Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the legislation we are about to discuss here, the Violence Against Women Act. Before I do, I want to respond to a comment I heard by the Republican leader on the floor right now talking about the impact of sequestration, which is to go into effect March 1 unless Congress acts to replace it with something that is more balanced. Sequestration was never written into law to go into effect. Sequestration was put into law in order for us, Congress, to come together in a bipartisan way to find a balanced solution. That is still the case. I feel very strongly that if Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, can come together with a balanced package that takes into account sequestration causing severe impact to our national defense, to our nondefense programs such as Head Start and education at a time when our economy is very fragile--the impact of the job cuts on that would be very severe. Democrats believe, just as we did throughout this process, if we put forward a balanced replacement that includes revenue, making sure that those wealthy Americans who have done very well and have not had to sacrifice are part of a replacement package that we can move through this Congress, this will ensure, as we put forward a balanced budget approach for the future and work for a long- term deficit stabilization process, we can get past this hurdle. There is no reason we need to manage crisis by crisis if we can come together on a balanced approach that does include revenue. This is what Americans expect--everybody participates in making sure that our economy gets back on track, we don't just protect the wealthiest, but we ask them to do their part. I look forward to working with anybody in this body to do this so we don't face the impacts of sequestration that would happen if we don't have that balanced plan. Speaking about the Violence Against Women Act, which is the order of business today, I come to the floor this morning to continue the efforts that we did start here 9 months ago, efforts that were, in fact, overwhelmingly bipartisan--68 Senators--to finally renew our national commitment to ending domestic violence and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. It is a bill that has successfully helped provide life-saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and families, and it is a bill that consistently extends protections to new communities of vulnerable Americans each and every time it has been authorized. I wish to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo for making the Violence Against Women Act a priority for reintroduction in the 113th Congress, because there is no reason this critical bill, which has such broad support, should be put on the back burner and delayed further while there are millions of Americans across our country who are excluded from the current law. In fact, for Native, immigrant women, and LGBT individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to reauthorize VAWA is delayed is another moment they are left without the resources and protection they deserve. For women on tribal lands, the challenges are particularly immense. Often in our very rural areas, on tribal lands, these women live hours and hours away from the nearest Federal prosecutors. For nontribal members on these lands who perpetrate these violent crimes against the women who are living there, it equates to nothing short of a safe haven for them. It is a place where they are free from tribal jurisdiction and repeatedly commit horrific acts without being afraid of being brought to justice. This is an injustice that Deborah Parker, the vice chairwoman of the Tulalip tribes in my home State, spoke to just outside this Chamber last year in an effort to get House Republicans to listen. Through her tears she told a deeply personal story about how not only was she abused as a young girl, but how she then watched family members and friends suffer similar fates. She spoke about how time and again the abusers went unprosecuted, only to repeat the crime over and over. She called herself ``a Native American statistic.'' Even more sadly, she was right. In fact, the numbers are staggering. One in three Native women will be raped in her lifetime. One in three. Two in five of them are victims of domestic violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the national average. These shocking statistics aren't isolated to one group of women, as 25 to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community experience domestic violence in relationships. Three in four abused immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they were eligible, because their abuser husbands never filed the paperwork. It does not need to be this way. I was very proud to be here serving the Senate back in 1994 when we first passed the Violence Against Women Act. Since we took that historic step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement officials to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. Along with bipartisan support, this has received praise from law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors. VAWA has attained such broad support because it worked. It provides shelter and justice to battered women who need both, and it is the cornerstone of our efforts to combat domestic violence. We can't pick winners and losers on who gets these critical protections, and we cannot afford any further delay, not on this bill. Just like the last Congress, we all know what it would take to move this bill forward--leadership from Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor. The fate of the Violence Against Women Act lies squarely on their shoulders. To date they have refused to listen to countless law enforcement and women's groups, as well as moderate voices in their own party who have called on them to pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive bill. In this new Congress, on this newly introduced bipartisan bill, the House Republican leadership faces the same choice and a second chance. They can either appease those on the far right of their caucus, who would turn battered women away from care, or they can stand with Democrats, moderate Republicans, and the many millions of Americans who believe that who a person loves, where they live, or their immigration status, should not determine whether they are protected from violence in this country. In fact, in a recent editorial the Seattle Times echoed this same sentiment: House Republican leaders refused to bring the original Senate bill forward for a vote. They must not squander a second chance to save lives. I couldn't agree more. Too many women have been left vulnerable while House Republican leaders have played politics. It is time for moderate Republican voices in the House to call upon them to pass this bipartisan Senate bill immediately, because women's lives across the country literally depend on it. