[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 92 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3787-S3790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2943, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2943) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2017 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
[[Page S3788]]
McCain amendment No. 4607, to amend the provision on share-
in-savings contracts.
Reed (for Reid) amendment No. 4603 (to amendment No. 4607),
to change the enactment date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I came to the floor yesterday to talk
about a truly shameful change that is buried away in this bill. It is a
change that would put us on a path to go back on a promise that we made
to our servicemembers just 6 months ago and a change, if left unfixed,
that will pull the rug out for men and women in the Armed Forces who
are prepared to make the highest sacrifice for the country they love.
In case any of my colleagues are unaware, a single line in this
massive Defense bill on page 1,455, buried in the funding chart, would
zero out a new program that is intended to help men and women in our
military realize their dream of having a family even if they go on to
suffer catastrophic injuries when they are fighting on our behalf. I
don't know how this line got in there, I don't know who thought it was
a good idea, and I don't know why, but what I do know is this: It is
wrong and it has to be fixed.
I just want to tell my colleagues that 6 months ago the Pentagon
announced a pilot program that would offer servicemembers who are
getting ready to deploy an opportunity at cryopreservation--in other
words, freezing their eggs or sperm. This new program gave our
deploying servicemembers not just the ability to have reproductive
options in the event they are grievously injured but some deserved
peace of mind. It took us a step forward in the promise we have made to
our servicemembers to support them when they sacrifice so much for us,
and it meant they wouldn't have to worry about choosing between
defending their country or a chance of having a family some day.
This new program was met with widespread praise and relief. Men and
women who were getting ready to deploy--many of whom were thinking
about exploring cryopreservation, using their own money if they could
afford it--were assured that their country had their back.
While the pilot program was not groundbreaking, these services have
long been available in the private sector, and, in fact, fertility
preservation techniques have been used by the British Armed Forces for
years. It reflected a basic level of respect for servicemembers who are
willing to risk suffering catastrophic injuries on our behalf, and it
sent a clear message that no matter what happens to them on the
battlefield, we will be ready to stand with them with whatever they
need.
I was hoping this new program was a step we could build on, a move in
the right direction, an important part of our larger work to help our
warriors who sustained grievous injuries achieve their dream of
starting a family, which is why I was so upset when I learned this bill
would move us the other way. It would take this promise we just made to
our warriors and toss it in the trash. It would be a slap in the face
to the men and women who serve us proudly and heroically. And honestly,
it is the wrong thing to do.
Many people here in the Senate are quick to honor our military with
their words, but for the men and women who signed up to fight on our
behalf and are looking ahead to potentially massive sacrifices, we owe
them so much more than that. We owe them action, respect, and a shot at
their dream of having a family. We need to fix this bill. We owe them
that much.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer
Murray amendment No. 4490 relating to fertility treatments and that the
Senate vote in relation to this amendment with no second-degree
amendments in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reluctantly have to object, and that is
because there is an objection on this side, which I have to honor.
I thank Senator Murray for her advocacy for the people who are
serving in our military in uniform, and this is at least an important
aspect of military life, and I thank the Senator for that.
I also thank Senator Gillibrand, who will speak in a moment on an
issue that has been of great importance to her for several years now.
She has been an advocate of this very compelling issue of sexual
assault in the military.
Unfortunately, we have an objection to all the amendments, and that,
in my view, is a great disservice to this body, to the men and women
serving in the military, and to the American public. It shouldn't
matter whether I happen to agree or disagree with Senator Gillibrand or
Senator Murray; they deserve debate and votes, and they are not getting
them because of these objections.
I wish to also point out that we are working on amendments by Senator
Moran, Senator Corker, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Shaheen.
I might point out gratuitously that one of the things I have seen in
recent years is involvement on issues that bring new perspectives from
people like Senator Gillibrand, Senator Murray, Senator Ayotte, Senator
McCaskill, Senator Fischer, and Senator Ernst. They have brought
perspectives to our committee and to this body that have been very
helpful.
All I can say is this: Senator Murray, I will continue to fight to
get a vote on your amendment.
Mr. President, I reluctantly object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his remarks,
and I thank the leaders.
I urge my colleagues to allow a vote on my amendment No. 4310.
We now know far more about the extent of the military sexual assault
problem than we did last year. We have more data, we have reviewed more
case files, we heard from more survivors, and it is clear that very
little has changed despite the Department of Defense's persistent
claims that things are getting better and that they are making
progress.
When the Department of Defense estimates that 20,000 servicemembers
were sexually assaulted this year--the same number as in 2010--that is
not progress. When an estimate of 8 out of 10 military sexual assault
survivors don't report the crime, that is not progress. When more than
half of all retaliation cases--58 percent of them--are perpetrated by
someone in the chain of command of the accuser, that is not progress.
When the percentage of survivors willing to report openly has declined
for the past 5 years, that is not progress. When 62 percent of
survivors have experienced retaliation since 2012 and there has not
been one prosecution of this enumerated crime, that is not progress.
When it is confirmed by the Associated Press that the Pentagon
blatantly misled the Senate in order to skew our debate, this is
perhaps the ultimate time that they are not making progress.
