Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 151 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 151 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7136-S7146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 3254, which the clerk will report by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3254) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2013 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:

Kyl amendment No. 3123, to require regular updates of
Congress on the military implications of proposals of the
United States and Russia under consideration in negotiations
on nuclear arms, missile defense, and long-range conventional
strike system matters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before Senator Reed leaves the floor, I
want to first thank him for his comments about myself and Senator
McCain and the other members of our committee. Senator Reed of Rhode
Island has and will continue to make--and, hopefully, for many decades
to come--an extraordinary contribution to the work of this body. I have
seen it firsthand on the Armed Services Committee where he is the
chairman of the SeaPower Subcommittee, but way beyond that. He brings
an experience and a thoughtful commitment to this work which is second
to none, and it is incredibly valuable to every member of our committee
to have him as a member of the committee. I cannot express how grateful
I am for that, and I cannot exaggerate how grateful I am for his
presence and for his work.
Mr. REED. If I may simply say that I thank the chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a few minutes I hope to be able to lay
out a roadmap for our work here--at least for the next couple hours. We
hope to be able to deal with a modified Kyl amendment as well as
dispose of, we hope, an Ayotte amendment and a Hagan amendment. There
will be debate with each of those, and this is just tentative because I
want to discuss this, obviously, with Senator McCain. But if this works
out, there could be a couple votes in an hour or so. But, again, I am
not announcing that; I am just sort of giving as early a warning as I
can to our colleagues as to what is at least a likely prospect at this
time. But, again, that is going to have to await the presence of
Senator McCain, with whom I am working so closely on this matter.
So with that, 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2888, 2924, 2949, 2960, 2963, 2969, 2991, 3083

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that the following amendments be called up
and agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate: Kohl No.
2888, Manchin No. 2924, Webb No. 2949, Wyden No. 2960, Sessions No.
2963, Heller No. 2969, Hoeven No. 2991, and Barrasso No. 3083.
Mr. McCAIN. All these amendments have been cleared on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

[[Page S7137]]

amendment no. 2888

(Purpose: To provide for the payment of a benefit for the
nonparticipation of eligible members in the Post-Deployment/
Mobilization Respite Absence program due to Government error)

At the end of subtitle A of title VI, insert the following:

SEC. 602. PAYMENT OF BENEFIT FOR NONPARTICIPATION OF ELIGIBLE
MEMBERS IN POST-DEPLOYMENT/MOBILIZATION RESPITE
ABSENCE PROGRAM DUE TO GOVERNMENT ERROR.

(a) Payment of Benefit.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (e), the Secretary
concerned shall, upon application therefor, make a payment to
each individual described in paragraph (2) of $200 for each
day of nonparticipation of such individual in the Post-
Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program as described
in that paragraph.
(2) Covered individuals.--An individual described in this
paragraph is an individual who--
(A) was eligible for participation as a member of the Armed
Forces in the Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence
program; but
(B) as determined by the Secretary concerned pursuant to an
application for the correction of the military records of
such individual pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United
States Code, did not participate in one or more days in the
program for which the individual was so eligible due to
Government error.
(b) Deceased Individuals.--
(1) Applications.--If an individual otherwise covered by
subsection (a) is deceased, the application required by that
subsection shall be made by the individual's legal
representative.
(2) Payment.--If an individual to whom payment would be
made under subsection (a) is deceased at time of payment,
payment shall be made in the manner specified in section
1552(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Payment in Lieu of Administrative Absence.--Payment
under subsection (a) with respect to a day described in that
subsection shall be in lieu of any entitlement of the
individual concerned to a day of administrative absence for
such day.
(d) Construction.--
(1) Construction with other pay.--Any payment with respect
to an individual under subsection (a) is in addition to any
other pay provided by law.
(2) Construction of authority.--It is the sense of Congress
that--
(A) the sole purpose of the authority in this section is to
remedy administrative errors; and
(B) the authority in this section is not intended to
establish any entitlement in connection with the Post-
Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program.
(e) Offset.--The Secretary of Defense shall transfer
$2,000,000 from the unobligated balances of the Pentagon
Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund established under
section 2674(e) of title 10, United States Code, to the
Miscellaneous Receipts Fund of the United States Treasury.
(f) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Post-
Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program'' and
``Secretary concerned'' have the meaning given such terms in
section 604(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2350).

amendment no. 2924

(Purpose: To require an additional element in the report on the
accuracy of the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System)

On page 175, line 10, insert after ``in order'' the
following ``to provide for the standardization of
identification credentials required for eligibility,
enrollment, transactions, and updates across all Department
of Defense installations and''.

amendment no. 2949

(Purpose: To extend the temporary increase in accumulated leave
carryover for members of the Armed Forces)

At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:

SEC. 526. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY INCREASE IN ACCUMULATED
LEAVE CARRYOVER FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES.