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, has led the charge on this bill. I wish to thank him publicly, as he is on the floor right now, for his work, for the first bill he has put forward for this body to consider. It is time to move on it, and I want him to know how much I truly appreciate all of his efforts in getting this done. This is for all women in this country, for Native American women, whom I have talked about, in particular, who have suffered at the hands of their abusers for so long, and for all of our women in this country, whoever they are, wherever they come from, to know that this Senate in a bipartisan way stands behind them. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2013. I am incredibly proud of the women and men who have served or are serving our Nation in uniform, and I am grateful for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. That is why we must do everything in our power to meet the needs of our veterans and servicemembers. As those needs change, we must ensure the care available keeps pace. That is why I introduced legislation, which was signed into law as part of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, which helped to transform the way that the Department of Veterans Affairs addresses the needs of women veterans. Among other things, that law required the VA to provide neonatal care, train mental health professionals to provide mental health services for sexual trauma, and develop a child care pilot program. VA has an obligation to provide veterans with quality care and it is our responsibility to make sure that VA does so. The legislation I am introducing today builds upon that effort to make additional improvements to VA's services for women veterans and veterans with families. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been characterized by increasing use of improvised explosive devices that leave servicemembers, both male and female, at increased risk for blast injuries including spinal cord injury and trauma to the reproductive and urinary systems. Defense Department data show that between 2003 and 2012 nearly 2,000 women and men suffered these types of injuries while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. These devastating and life-changing wounds can destroy the vision these men and women, and their spouses, had for the future. Having a family is one of the cornerstones of life that so many people look forward to and see as a fundamental part of their lives. To have dreams shattered because you were brave enough to put yourself in harm's way for your country is something we can never fully repay. But we must do everything we can. As our warriors return from the battlefield, the VA system must be equipped to help injured veterans step back into their lives as parents, spouses, and citizens. These veterans have served honorably and have made the ultimate sacrifice for our great Nation. They deserve the opportunity to pursue their goals and dreams, whether that includes pursuing higher education, finding gainful employment, purchasing their first house, or starting their own family. VA has many programs that help veterans pursue the educational, career, or homeownership dreams and goals that they deferred in service to this country, but it falls short when it comes to helping severely wounded veterans who want to start a family. These veterans often need far more advanced services in order to conceive a child. The Department of Defense and the Tricare program are already able to provide advanced fertility treatments, including assisted reproductive technology, to servicemembers with complex injuries. However, not all injured servicemembers are prepared to have a child at the time they are eligible for that coverage, and some are no longer eligible for Tricare by the time they are ready. VA's fertility counseling and treatment options are limited and do not meet the complex needs of severely injured veterans. I have heard from seriously wounded veterans whose injuries have made it impossible for them to conceive children naturally. While the details of these stories vary, the common thread that runs through them all is that these veterans were unable to obtain the type of assistance they need. Some have spent tens of thousands of dollars on advanced reproductive treatments in the private sector to get what they need to start a family. Others have watched their marriage collapse because the stress of infertility, in combination with the stresses of readjusting to life after severe injury, drove their relationship to a breaking point. Any servicemember who sustains this type of serious injury deserves much better. It is our responsibility to give VA the tools it needs to serve them, and the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act is a start at doing that. This legislation also requires VA to build upon existing research framework to gain a better understanding of the long-term reproductive health care needs of veterans, from those who experience severe reproductive and urinary tract trauma to those who experience gender- specific infections in the battlefield. An Army task force charged with looking at the needs of female servicemembers reported that women in the battlefield experience higher rates of urinary tract infections and other women's health difficulties. After a decade at war, many women servicemembers are still at increased risk for women's health problems due to deployment conditions and a lack of predeployment women's health information, compounded by privacy and safety concerns. Little is known about the impact that these issues and injuries have on the long-term health care needs of veterans. Additional research will provide critical information to help VA improve services for veterans. Caring for children is another frequent problem veterans encounter when trying to get health care. To address this, my legislation provides permanent authority for VA to provide child care to veterans going to medical centers or Vet Centers for health care. A pilot program examining these services is nearing completion and the results have been overwhelmingly positive. Those pilots have been very popular with veterans and VA employees, and have been far less expensive than originally estimated. This legislation is also fully paid for. VA would be empowered to ask contractors and large corporations to pay a relatively small fee in order to provide the care needed by some of our most seriously wounded veterans. This would not hurt small businesses or veteran owned small businesses, because the Secretary would be given the authority to exempt those small businesses to ensure their ability to compete is not jeopardized. Finally, I would point out that last Congress, in fact just a little more than a month ago, these provisions were unanimously approved by the Senate. I think the other Members of this body realized then that we must meet the changing needs of all our servicemembers and veterans, and that regardless of gender we must fulfill our obligation to do everything we can to make whole those who have been injured in service to this country. I hope all of my colleagues will again support this legislation so we can provide care to meet these most serious needs.