased from Rosoboronexport. These are well-
documented crimes against humanity--war crimes that eventually should 
be prosecuted.

  I am working with my colleague Senator Ayotte on legislation to 
strengthen the contracting provisions that prohibit ``contracting with 
the enemy.'' These contracts are, in effect, supporting enemy 
purchases. Before us is a glaring example of contracting with the 
enemy.
  We have all heard testimony that preventing mass atrocities in Syria 
was complicated by their air and naval defense systems that prevent the 
protection of civilians in Syria and threaten its neighbors in Turkey 
and Jordan. Where did those systems come from? The answer is 
Rosoboronexport--the same systems that could shoot down our planes if 
we pursue additional measures against Syrian war crimes, the same 
entity that arms Iran, where we currently are seeking solutions against 
nuclear armament, and where we have said all options should be on the 
table in terms of our military action. The Department of Defense thinks 
the best thing for our long-term national security is to pay the 
Russian arms dealer that threatens global stability and our own freedom 
of action.
  But it gets worse. Without question we have overpaid for these 
Russian helicopters. A general told me the best way to think about 
these helicopters is they are ``flying refrigerators'' that we never 
should have bought in the first place. We paid about $18 million a 
copy, while Russia sold other nations Mi-17s for $4 million each. What 
a bargain. Other countries buy each helicopter for $4 million, we pay 
$8 million.
  And it is still worse. The Army acquisition office that handled this 
contract is now under investigation for ``questionable transactions,'' 
including potentially improper payments to Russian companies involved 
in the repair of these helicopters as well as problematic personal ties 
between the Army officials in this office and those foreign entities.
  If I went to Stella's and I told this absolutely remarkable story, I 
am hoping the folks there would say: No, you must be making this up. 
This couldn't happen at the U.S. Department of Defense. No way in the 
United States of America, not with our tax dollars. But in fact it is 
all true, and I have tried to cite the facts as objectively and 
dispassionately as possible.
  I suspect for anybody at Stella's who might have believed this 
incredible tale, they would have said: Well, if a tenth of that is 
true, what are you going to do to stop it? What are you going to do to 
end this waste of taxpayer money and the insult and outrage to the 
American taxpayer? Well,

[[Page S7645]]

we did something. At my urging, and through the work of my colleagues 
who have spoken, including Senator Cornyn, Congress, in the Defense 
Appropriations Act, expressly prohibited the Department of Defense from 
spending any more taxpayer money on Russian helicopters and doing 
business with Rosoboronexport.
  In fact, I wrote to the Secretary of Defense about this program. I 
have written numerous letters, and I have met with the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Did that stop these purchases? No. The $\1/2\ 
billion contract recently signed, recently completed, now under way by 
the U.S. Army for more Russian helicopters, used previously 
appropriated funds to ignore the will of Congress. Clearly, the spirit 
and intent of the National Defense Authorization Act was to end these 
purchases. The U.S. Department of Defense, in effect, has defied the 
will of Congress.
  So here we are today, almost $1 billion out the door and the near 
certainty these helicopters are going to be used to smuggle drugs--that 
is right, smuggle drugs in Afghanistan. That purchase has occurred. The 
contract has been completed. And we can be sure, just as they failed to 
maintain those helicopters in the past, they will fail again in the 
future because the Afghan national security forces don't have the 
people trained to maintain the helicopters. In fact, right now it 
doesn't have the people trained to fly those helicopters. And in a few 
years what the American taxpayer will have to show for this folly is 
rusted scrap heaps at Bagram Air Force Base.
  I understand that some in the Pentagon started this program with good 
intentions. Their thinking may have been that the Afghans already had 
some of these helicopters in the process of standing up their 
capability to defend themselves, they ought to have a few more, and 
then transition to a more capable helicopter. I have heard from our 
generals that we need these helicopters because the Afghans know how to 
fly them. But the fact is this program was never designed to be 
sustainable after we leave Afghanistan. My hope is we will leave 
Afghanistan sooner rather than later. There is simply no transition in 
place now or in the foreseeable future to buy American, to train those 
Afghan pilots how to fly those American helicopters, how to maintain 
American helicopters.