Section 701(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``September 30, 2013'' and inserting ``September
30, 2015''.

amendment no. 2960

(Purpose: To require a report on mechanisms to ease the reintegration
into civilian life of members of the National Guard and the Reserves
following a deployment on active duty)

At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:

SEC. 513. REPORT ON MECHANISMS TO EASE THE REINTEGRATION INTO
CIVILIAN LIFE OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD
AND THE RESERVES FOLLOWING A DEPLOYMENT ON
ACTIVE DUTY.

(a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct
a study of the adequacy of mechanisms for the reintegration
into civilian life of members of the National Guard and the
Reserves following a deployment on active duty in the Armed
Forces, including whether permitting such members to remain
on active duty for a limited period after such deployment
(often referred to as a ``soft landing'') is feasible and
advisable for facilitating and easing that reintegration.
(b) Elements.--
(1) In general.--The study required by subsection (a) shall
address the unique challenges members of the National Guard
and the Reserves face when reintegrating into civilian life
following a deployment on active duty in the Armed Forces and
the adequacy of the policies, programs, and activities of the
Department of Defense to assist such members in meeting such
challenges.
(2) Particular elements.--The study shall take into
consideration the following:
(A) Disparities in reintegration after deployment between
members of the regular components of the Armed Forces and
members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces,
including--
(i) disparities in access to services, including, but not
limited to, health care, mental health counseling, job
counseling, and family counseling;
(ii) disparities in amounts of compensated time provided to
take care of personal affairs;
(iii) disparities in amounts of time required to properly
access services and to take care of personal affairs,
including travel time; and
(iv) disparities in costs of uncompensated events or
requirements, including, but not limited to, travel costs and
legal fees.
(B) Disparities in reintegration policies and practices
among the various Armed Forces and between the regular and
reserve components of the Armed Forces.
(C) Disparities in the lengths of time of deployment
between the regular and reserve components of the Armed
Forces.
(D) Applicable medical studies on reintegration, including
studies on the rest and recuperation needed to appropriately
recover from combat and training stress.
(E) Other applicable studies on reintegration policies and
practices, including the recommendations made by such
studies.
(F) Appropriate recommendations for the elements of a
program to assist members of the National Guard and the
Reserves following a deployment on active duty in the Armed
Forces in reintegrating into civilian life, including means
of ensuring that the program applies uniformly across the
Armed Forces and between the regular components and reserve
components of the Armed Forces.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the study
required by subsection (a). The report shall set forth the
results of the study, including the matters specified in
subsection (b), and include such comments and recommendation
in light of the study as the Secretary considers appropriate.

amendment no. 2963

(Purpose: To authorize the posthumous honorary promotion of Sergeant
Paschal Conley to second lieutenant in the Army)

At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:

SEC. 585. POSTHUMOUS HONORARY PROMOTION OF SERGEANT PASCHAL
CONLEY TO SECOND LIEUTENANT IN THE ARMY.

Notwithstanding the time limitation specified in section
1521 of title 10, United States Code, or any other time
limitation with respect to posthumous promotions for persons
who served in the Armed Forces, the President is authorized
to issue an appropriate posthumous honorary commission
promoting to second lieutenant in the Army under section 1521
of such title Sergeant (retired) Paschal Conley, a
distinguished Buffalo Soldier who was recommended for
promotion to second lieutenant under then-existing procedures
by General John J. Pershing.

amendment no. 2969

(Purpose: To require a report on the future availability of TRICARE
Prime throughout the United States)

At the end of subtitle A of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 704. REPORT ON THE FUTURE AVAILABILITY OF TRICARE PRIME
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting
forth the policy of the Department of Defense on the future
availability of TRICARE Prime under the TRICARE program for
eligible beneficiaries in all TRICARE regions throughout the
United States.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description, by region, of the difference in
availability of TRICARE Prime for eligible beneficiaries
(other than eligible beneficiaries on active duty in the
Armed Forces) under newly-awarded TRICARE managed care
contracts, including, in particular, an identification of the
regions or areas in which TRICARE Prime will no longer be
available for such beneficiaries under such contracts.
(2) A description of the transition and outreach plans for
eligible beneficiaries described in paragraph (1) who will no
longer have access to TRICARE Prime under the contracts
described in that paragraph.