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2013. I am incredibly proud of the women and men who have served or are serving our Nation in uniform, and I am grateful for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. That is why we must do everything in our power to meet the needs of our veterans and servicemembers. As those needs change, we must ensure the care available keeps pace. That is why I introduced legislation, which was signed into law as part of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, which helped to transform the way that the Department of Veterans Affairs addresses the needs of women veterans. Among other things, that law required the VA to provide neonatal care, train mental health professionals to provide mental health services for sexual trauma, and develop a child care pilot program. VA has an obligation to provide veterans with quality care and it is our responsibility to make sure that VA does so. The legislation I am introducing today builds upon that effort to make additional improvements to VA's services for women veterans and veterans with families. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been characterized by increasing use of improvised explosive devices that leave servicemembers, both male and female, at increased risk for blast injuries including spinal cord injury and trauma to the reproductive and urinary systems. Defense Department data show that between 2003 and 2012 nearly 2,000 women and men suffered these types of injuries while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. These devastating and life-changing wounds can destroy the vision these men and women, and their spouses, had for the future. Having a family is one of the cornerstones of life that so many people look forward to and see as a fundamental part of their lives. To have dreams shattered because you were brave enough to put yourself in harm's way for your country is something we can never fully repay. But we must do everything we can. As our warriors return from the battlefield, the VA system must be equipped to help injured veterans step back into their lives as parents, spouses, and citizens. These veterans have served honorably and have made the ultimate sacrifice for our great Nation. They deserve the opportunity to pursue their goals and dreams, whether that includes pursuing higher education, finding gainful employment, purchasing their first house, or starting their own family. VA has many programs that help veterans pursue the educational, career, or homeownership dreams and goals that they deferred in service to this country, but it falls short when it comes to helping severely wounded veterans who want to start a family. These veterans often need far more advanced services in order to conceive a child. The Department of Defense and the Tricare program are already able to provide advanced fertility treatments, including assisted reproductive technology, to servicemembers with complex injuries. However, not all injured servicemembers are prepared to have a child at the time they are eligible for that coverage, and some are no longer eligible for Tricare by the time they are ready. VA's fertility counseling and treatment options are limited and do not meet the complex needs of severely injured veterans. I have heard from seriously wounded veterans whose injuries have made it impossible for them to conceive children naturally. While the details of these stories vary, the common thread that runs through them all is that these veterans were unable to obtain the type of assistance they need. Some have spent tens of thousands of dollars on advanced reproductive treatments in the private sector to get what they need to start a family. Others have watched their marriage collapse because the stress of infertility, in combination with the stresses of readjusting to life after severe injury, drove their relationship to a breaking point. Any servicemember who sustains this type of serious injury deserves much better. It is our responsibility to give VA the tools it needs to serve them, and the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act is a start at doing that. This legislation also requires VA to build upon existing research framework to gain a better understanding of the long-term reproductive health care needs of veterans, from those who experience severe reproductive and urinary tract trauma to those who experience gender- specific infections in the battlefield. An Army task force charged with looking at the needs of female servicemembers reported that women in the battlefield experience higher rates of urinary tract infections and other women's health difficulties. After a decade at war, many women servicemembers are still at increased risk for women's health problems due to deployment conditions and a lack of predeployment women's health information, compounded by privacy and safety concerns. Little is known about the impact that these issues and injuries have on the long-term health care needs of veterans. Additional research will provide critical information to help VA improve services for veterans. Caring for children is another frequent problem veterans encounter when trying to get health care. To address this, my legislation provides permanent authority for VA to provide child care to veterans going to medical centers or Vet Centers for health care. A pilot program examining these services is nearing completion and the results have been overwhelmingly positive. Those pilots have been very popular with veterans and VA employees, and have been far less expensive than originally estimated. This legislation is also fully paid for. VA would be empowered to ask contractors and large corporations to pay a relatively small fee in order to provide the care needed by some of our most seriously wounded veterans. This would not hurt small businesses or veteran owned small businesses, because the Secretary would be given the authority to exempt those small businesses to ensure their ability to compete is not jeopardized. Finally, I would point out that last Congress, in fact just a little more than a month ago, these provisions were unanimously approved by the Senate. I think the other Members of this body realized then that we must meet the changing needs of all our servicemembers and veterans, and that regardless of gender we must fulfill our obligation to do everything we can to make whole those who have been injured in service to this country. I hope all of my colleagues will again support this legislation so we can provide care to meet these most serious needs.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mrs. MURRAY. Senator Levin and Senator Hagan are here today to talk about the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes funds for our troops. This is an important piece of legislation and I have always supported making sure that our military has the equipment, resources and effective policies it needs to perform its missions. Mr. President, during floor consideration of the defense authorization bill, the Senate took two important votes regarding alternative fuels, signifying that we stood with our military leaders. We eliminated two provisions that would have severely limited the Department of Defense's ability to invest in alternative fuels. Both votes were bipartisan, and my friend and colleague Senator Hagan sponsored one of those amendments. I commend Senator Hagan's leadership and her hard work on this issue.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2012.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2012.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 18, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Computerized Trading Venues: What Should the Rules of the Road Be?''