  When the Russians forced us to procure the helicopters from them 
directly, rather than excess helicopters from countries like the Czech 
Republic, we should have made a course correction immediately, even if 
we thought those kinds of helicopters were necessary in the short term. 
There were options and alternatives that should have been pursued and 
they were not.
  That is why I believe the plan requested by the senior Senator from 
Texas makes a lot of sense. He has asked the Department of Defense for 
an alternative plan for meeting the Afghan requirements. We cannot walk 
away from a problem that we created. We cannot walk away from the need 
for a transition. But there is a better way to get there. The answer, 
very simply, is buy American, buy American helicopters.
  I expect Mr. Estevez will be confirmed today. But I want to say to 
him please, as one of your priorities, figure out a way to end these 
purchases from Rosoboronexport. You owe it to the Members of this body. 
You owe it to the American people to find a way to buy American and to 
keep faith with the brave men and women who will use the equipment that 
you will help purchase with taxpayer dollars. I know you take this 
responsibility seriously, and I hope that you will bring that 
seriousness of purpose to these issues because they are important, not 
just to the military and not just to taxpayers, but most especially to 
the American men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I have come to the floor many times over 
the past several months to outline the problems that we are facing with 
the rollout of the ObamaCare law, problems that my constituents are 
facing, as are people all across the country. While it is important to 
discuss the generic and macro effects of this law--and we see it 
unrolling before us every day--it is also important to understand what 
the direct effects are on people at a personal level.
  Last week, during our break, I traveled throughout Indiana and talked 
to a number of people. Many of them came up to me voluntarily to tell 
me the effects of the confusing, complex, and seemingly intractable 
aspects of ObamaCare. Let me read for the record just a couple of 
statements that were made.
  An email that I received from Daniel in Elkhart, IN, summarizes the 
experiences of hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers and millions of 
Americans are having with the Web site alone. He wrote:

       I have tried for two weeks to apply through the 
     marketplace, only to electronically sign my application and 
     be kicked back to my profile page. This is the most bizarre 
     system I have ever experienced. If a company put a business 
     Web site together like this, they would go out of business.

  Anthony in Indianapolis shared similar concerns. He said:

       I have been unable to get through the healthcare.gov Web 
     site. My wife must notify our insurance company by November 
     15 if she will keep her existing plan . . . I understand 
     there are problems with the Web site. I think we all 
     understand that at this point.
       I heard the President say you could sign up in person, on 
     the phone or on paper. But the two navigators I called said 
     that until the Web site works, they cannot help. I called the 
     1-800 number but the healthcare.gov rep [said his] computer 
     froze up and could not help. I hear about the tech surge, how 
     there will be a few rough spots--Another understatement--

     and how they will be fixed. Senator, if you listen to the 
     news the problems with the system are much deeper than the 
     President let on [in his] Tuesday [address]. I need help and 
     I don't think the system will be in operation in time for me 
     to make an informed decision.

  These are two statements from only two of the many Hoosiers who 
described similar problems to me--which is probably why, when asked 
about the ObamaCare Web site, an experienced online and database 
programmer told CBS News, ``I would be ashamed and embarrassed if my 
organization delivered something like that.''
  We know this law passed the Senate on Christmas Eve in 2009 without 
any bipartisan support. One party alone put this law into place. We now 
know that over $400 million have been spent to create a Web site so 
Americans who are mandated to enroll in ObamaCare can go and sign up 
for it. We know that nearly 4 years of notice has been in place to get 
the Web site up. This roll-out, as one Democratic Senator said over the 
weekend, has been a disaster.
  If the administration, after nearly 4 years of effort and over $400 
million, can't get the Web site right, how in the world can anybody 
believe that the Federal Government can manage this monstrous and 
dysfunctional law that has been imposed on the American people?
  Despite the Web site's numerous glitches and many other 
implementation problems, the administration still insists on fining 
taxpayers if they do not sign up and purchase ObamaCare under the 
mandate. What an irony it is. You need to sign up or you are going to 
get fined. The Web site is so dysfunctional you can't sign up, but you 
are still going to get fined. That is mind-boggling, head-scratching, 
and simply unacceptable.
  We know that there have been numerous attempts to repeal this law and 
replace it with something far more acceptable, affordable, and 
implementable. We now know that the defund effort, that resulted in the 
shutdown, failed to gain the necessary votes to achieve that goal. But 
attempting to repeal this law is the responsible thing to do. In 
September I introduced a bill to delay the roll out of the ObamaCare 
mandates for a year. As the problems with the health care law pile up, 
I am going to continue to push for this delay. The delay makes sense 
because the program is simply too dysfunctional to be implemented.

  The bottom line, however, is that I want this delay so the American 
people have another chance to learn what is in this law, to evaluate as 
to whether or not they want this to go forward as the health care law 
of the United States or

[[Page S7646]]