[[Page S7138]]

(3) An estimate of the increased costs to be incurred for
healthcare under the TRICARE program for eligible
beneficiaries described in paragraph (2).
(4) An estimate of the saving to be achieved by the
Department as a result of the contracts described in
paragraph (1).
(5) A description of the plans of the Department to
continue to assess the impact on access to healthcare for
eligible beneficiaries described in paragraph (2).

amendment no. 2991

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the maintenance by the
United States of a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1084. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE MAINTENANCE BY THE UNITED
STATES OF A TRIAD OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY
SYSTEMS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that
even with the reductions specified in the New START Treaty,
the United States should retain a nuclear ``Triad'' of land-
based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched
ballistic missiles and nuclear capable heavy bombers, noting
that ``[r]etaining all three Triad legs will best maintain
strategic stability at reasonable cost, while hedging against
potential technical problems or vulnerabilities''.
(2) The resolution of ratification for the New START
Treaty, which the Senate approved on December 22, 2010,
stated that ``it is the sense of the Senate that United
States deterrence and flexibility is assured by a robust
triad of strategic delivery vehicles. To this end, the United
States is committed to accomplishing the modernization and
replacement of its strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, and
to ensuring the continued flexibility of United States
conventional and nuclear delivery systems''.
(3) In a message to the Senate on February 2, 2011,
President Obama certified that he intended to ``modernize or
replace the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems: a
heavy bomber and air-launched cruise missile, an ICBM, and a
nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) and SLBM''
and to ``maintain the United States rocket motor industrial
base''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States should maintain a triad of strategic
nuclear delivery systems; and
(2) the United States is committed to modernizing the
component weapons and delivery systems of that triad.

amendment no. 3083

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to maintain the
readiness nd flexibility of the intercontinental ballistic missile
force)

At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

SEC. 238. READINESS AND FLEXIBILITY OF INTERCONTINENTAL
BALLISTIC MISSILE FORCE.