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to an American hero, a great Senator, an amazing man, and a dear friend, Senator Danny Inouye. Senator Inouye dedicated his life to public service, and through his hard and faithful work, he has left his Nation and the State that he loved so dearly far better in so many ways. We will all hear a lot in the days ahead about the barriers Danny broke down during the course of his life. We will hear about his service in times of war and in peace, about his heroism, about his love for his family and State and country. We will hear about the admiration and respect he earned from so many of us here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, over the course of a long and very historic career. What I want to focus on for a minute today is the Danny Inouye who has been there for me as friend and mentor for the past 20 years, who has been a shining light in this Chamber and has set an example for all of us who measure our work not simply in words but in actions. Senator Inouye was certainly not the loudest Member of this Chamber. He was certainly not the most verbose. He was not a Senator who spent his time making long-winded speeches. But through his quiet resolve, his understated strength, and his commitment to do the right thing no matter what, he was able to accomplish so much. Senator Inouye led the Appropriations Committee through difficult times with grace and incredible effectiveness. The partisan rancor that too often dominates this city was unacceptable to him, and he made that clear to all of us. Danny's focus was on people, on the infrastructure on which they depended in their communities, on the most vulnerable, on our military families, and on the State of Hawaii, for if Danny Inouye was a giant here in the Senate, he was a mountain back home. Hawaii would not be Hawaii without Danny Inouye. He fought for his State. He would not allow it to be ignored, and he made it a better place to live and work for generations to come. As the Senator of another State far from Washington, DC, I learned a lot from Senator Inouye about how to advocate for the people who elect you and how to make sure they never get lost in the mix. Through his quiet and shining example, we all learned a bit more about bipartisanship. I so remember Danny huddling here on the floor, working closely with his good friend Senator Stevens from Alaska. We all learned a bit more about effectiveness. He knew how to get things done, more than anyone I have seen before or since. We all learned a bit more about humanity. You would never hear Danny talk about himself. We all learned a bit more about respect, about kindness toward all, not just those who agree with you. Danny helped us all remember every single day why he came here in the first place. I cannot tell you how many times Danny would stand his ground on issues that others would have given up on, simply because he knew the impact it would have on real people. He knew this was about so much more than politics or legislative games; it was about helping people and solving their problems and delivering for our communities and our Nation. Danny Inouye impressed me every day for 20 years, but nothing impressed me more than his love and commitment to his family. I just got off the phone a few minutes ago with his wife Irene and expressed my condolences. She is such a gracious lady. Danny will be missed terribly, but he has left so much for us to remember him by: his legislative achievements, of course, the roads that would not have been built had he not been here, the military bases that wouldn't have existed had he not fought so hard for them, the ports and bridges and trains that would have been less safe had he not been there to move legislation that strengthened them--so much more. But Danny will be remembered far beyond his many tangible achievements. He will live on through the values he embodied and spread; through the principles he stood for and shared; through his family, who loved him dearly; through the people who will never forget his advocacy; through the country he sacrificed so much for; and of course through all of us who are forever better simply for having served with the greatest Senator of all, Senator Dan Inouye. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to request that we have unanimous consent for S. 3313, which is the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, which was unanimously supported by the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to be moved out of this body today. This legislation not only builds upon previous laws that we have passed to improve VA services for women veterans and veterans with families, but it also brings a new focus to the need for the VA to do more to help women veterans and the spouses of male veterans have access to assistance for one of the most impactful and serious wounds of these wars, reproductive and urinary tract trauma. As many of you know, the nature of the current conflicts and the use of improvised explosive devices leaves servicemembers far more susceptible to those kinds of injuries. In fact, Army data shows that between 2003 and 2011 nearly 2,000 of our servicemembers have suffered those kinds of battle injuries. Like so many of our veterans, these men and women come home and look to returning to their lives, to finding employment, and to starting a family. Yet what they find when they go to the VA is that the fertility services that are available don't meet their complex needs for these injuries. In fact, veterans suffering from those kinds of injuries find that the VA now is specifically barred from providing more advanced assisted reproductive techniques, such as in vitro fertilization or IVF. They are told when they come home that despite the fact they have made such an extreme sacrifice for our Nation, we can't provide them with the medical services they need to start a family--veterans such as SSG Matt Keil and his wife Tracy, who is here with us today. I am so proud of her and her courage in making sure this is available for families like hers. Staff Sergeant Keil was shot in the neck while he was on patrol in Ramadi, Iraq, on February 24 of 2007, 6 weeks after he married