whether they think a viable alternative is that we have the 
responsibility to put forward--and many of us have advocated components 
of that--whether or not that alternative is the better way to go.
  I know it has been said by the President and others that in 2012 the 
public went to the polls to vote for the Presidential election. 
Therefore, that vote certified that the American people supported and 
wanted ObamaCare.
  First of all, that was not the primary issue. It was one of the 
issues that was a determinative factor in the outcome of that election 
but not nearly ``the'' factor, because most Americans at that point 
still had not had the opportunity or the experience that they are 
having now, finding out exactly just how this law works and does not 
work; finding out all the dysfunction and learning that all of those 
campaign promises made or promises made when the law was passed have 
simply been broken. ``You can keep the insurance policy that you have 
now. No problem. Won't cost a penny more. No problem.''
  On and on it goes. ``Keep the doctor that you want.'' Americans are 
finding out that none of this is true. ``Premiums will not rise.'' 
Premiums are rising for many Americans. ``This will be easy. Go to a 
Web site, sign up, punch in, put your name in, you are on board. 
Everything will be great.''
  None of this has worked. Why not delay this process, not just to 
learn what is here, but to give the American people another opportunity 
to vote, to walk into the polling booth. A number of Members will have 
to stand up and either explain why they supported this or why they 
didn't support it. Americans will have a choice. We will put 
alternatives in front of them.
  That is the purpose of the delay for a year: No. 1, because it is 
dysfunctional; No. 2, because Americans deserve a second chance to 
express their opinions on this bill. This has already been passed by 
the House of Representatives. My colleague, Representative Todd Young 
of Indiana sponsored that. It gained bipartisan support, and 22 
Democrats, House Democrats, recognized the need to give Americans the 
same relief from ObamaCare that businesses are receiving. Delay on the 
employer mandate, which the President has proposed and put into 
practice, and doing that for the individuals and families who do not 
fall under the employer category only, is a matter of fairness. That 
also is something that has to be addressed.
  Recently, several Senate Democrats have come out in support of 
delaying parts or all of the President's health care law as well. I 
think the opportunity is before us to put the brakes on trying to jam 
through something that simply is dysfunctional and not working and 
secondly to give the American people the opportunity to go back to the 
polls and decide whether or not this is the way they want their health 
care programs to go forward.
  We have had nothing but broken promises. We are learning about how 
difficult it is for the Government to manage even the first step, let 
alone the one-sixth of the economy that deals with our health care. 
This is important for all Americans. I am urging my colleagues to 
support this effort to give the American people another chance to look 
at a more viable and more affordable alternative.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
address the Senate for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity 
to say a few words today in support of my fellow Coloradan, Katherine 
Archuleta, and her nomination to be Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management. I have known her for years and have tremendous respect for 
her. She has given much of her life to public service, and her 
dedication to her community, her State, and her country is a testament 
to her character. I am very confident that she will be a steady hand at 
the helm of OPM. I urge all my colleagues to support her confirmation.
  Not everyone watching may be familiar with the Office of Personnel 
Management, but it is an important agency. Let me talk about Colorado 
in that context. Thousands of Federal employees are in Colorado, 
including those who are helping to rebuild our State in the wake of 
September's tragic flooding count on OPM. It is a critical part of the 
integrity and strength of the entire Federal workforce. It is 
responsible, among other duties, for employee recruitment and employee 
retention and for managing Federal benefit and retirement programs.
  We all expect Federal agencies and departments to function 
effectively and efficiently for our constituents. As someone who ran a 
nonprofit in Colorado for 10 years, I know the importance of 
maintaining a talented and motivated workforce. Strong workforce 
management leads directly to better work, better service, and better 
outcomes, which is why it is so important to have someone leading OPM 
who is an advocate for Federal employees and also a strong manager with 
high expectations.
  Again, that is why I stand here this morning. I believe Katherine 
will be this type of leader. She has years of high-level management 
experience. She is sharp, hard working, and she is dedicated to the 
goal of making government work as effectively and efficiently as 
possible.
  She has an impressive resume, as I noted at her hearing when I had an 
opportunity to introduce her. She has local and State-level experience. 
She served senior roles in two Denver mayoral administrations as well 
as extensive experience here in Washington serving as the chief of 
staff to the former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena in 
the 1990s, and more recently to U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.
  In between her years of public service in Denver and also in 
Washington, Katherine consulted with charities, nonprofits, cities, 
regional governments, and businesses to help them pursue community 
development, workplace diversity, and crisis management strategies.
  If you look for a common thread throughout Katherine's career, it is 
her capacity and talent to work with individuals and organizations, 
identify priorities, and then, notably, to create the conditions for 
successful implementation of those priorities. That is what we need at 
the helm of OPM. It is what Americans expect and demand.
  As we look at Katherine's career, she has demonstrated an ability to 
lead, to motivate, and to work constructively with a diverse range of 
people and personalities. She is a true westerner. She has personal 
integrity. She has a strong sense of right and wrong, she has obvious 
pride in the work she does, and that makes her a topnotch choice to 
lead our Federal workforce.
  For all those reasons, I am honored to speak in support of Katherine 
Archuleta's nomination, and hopefully we will confirm her quickly. She 
is eminently qualified for this position, and she deserves an up-or-
down vote as soon as possible.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Alan F. Estevez, of the District of Columbia, to be a Principal 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense?
  The nomination was confirmed.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Katherine Archuleta, of Colorado, to be Director of the 
     Office of Personnel Management.
         Harry Reid, Bill Nelson, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty 
           Murray, Barbara Boxer, Bernard Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Carl Levin, Thomas R. Carper, Jr., Tim Johnson, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Max Baucus, Robert Menendez, Richard J. 
           Durbin, John D. Rockefeller IV, Tim Kaine, Mazie K. 
           Hirono.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Katherine Archuleta, of Colorado, to be Director of the 
Office of Personnel Management, shall be brought to a close?

[[Page S7647]]

  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Ex.]

                                YEAS--81

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Graham
     Heller
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 
18. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________