The Secretary of Defense may, in a manner consistent with
the obligations of the United States under international
agreements--
(1) retain intercontinental ballistic missile launch
facilities currently supporting deployed strategic nuclear
delivery vehicles within the limit of 800 deployed and non-
deployed strategic launchers;
(2) maintain intercontinental ballistic missiles on alert
or operationally deployed status; and
(3) preserve intercontinental ballistic missile silos in
operational or warm status.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to talk this morning about an
amendment I had intended to offer but I am not going to be offering
today because there is an important portion in the House Armed Services
Committee that covers my concerns. That was the amendment I had drafted
that is cosponsored by Senators Lieberman and Collins. I appreciate
their support.
My amendment would establish an east coast ballistic missile defense
site to make sure the east coast of our country is protected from
missile threats. Let me describe why I thought it was very important.
My amendment would have established both a study on three potential
locations for an east coast missile defense site, an environmental
impact study, and a plan for deployment of that site.
Where we are right now, unfortunately, is we have Iran, and no one
disagrees that Iran has an active ballistic development program. They
can already reach Eastern Europe. Many analysts believe Iran will be
able to develop the capacity to strike the mainland United States with
an ICBM by 2015. Our existing missile defense sites right now that
protect this country have the capacity--if, for example, North Korea
were to launch an ICBM toward the west coast, we would have an
opportunity for two shots at that missile to protect our country.
In other words, if the President of the United States got an awful
call that a missile was coming from North Korea toward the western
coast of our country, he would have an opportunity to have one shot, a
look, and then a shot to take that missile down to protect our country;
two shots to take the missile down.
But as it stands right now, when it comes to the east coast of our
country, including the Capital, Washington, DC, the center of our
government where we stand right now, my home State of New Hampshire,
New York, all those population centers, if Iran were to develop the
capacity to have an ICBM, where we are today is we would only get one
shot at that missile if it were to be shot at the eastern coast of the
United States instead of a shoot, look, shoot that we have if North
Korea were to shoot a missile toward the western part of our country.
I think this is deeply troubling. We should be developing that
capacity to make sure our country is fully protected.
I would like to address others who have looked at this. This year the
National Research Council recommended an additional ballistic missile
site in the United States in the Northeast to more effectively protect
the Eastern United States and Canada, particularly against Iranian ICBM
threats should they emerge. That is, of course, because some analysts
believe they could develop that capacity as soon as 2015.
The markup coming out of the House Armed Services Committee already
contains language and authorization for the actual establishment of an
east coast missile site. That is one of the reasons I will not be
offering my amendment today to conduct this study on environmental
impact and also planned deployment because the House version already
contains a requirement that an east coast missile defense site be
developed.
Some would say--in fact, one thing I would like to address is that we
may hear from the administration that they are working on a hedging--
and a different hedging strategy--to make sure the east coast is
protected. And that hedging strategy would be plans to deploy the SM-3
Block IIB missile in Poland. But where we are today with the SM-3 Block
IIB shows why it is important for us to use technology that already
exists to protect the east coast; that is, because the SM-3 Block IIB
is only a plan on a piece of paper. It doesn't exist yet, and there
have been concerns relayed about its development and, in fact, the
development of the SM-3 Block IIB has already been delayed to 2021,
which does not meet where we are with the potential that Iran could
develop ICBM capacity by 2015. It just would not work.
But what we do know is that we already have technology that exists,
and if we were to deploy a missile defense site now on the east coast,
that we would get the opportunity to have a look, shoot, look on the
east coast were Iran to launch a missile toward the east coast of our
country.
We only need to look at what happened recently in the conflict with
Hamas, the missiles that were being shot into Israel and the Iron Dome
system to understand the importance of missile defense. Now, that is a
system that focuses on short-range missiles, but we all saw the number
of civilians that could be protected by the capacity of having a robust
missile defense system, and I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to be
in the position to make sure the east coast of our country would be as
protected as the west coast when it comes to an emerging threat from
Iran.
There is no question that the more we hear about the behavior of
Iran, the more troubled we should be as a country. Not only do they
have a robust missile development program, but we all know they are
also making efforts to acquire the capability of having a nuclear
weapon.
Now is the time for us to act, not to find ourselves in 2015 with no
plans as to how to deploy an east coast missile defense site to make
sure the east coast of our country has the same protection as the west
coast. Now is the time to act because, in addition, in 2012 in the
defense authorization, we asked the administration to submit a plan to
us as to how they would hedge, a hedging strategy to make sure the east
coast was as protected as the west coast.
They have yet to submit that plan, and so now is the time for us to
make

[[Page S7139]]