the love of his life, Tracy. The bullet went through the right side of his neck, hit a major artery, went through his spinal cord, and exited through his left shoulder blade. Staff Sergeant Keil instantly became a quadriplegic. Doctors informed Tracy that her husband would be on a ventilator for the rest of his life and would never move his arms or his legs. Staff Sergeant Keil eventually defied the odds and found himself off that ventilator and beginning a long journey of physical rehabilitation. Around that same time, Tracy and her husband started exploring the possibilities of starting a family together--something that is a dream of so many young people in America today. Having children was all they could talk about once they adjusted to their new normal. With Staff Sergeant Keil's injuries preventing him from having children naturally, Tracy turned to the VA for assistance and began to explore her options for fertility treatments. Feeling defeated after being told the VA had no such programs in place for her in her situation, Tracy and Staff Sergeant Keil decided to pursue IVF through the private sector. While they were anxious to begin this chapter of their lives, they were confronted with the reality that TRICARE did not cover any of the costs related to Tracy's treatments because she did not have any fertility issues beyond her husband's injury. Left with no further options, the Keils decided this was important enough to them that they were willing to pay out-of-pocket to the tune of almost $32,000 per round of treatment. Thankfully, on November 9, 2010, just after their first round of IVF, Staff Sergeant Keil and Tracy welcomed their twins Matthew and Faith into the world--two beautiful children. Tracy told me--and these are her words: The day we had our children, something changed in both of us. This is exactly what we had always wanted. Our dream had arrived. The VA, Congress, and the American people have said countless times that they want to do everything they can to support my husband or make him feel whole again, and this is your chance. Having a family is exactly what we needed to feel whole again. Please help us make these changes so that other families can share in this experience. That is what Tracy said to me. I have heard from these severely injured veterans, and while the details of their stories vary, the common thread that runs through all of them is that these veterans were unable to obtain the type of assistance they needed. Some have spent tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector, just as Tracy and her husband did, to get the advanced reproductive treatments they needed to start a family. Sadly, others have watched their marriages dissolve because of the stress of infertility in combination, of course, with the stresses of readjusting to life after a severe injury, which drove their relationships to a breaking point. Any servicemember who sustains this type of serious injury deserves so much more. The bill I am here today trying to get passed will give the VA broad authority to offer advanced fertility treatments to the most severely wounded veterans, their spouses, or surrogates. It also gives the VA authority to determine how best to offer those benefits. It reverses this troubling barrier to care and will bring the VA in line with the military, which provides these services to this same group of servicemembers. This is commonsense legislation. It should pass without delay. In fact, the New York Times recently ran an editorial on this bill, and it said: In more than a decade of combat overseas, the military and the VA have continually had to adjust to the challenges of new traumas with new treatments, as with the epidemic of brain injuries and post-traumatic stress. Adapting the VA health system to better meet reproductive health needs should be part of that response. It is one compassionate way to fulfill the country's duty to our wounded veterans. They also noted that even this Congress should be capable of a bipartisan agreement to pass it, and I couldn't agree more. I can't think of any reason why any Republican or Democrat won't join us today in getting this bill passed. This is about giving veterans, who have sacrificed absolutely everything, every option we have to help them fulfill a dream of simply starting a family. It says we are not turning our backs on the catastrophic reproductive wounds that have become a signature of these wars. It says to all of these brave men and women, who didn't ask questions when they were in harm's way, that we won't let politics get in the way of our commitment to them. The VA has an obligation to care for the combat wounded, and that should include access to the care they need. Our women veterans deserve this, our male veterans deserve this, and our military and veteran families deserve this. My understanding is that the objections have been removed, and we expect this bill to be passed tonight when we clear the bills as we end discussions. I thank all of my colleagues who have stepped up to make the reality of a family real to these men and women who have served us so well in combat, have come home with extremely serious wounds, and who--because this legislation hopefully will pass this body and hopefully we will get the House to pass it--will then have their dream of having a family become a reality. I am very proud to have worked on this bill in a bipartisan way to move it out of our Veterans' Committee. My understanding is that we will be able to clear this bill tonight and move it along its way to the President for his signature and give hope to many men and women who served our country to have a family once again. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 564, S. 3313.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be considered; the Murray amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be read a third time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate has just passed legislation that will bring into focus a real need for the VA to help women veterans and the spouses of male veterans access assistance for one of the most impactful and serious wounds of these wars--reproductive and urinary tract trauma. As many of my colleagues know, the nature of the current conflict we are involved in and the use of improvised explosive devices leave our servicemembers far more susceptible to very serious injuries, such as reproductive and urinary tract trauma. Army data shows that between 2003 and 2011, we had 2,000 servicemembers suffering from these kinds of injuries. Like so many of our veterans, these men and women come home and want to return to their lives, to find employment and to start a family. But today, when they go to the VA, the fertility services that are available don't meet the very complex needs of these serious injuries. In fact, veterans who have suffered from these injuries find that the VA is specifically barred from providing more advanced assisted reproductive techniques, such as in vitro fertilization. They are, in fact, told--despite