Our military justice system is broken. It is failing our men and
women who so bravely serve. No matter how many small reforms we make,
as long as commanders with no legal experience are continuing to make
these important decisions about violent sexual crimes, we are not going
to solve this problem. Our commanders are great at winning wars and
training troops. They are not prosecutors. They are not even lawyers.
They are warfighters, and their job is to keep our country safe, not
make legal judgments about whether to prosecute a rape.
Once and for all, let's take this decision to prosecute these crimes
and instead give it to trained military prosecutors. Let's give our
servicemembers a justice system that is worthy of their service. This
is our chance, and I urge everyone to vote yes if we have a vote.
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked
for S. 2943, notwithstanding rule XXII, that Gillibrand amendment No.
4310, the Military Justice Improvement Act, be considered in order
postcloture, and that it be in order to offer amendment No. 4310, and
the Senate vote in relation to that amendment with a 60 affirmative
vote threshold, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, it is the same comment I made to
Senator Murray. It is with profound reluctance because it is not the
way we are supposed to conduct business here in the U.S. Senate.
[[Page S3789]]
I have reached such a level of frustration that I would even consider
changing the rules of the Senate that one individual out of 100 can't
bring everything to a screeching halt, and that is what is taking place
here over an issue.
One of the amendments that is being held up is literally putting the
lives of our interpreters in Afghanistan at risk. That is the view of
General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, General Nicholson, and others. If
we don't allow these people to come to this country, they are going to
die. It is that serious. Senator Gillibrand's and Senator Murray's
amendments are important, and I do not in any way diminish them, but we
are talking about human lives of people who assisted us in carrying out
our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is what is at stake here.
I reluctantly object, and I want to assure Senator Gillibrand that I
will do everything in my power--which is not a lot right now when you
look at the rules of the Senate--to get a vote. I may have some
differences with Senator Gillibrand, but no one has been more dedicated
to addressing this issue of a very difficult and frankly embarrassing
side of the military today, and that is the incidence of sexual
assaults.
I reluctantly object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been to a few of these rodeos, and I
think the only way we are going to get some fairness here is that we do
not invoke cloture.
As I said, I have been through this a number of times. I think if
that happens, people will understand. We have to have a few votes--not
a lot of votes but a few votes.
I was on the floor yesterday when Senator McCain made this emphatic
statement that, frankly, only he could make. He was talking about how
people's lives are in jeopardy here, especially with the Shaheen
amendment.
We don't have to change the rules of the Senate, but I suggest that
we do not invoke cloture, give us some time to work out a few
amendments, and I think that can happen.
We have two experienced legislators. The chairman of the committee
and ranking member of the committee, Senator McCain and Senator Jack
Reed of Rhode Island, are two of the best we have here in the Senate,
and we should move forward in a way that is expeditious yet productive.
Earlier this morning I said that a robust amendment process has not
taken place here. There hasn't been an amendment process. You can blame
a lot of people, but it hasn't happened.
I think this is an important piece of legislation. Senator McCain and
I have worked on this issue for years, and we have been at odds on
occasion. He was upset that I didn't bring the bill forward quickly
enough, but I do remember that we always brought it to the floor. I can
remember on one occasion when he and Senator Levin, who has since
retired, finished this bill in 2 days, and we had a good bill that came
out of here. There were no vetoes, no threats of veto, and we worked
out the problems. So I would hope that we can move forward and get some
fairness in this bill.
It is a huge bill. I have some differences in the bill, but it is not
fair that we don't have a better process than what we have had so far.
So I would suggest that others vote no on cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I simply want to underscore the importance
of these amendments that Senator Murray and Senator Gillibrand are
putting forward. There can be disagreement on the substance, but the
merits, the importance, and the criticality should be obvious to all of
us. I would hope to find a way to have votes on these amendments.
The same logic applies to Senator Shaheen and Senator Moran. They
have amendments that they have worked tirelessly on for days. They are
being frustrated, not by the majority of the Senate but by a few
individuals.
I think we have reached the point now where we have very little time
left. If we could come together at least on a good-faith package of
consents to deal with all of these or a majority of these and then
continue to work forward for votes on all of them, I think that would
be the appropriate thing to do.
So, again, I just want to underscore the fact that the issues that
Senator Murray and Senator Gillibrand have raised are deserving of a
vote, and we should have a vote on these issues.
With that, I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
469, S. 2943, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2017 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
John McCain, John Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, Tom Cotton,
Kelly Ayotte, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds, Lindsey Graham,
John Barrasso, Roger F. Wicker, Joni Ernst, Thom
Tillis, Daniel Coats, Chuck Grassley, John Thune, Steve
Daines, Mitch McConnell.
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 S.
2943, an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes, as amended, 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 Utah (Mr. Hatch).
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
Durbin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Wyden) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 23, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--23
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cruz
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hirono
Lee
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Paul
Reed
Reid
Schumer
Shaheen
Warren
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--9
Boxer
Coons
Durbin
Hatch
Leahy
Mikulski
Sanders
Warner
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are
23.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S3790]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________