sure we go forward with technology that already exists to ensure that
the east coast of our country is protected.
I cannot imagine the President of the United States being in a
position as we go forward in our country where, if a missile were
coming from Iran toward our Capital, he would be told we only have one
shot to take that missile down versus if a missile were coming to the
west coast of our country in L.A. from North Korea, that we would have
two shots to take that missile down.
We want to make sure our country is protected. The threat from Iran
is a very real threat. That is why I was going to offer this amendment,
to make sure we had a study, an environmental impact analysis and a
plan that the Department of Defense could use to deploy an east coast
missile defense site.
But my colleagues in the House, including Representative Turner, have
already addressed this issue directly with the requirement contained in
the House mark of the Armed Services Committee. I think it is very
important what they have done.
I thank the Chair very much for giving me the opportunity to speak
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. First, I would like to speak to the Senator's amendment. I
want to compliment her, commend her and her other cosponsors--Senator
Lieberman, Senator Collins, and others--in their effort to bring
attention to what is clearly a great need that is going unmet. I agree
the House's action is very important to begin to move this process
forward.
The Senator's amendment is even less specific than the action taken
by the House. We are going to need a study of the environmental impacts
and evaluate possible locations. It is going to have to be done. It
seems to me to make sense that this amendment would begin that process,
and so I support that very strongly.
I would also like to speak to some of the military requirements which
go to the fundamental question of whether we are going to move forward.
If the Senator does not want to speak further right now, I would like
to speak to that issue.
Ms. AYOTTE. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. KYL. All right. Mr. President, as I said, this particular
amendment doesn't require that the administration actually establish a
site for an east coast defense, but I do believe such a site would
provide an important and critical measure of protection for the east
coast of the United States and also those in the southeastern part of
the United States.
This has become more important due to the cancellation of earlier
plans to deploy long-range ground-based interceptors in Poland. That is
what it originally was going to provide, full protection for the United
States. That would have provided what is called an ``early shot'' or a
shot early in the trajectory of a missile coming from someplace--for
example, the Middle East--toward the United States.
In conjunction with the missile defense sites that we already have in
Alaska and in California, a site further to the east would provide what
is called a multiple-shot opportunity or an ability in the event that
there was more than one missile or one had to distinguish between
decoys or one of our first missiles wasn't effective in reaching its
target; it would give us, in effect, a second chance to shoot down the
missile, which is always what we want to do in planning these kinds of
missile defense systems.
In fact, this was the actual rationale for, the actual basis for the
third site deployment in Poland, to improve protection of the United
States, while at the same time affording protection for our European
allies against longer range ballistic missile threats from the Middle
East.
This is a critical point. We are involved in missile defense not just
to protect our allies, say, in Europe but also to protect the homeland
of the United States of America. But the current administration's plan
seems to be oriented toward protecting allies in Europe and not
strengthening the protection of the people in the United States of
America.
The administration says it can cover the ballistic missile threat
from the Middle East with the current inventory of 30 ground-based
interceptors. First of all, I seriously disagree with that assessment.
In any event, there is no way to know if that can be done for sure.
Let me cite the President's own Ballistic Missile Defense Review
report, which says:

Looking ahead, it is difficult to predict precisely how the
threat to the U.S. homeland will evolve, but it is certain
that it will do so.

So you can't say based upon what happened a couple of years ago, or
the deployment of the ground-based interceptors, that only 30 of them,
bear in mind, are going to protect our homeland at all.
Now how does the administration then plan to make up for what it has
done in terms of canceling programs that further develop the so-called
Ground-Based Interceptor. Well, it plans to compensate for this loss of
original Ground-Based Interceptor deployments with something that is
called the IIB missile, the SM-3 Block IIB.
That is a missile that would be deployed in Poland, for example, but
the problem is there is no SM-3 Block IIB missile. That is something
that is in the minds of some scientists. It is on vu-graphs. There are
pictures of what it might look like, but there is no such missile.
Indeed, without discussing classified material here there is no way
to know whether we are actually even going to be able to develop such a
missile. In fact, its development, rather, has already been delayed to
the year 2021.
Now, think about it. Think about it. This is 2012, and we wouldn't
even begin developing such a missile for another 9 years? This is
something way off into the future, if it works, and there is no
commitment to deploy it and, indeed, the President has already talked
with President Medvedev of Russia about further flexibility in
designing our missile defense system. It is no secret that this is
potentially on the chopping block, notwithstanding the commitments of
the President earlier to deploy it.
The NRC has, in fact, recommended that there be an interceptor site
on the east coast of the United States as a possible substitute for
this Block IIB. This concern has been raised before, and the
administration has yet failed to provide a hedging strategy that the
fiscal year 2012 NDAA required. So we have known of this deficiency,
the fact that the GBI system is not adequate, the fact that the SM-3
Block IIB system may never be deployed. We have asked for a hedging
strategy.
So what do we do if none of this works, if we don't go forward with
it? We don't have that even if the law has required it.
What this amendment does is to shine an even brighter light on the
concern that I have had for a long time, which is why the
administration hasn't provided sufficient resources and attention to
our missile defense efforts to protect the homeland of the United
States. That is precisely what this would do. Sure, it would help with
regard to our friends in Europe, but the primary point of this is to
protect the American people. What is wrong with that?
Some examples that lead to my concern are that in his first budget,
the President reduced funding for the ground-based system. That is the
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System that is also known as the
national missile defense system, by $500 million, $\1/2\ billion. Then
another billion dollars was reduced between his fiscal year 2011 and
fiscal year 2012, 5-year budget plans. So they have taken an enormous
amount of money out of the development of the system that was supposed
to protect the United States. The President cut back the number of
Ground-Based Interceptors for the defense of the homeland.
Originally, under the Bush administration, it was going to be 44.
Well, that is a pretty small number when you stop to think about it,
but they have cut it back to 30. Then in addition they subsequently
cancelled the 10 GBI interceptors that we were going to send to Poland
for defense of Europe as well as the United States.
So they have not only cut back on the funding for the development of
the program, they have cut back on the actual number of the
interceptors that we have already developed.
Third, the President curtailed any significant development and
modernization of the GMD system, and he