the fact that they have made such an extreme sacrifice for our country--that they can't be provided with the medical services they need to start a family. One of those veterans I have come to know is SSG Matt Keil and his wife Tracy, who are here with us today. Staff Sergeant Keil, whom I talked about this morning, was shot in the neck while he was on patrol in Ramadi, Iraq, on February 24, 2007, just 6 weeks after he married Tracy. Staff Sergeant Keil instantly became a quadriplegic. Later, when he came home and they wanted to start a family, Tracy and Matt were faced with the fact that they could not access IVF services through the VA, which meant they had to pay $32,000 out of their own pocket. Mr. President, the bill we passed today means those families who are coming behind Tracy and Matt won't have to go through the same fight to take care of something that is so vital to so many American families; that is, having a family of their own. This is an important step we have taken today in passing this out of the Senate. I am hopeful that the House will take it up and pass it. And I assure Tracy and Matt that one day, when this bill is signed into law, they will have made a true difference for those families who come behind them, and for that I am eternally grateful. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, middle-class families in our country today are paying very close attention to what we are doing here in Washington, DC. They really understand what is at stake. They know the impact our decisions will have on their lives, and they keep hoping their elected officials will finally come together around a budget deal that works for them. Less than a month ago, we concluded an election season that engaged our Nation in a conversation about this very issue. Candidates for the Presidency and for the Senate on down all laid out their positions on some of the key questions we are now hoping to answer. Should the middle-class tax cuts be extended? Should the Bush tax cuts on the rich end? Should we end the Medicare guarantee for our seniors and the next generation? Well, those big questions were discussed, argued, and clear positions were taken, and voters went to polling places on election day to render their verdict. The outcome was clear. Candidates who stood for the middle class won. Candidates who advocated for our seniors came out ahead. And in exit polls across the country, voters made very clear that they strongly supported the idea that the wealthy should pay higher tax rates and their fair share. And everyone--Democrat, Republican, Independent; wealthy, low income, middle class; students, workers, retirees; older, younger, and in between--everyone supports extending the tax cuts for the middle class. Nobody thinks the taxes should go up for 98 percent of our workers and 97 percent of our small business owners. This ought to be easy. The American people just weighed in supporting a continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. It is a policy Democrats and Republicans agree on, and it would cushion millions of middle-class families across the country from a significant portion of the upcoming so-called fiscal cliff. So why isn't it already in law? Why aren't middle-class families already able to feel confident in their taxes not going up? Well, for one reason, and one reason alone. House Republicans continue to hold the middle class hostage in a desperate and deeply misguided attempt to buck the will of the people, ignore the results of this election, and protect the wealthiest Americans from paying their fair share. That is all there is to it. If Republicans truly cared about keeping taxes low for the middle class, they can do it right now. The Senate passed a bill that would extend the tax cuts for 98 percent of families and 97 percent of workers. President Obama said he would sign it into law. He even showed us the pen. All the House has to do is let this bill come up for a vote and pass it and middle-class families can go into these holidays with the certainty they deserve. I want to be very clear about something because some of my Republican colleagues seem intent on confusing the issue. Republicans do not have to support taxes going up on the rich in order to vote for our bill to keep taxes low on the middle class. Let me repeat that. Republicans can believe that the Bush tax cuts for the rich should be extended, they can remain committed to fighting for that misguided policy, in my opinion, and they can still vote on the portion of the tax cuts we all agree should be extended for the middle class. Then middle-class families would win, we would have worked together to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of workers and 97 percent of small business owners. Then when the middle class is taken care of, I would be happy to engage my Republican colleagues in a debate about extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent. But the first step, the most obvious step, is for the Republican House to take the 98 percent both sides agree on, pass our Senate bill, and send it to the President for his signature. Recently there have been some cracks in the Republican rhetorical armor that has held fast against compromise for years. More and more Republicans have begun to accept in their rhetoric what Democrats--and, frankly, every bipartisan group that has examined this issue--have known all along: A deficit deal is going to have to be balanced. It is going to have to include new revenue from the wealthiest Americans. Grover Norquist calls these ``impure thoughts,'' but to most Americans it is common sense. Now the onus is on Republicans--and especially their leadership--to follow this encouraging rhetoric with some action. So far that has been lacking. The lengths to which Republicans are now going in order to protect the rich from paying higher rates would be comical if it were not so detrimental. They say they have accepted that revenue needs to be on the table, but then the proposal that Speaker Boehner made to the President would actually cut rates for the rich. It lacks any details about where that claimed revenue would come from. And just as independent analysts confirmed about the Ryan plan, and just as we saw in the Romney plan, when you are talking about simply closing loopholes and ending deductions, either the math does not add up or the middle class ends up bearing the entire burden. Republicans are tying themselves in knots to avoid the obvious: The easiest way to raise revenue from the wealthiest Americans is simply to allow the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent to expire as scheduled. That is what the Democrats want, it is what the American people support, and it would move us a long way toward the balanced and bipartisan deal we are all working to get to. