[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________