[[Page S7140]]

cancelled the Multiple Kill Vehicle Program, which was intended to be a
significant upgrade to the current Kill Vehicle. The current design is
over 20 years old.
When we talk about a kill vehicle, of course, we are talking about
what is on the nose of the missile that goes up, the interceptor
missile, how it intercepts the ballistic missile in flight, how it
finds it, how it triggers the final phase of the intercept, and how it
actually impacts the offending missile.
The technology has improved dramatically since the 20 years that has
elapsed from the design of the original kill vehicle of the GBI. First
of all, they have reduced funding for the program. Secondly, they have
cut back the number of missiles in the program. Third, they have
stopped the development of the next generation of the real business end
of the missile, the kill vehicle, so that it can't improve with
technology and improve to meet the evolving threats of those that are
developing missiles against us.
Remember, countries such as Russia, for example, have extraordinarily
sophisticated multiple-entry vehicles with decoys and other technology
to try to evade a missile defense that the United States has produced.
If we don't develop our technology and deploy it to keep up with these
developments, we are not going to have an effective system.
Over the next 5 years the administration intends to spend $20 billion
on regional missile defense compared with only $4 billion for homeland
missile defense. So we are going to provide protection for our allies--
European allies and so on--but only $4 billion over the next 5 years.
That is about $1 billion a year on a system that is critical for the
protection of the United States.
I would ask my colleagues to recall the Missile Defense Act of 1999,
going all the way back then, which requires the United States to build
a missile defense system capable of protecting our Nation against
limited ballistic missile attacks from rogue nations and protect
against any accidental and unauthorized launches from any source. We
need to ensure our homeland missile defense system is as robust as
possible, and a missile defense site on the east coast may be one of
the best means for accomplishing this.
In other words, of course, we are concerned about North Korea or
Iran, but there are a couple other countries in the world that may not
wish us any harm but that have extraordinarily capable systems--I speak
specifically of China and Russia. We have always wanted--and the law
requires us--to provide protection against the kind of unauthorized or
accidental launch that can occur. This is not an idle concern. We spend
enormous amounts of time and energy and money trying to make sure these
extraordinarily lethal weapons are never launched by accident or by
some unauthorized event. That is one of the reasons for a missile
defense system, to ensure that kind of accident never would result in
harm to the United States. Of course, what they are also worried about
is, if that ever happens, then there is the question of retaliation.
How do we know this is not intentional? How do we know we shouldn't
retaliate?
Wars can be started almost by accident, and the best protection
against that is a missile defense system that can ensure no harm is
done even if there is such a launch. In the meantime, we can find out
whether this is real, whether we need to respond, whether we need to
start another war. That is the benefit of a missile defense system.
It is beyond me why the administration reduces the funding, cuts back
the numbers, and kills the advanced technology we could put into our
system to protect the people of the United States of America. I
understand the difficult choices that have to be made in a time of
austerity, but we are not talking about extraordinary amounts of money.
The amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire simply calls for a
study of the location of the site and what the impact of that would be.
That is the first step in deciding where to put this additional bit of
protection.
I think this is a priority. To oppose just the idea of investigating
how we are going to be proceeding, especially with the little bit of
money that entails, is difficult to understand. It is not too much to
ask. We have a moral responsibility to protect our people. It makes
strategic sense because of the exposure of our American homeland to
these long-range missile threats and because of the critical
vulnerability we have right now.
The commander of NORTHCOM, the military entity with responsibility
here--General Jacoby--told Congress last March:

No homeland task is more important than protecting the
United States from a limited ICBM attack . . . we must not
allow regional actors, such as North Korea, to hold U.S.
policy hostage by making our citizens vulnerable to a nuclear
ICBM attack.