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Minority Leader Pelosi, is circulating a discharge petition to bring the Senate bill to the House floor. I strongly support this move, and I urge House Republicans to sign on and allow this legislation to come to the floor for a vote. Democrats have proven we are willing to make the tough compromises that a balanced and bipartisan deal will require. And we have been very clear we will not allow Republicans to push through a bad deal that forces seniors and the middle class to bear this burden all alone. I am hopeful Speaker Boehner and House Republicans will decide to stop holding the middle class hostage, allow the Senate bill to come to the floor, put it up for a vote, and give our middle-class families the tax cuts on which we all agree. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 30 years of service of Grays Harbor Public Utility District Commissioner Tom Casey and to congratulate him on his retirement. Commissioner Casey is the longest-serving Grays Harbor PUD Commissioner and is concluding his fifth term in office. Commissioner Casey was elected to the Grays Harbor PUD Board of Commissioners in 1982. Prior to serving in public office, he was actively involved in energy and public utility issues from his home in Satsop, WA. Commissioner Casey also worked as a Policy Analyst in the Washington State House of Representatives. Commissioner Casey's commitment to public power was not limited to only the Grays Harbor Public Utility District. Commissioner Casey served on the Board of Directors of Energy Northwest for 12 years, 8 of which were on the executive board. Commissioner Casey also served on the Executive Council of the Public Power Council for 16 years. Commissioner Casey was also a key leader in the effort to create a Public Development Authority to transform the non-operational nuclear plant site in Grays Harbor County into an industrial park for economic development in a part of the state with high unemployment. Commissioner Casey has been a fierce advocate for public power for decades. That spirit of advocacy for public power has been a keystone for Commissioner Casey for as long as I have known him. As he retires from public service, I join with others throughout the Northwest in thanking Commissioner Casey for his years of service and his steadfast belief in the unique value of public power.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for allowing me to speak about an amendment we are going to be voting on at 2 o'clock. I wish to express my concerns with provisions in the Defense authorization bill that we are currently considering that would limit the Department of Defense in investing in alternative fuels. This underlying bill is a very important piece of legislation. I have always supported it to make sure our military has the equipment and resources and effective policies it needs to perform its mission. But I can't support the inclusion of provisions that would severely limit the Department's ability to use alternative fuels. I strongly believe those limitations will cause lasting harm to our national security and our military readiness and our efforts to decrease American dependence on foreign oil. That is why we are considering an amendment that I cosponsored that will strike one of those troubling provisions in section 313 of the committee-passed bill. As many of our colleagues are aware, DOD is the single largest consumer of oil in the world, using over 355,000 barrels of oil per day in fiscal year 2011. Even though we have increased the domestic supply of traditional fossil fuels here in the United States, the price of oil is still set on the global market. That means that DOD's fuel bill was significantly more than it had budgeted for, mostly, of course, due to the price of fuel being higher than expected. In fact, in fiscal year 2012, the Navy alone was $500 million over its budget for fuel, and that is just one of our services. So what does that mean? It means our military leaders have had to pull billions of dollars from operational accounts in recent years, which has led to decreased unit readiness, deferred maintenance on some of their critical equipment, and less training for our troops preparing for deployment into harm's way. Conveniently, critics of biofuels leave out these very real threats when they insist on the kinds of harmful policies the amendment we are offering addresses. It is true that alternative fuels will not replace fossil fuels in the immediate future, but it is also true that replacing even a fraction of the oil consumed by the Department of Defense with domestic alternative fuels will advance our national security and our military readiness, it will save many millions of dollars, and it will protect the Department from the price volatility of the global oil market and spur a domestic industry that will decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Some of our colleagues have said this is all about the cost of alternative fuel, and they will likely use some misleading figures attributed to a training exercise that actually, by the way, ended up proving these types of fuels work seamlessly. But the truth is that the cost of biofuels has decreased by over 50 percent in the last 2 years alone. The truth is that the test fuel purchase they like to mention was only 0.3 percent of the Navy's annual fuel bill. And the truth is that those concerns over costs don't take into account the very real and very high price of inaction and continued dependence on oil. I mentioned earlier that the Department uses 355,000 barrels of oil every day. The Department estimates that for every 25-cent increase in the price per gallon of oil, it will spend over $1 billion in additional fuel costs. Given the high price of oil and gas, that is not a bet I want to make long term. We are facing difficult fiscal times, as everyone here knows, and the Department of Defense, like the rest of the Federal Government, has to make sure it is responsibly spending taxpayer dollars--today and tomorrow. The Department's efforts to develop alternative fuels is in keeping with the best traditions of military technology development programs. In the past, programs have brought us products that have benefited both DOD and the civilian users, such as GPS or jet engines, microwave ovens, and cell phones. Our Navy pioneered the transition from sails to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to nuclear power. I know we can make the next leap to alternative fuels--and we need to. Our Nation's reliance on foreign oil is a significant and well- recognized military vulnerability. Our military leaders are telling us the ability to use fuels other than petroleum is critical to our national energy security. The Department is strongly opposed to the language limiting its flexibility in the committee-passed bill, and DOD supports our amendment. I urge our colleagues to join us and support the amendment we will be voting on shortly and strike this troubling provision. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Ms. MURRAY

Ms. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maj. Megan A. Kinne, a U.S. Air Force officer who is currently serving as a defense legislative fellow this year in Senator Reid's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleagues. We have been hearing a lot recently about the inability of our Nation's elected officials to come together on a balanced and bipartisan budget deal. Here in Washington, DC, this issue is often viewed through the prism of partisanship and political point-scoring. The conversations and the coverage are very focused on the moment that we are in--this debate, the next few weeks, the next year--but for families who are sitting around their tables and in communities across America, this issue is about a lot more than that. It is about their lives and their futures. It is about tough questions too many of them have to ask themselves every day: Will they be able to afford to stay in their homes? Will they get the support they need to get skills and get back on a job? Are they going to be able to send their kids to college or go to the doctor when they get sick? Is Medicare going to be there for their parents or for them or for their children? Are their taxes going to go up next year? Those are the questions they are asking, and they want their elected officials to come together around real answers and real solutions and smart policies that work for families like theirs. These are the people I am fighting for as we work toward a balanced and bipartisan deal in this lameduck session of Congress. Those are the questions I feel very strongly we need to be answering. That is why I am absolutely focused on making sure any deal we make over the next few weeks works for middle-class families and for our seniors and for our country, and that is why I have been very clear that I will not sign on to a deal that throws the burden of deficit reduction right on to the backs of families and communities who have already sacrificed so much. As cochair of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction last year, I made it very clear: Democrats were willing to compromise, we were willing to make some tough concessions, but only in the context of a balanced and fair deal that called on the wealthy to pay their fair share as well. As we all know, Republicans didn't just refuse to meet us halfway then, they wouldn't even step out of their corner. They insisted that seniors and the middle class feel all of the pain in that deal and that the wealthiest Americans--millionaires and billionaires-- be protected from paying a single penny more in taxes. Democrats rejected that deeply unfair approach, and we decided to keep fighting for the middle class rather than roll over and let Republicans lock in new giveaways to the rich and major cuts to programs on which our families depend. And then we made our case to the American people. We built our campaigns from the top to the bottom around the idea that budgets need to work for our middle class and that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. The Republican approach--the Ryan budget plan--was literally on the ballot, and Romney and Ryan and other Republicans were not shy about telling the American people they didn't think the rich should pay a penny more in taxes in this deal. Well, not only did Democrats win races across the country, but in exit polling it was clear that the vast majority of Americans supported our approach to deficit reduction--a balanced approach, an approach that cuts spending responsibly but also calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share. Voters spoke pretty clearly in this election, and they stood behind Democrats to fight for a budget deal that works for the middle class. We are hearing encouraging words from some of our Republican colleagues who have indicated a willingness to put revenue on the table and to break the stranglehold DC lobbyist Grover Norquist has on the modern Republican Party. One of my Republican Senate colleagues said Republicans should ``put revenue on the table . . . We don't generate enough revenue.'' And he said he would not be beholden to the Norquist pledge. Another has said: The world has changed. And the economic situation is different. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill realized that in the 1980s. I think everything should be on the table. Another said: I'm not obligated on the pledge . . . The only thing I'm honoring is the oath that I take when I'm sworn in in January. Another Republican Senator recently said: I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge. If we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt. Of course, Grover Norquist is fighting back. He called those statements by my Republican colleagues impure thoughts; he called one of them a weasel. He is used to blind allegiance from the Republican Party, and he is not going to take this lying down. But I am hopeful that more and more Republicans will break away from Grover Norquist and that they will actually follow up on their new rhetoric with a genuine willingness to help us call on the wealthy to pay their fair share. And it should be easy for them because the Senate actually has already passed a bill to do that and in a way that works for our middle class. The Senate passed a bill that would extend the tax cuts for 98 percent of our workers and 97 percent of small business owners and just let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire as scheduled. We have sent that bill over to the House now. The President said he would sign it. All House Republicans have to do is pass that bill, and a significant chunk of the fiscal cliff will disappear for the middle class. When that is done, we will then continue the serious conversation we need to have about our country's budget future. But there is no reason middle-class families should have to go into the holidays not knowing if their taxes are going to go up. Democrats and Republicans both agree that the middle class should have their tax cuts extended. So there is no reason the House should continue holding that bill and the middle class hostage. By the way, one conservative Republican in the House agrees. Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma told his colleagues and reporters yesterday: ``The first thing I'd do is make sure we don't raise taxes on 98 percent of the American people.'' He said that was ``the right thing to do'' and that ``where there is common ground . . . we should seize that common ground.'' I applaud Representative Cole for that commonsense and brave position. I am hopeful that he can persuade other Republicans to do the right thing for our families, small business owners, and communities across the country who have so much at stake and who are looking to us to solve this problem. I am hopeful they will join Senate Democrats and pass that middle-class tax cut, and I am confident that once we move forward on that bill, then both sides will sit down and listen to the American people, allow the wealthy to pay more, and then focus on the questions families are asking about--our budgets, our priorities, our fiscal health, and the future of the Nation. Madam President, I yield the floor. The Fiscal Cliff