That is part of the problem. There are some people in the United
States who actually believe it would be beneficial for the United
States to be vulnerable to a missile attack from another country. They
actually believe that would be advantageous. The reasoning is rather
weird, but it goes something like this: If we develop defenses that
could protect the American people, then other countries will want to
develop even more effective systems that can try to override those
defenses, and that puts us into a spiral of arms development that would
be very costly.
One can argue that theory, but there are a couple things wrong with
it. First of all, recall this was the argument used against getting out
of the ABM Treaty to enable the United States to develop an
antiballistic missile defense. It was going to create this big arms war
between then-Soviet Union and the United States. It didn't. Both sides
have reduced our warheads. One of the reasons why is because it is so
expensive, and the Soviet Union, now Russia, realized we could have
driven them into bankruptcy. It is one of the reasons--one of the
reasons--Russian officials have cited for the collapse of the Soviet
Union. They knew Ronald Reagan meant it when he said he was going to
develop a missile defense system. They knew they couldn't spend enough
money to overcome it or, if they tried, they would go into bankruptcy.
It is expensive.
I don't necessarily think we have to fear a new expensive arms race
because there are very intelligent people in other countries, such as
Russia, for example, who appreciate the fact that would be a fools's
errand. They may want to threaten, but they are not going to do it
because they can't afford it any more now than they could back in the
days of the Soviet Union. They know the United States has the resources
to trump whatever they do come up with. That is the first point.
But the second point is the moral one. Is it moral for leaders who
have responsibility for the national security of the American people to
deliberately--knowing this is the case--leave them vulnerable to an
attack that could kill millions of Americans at a time? If we have the
means of avoiding that result, we should. We do. We have that means. It
may require a little bit more money. It may require not cutting back
the number of interceptors we have deployed. It may require continuing
with the advancement of technologies we know are out there. It may
require siting missiles in a country of Europe, on Aegis cruisers or on
the east coast of the United States. We know how to do all these
things.
Is it moral for leaders of the United States to leave our people
deliberately vulnerable to an attack by others when we know we have the
means to prevent it, and there is a cost-benefit that obviously favors
the deployment of an additional site of ground-based interceptors?
I think for the Senator from New Hampshire to propose that we begin
looking at where a new site might be and determine what the
environmental impacts of that are as a complement to what the House of
Representatives has already done in passing the bill that says we need
to move forward is a perfectly reasonable step, and I commend her and
the other cosponsors of this amendment for bringing this matter to the
attention of the Senate and to the people of the United States. This is
part of our responsibility to our constituents and all the other
citizens of our great Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just to want follow up on the remarks
of my colleagues Senator Kyl and Senator Ayotte.
Last year, I asked for and obtained language in the Defense bill that
would

[[Page S7141]]

require the Defense Department to report on the effectiveness and need
and ramifications of a hedging strategy for the United States, and that
was due within 75 days of the bill being passed. My understanding is
the Defense Department produced that analysis and they sent it to the
White House as early as last spring and it has not been produced.
So now we have the House having passed language that actually funds
moving forward with a hedging strategy on an American-based system to
give us a layered defense, which I think is probably necessary but
because we have not gotten a report from the Defense Department it is
hard to know. I would first say it is not acceptable that we have not
received that report. It has gone on too long. I guess I and Congress
have been too reticent in insisting that it be produced.
I would say to the Defense Department and the administration, we
expect that report to be produced. I don't want to cause trouble in
your world, but it has been made, it has been sent forward, and it is
time to have it come to the people's representatives who have to make
decisions about how we are going to defend America. I will be using the
various rights I have as a Senator to move that forward.
I wish to quote from a story in today's Washington Times, referring
to a statement made by Mr. Fereidoun Abbasi, who is Iran's nuclear
chief. The article states: ``Iran will step up its uranium enrichment
program by sharply increasing the number of centrifuges used to make
nuclear fuel.''
There are some people still saying we don't know if Iran wants to go
forward with a nuclear weapon. How could this possibly be? They have
been subjected to the most rigorous sanctions that are damaging their
economy. Yet in today's paper their nuclear chief says they are
accelerating their plans to go forward. There is no doubt about what
they are doing. I wish it weren't so. I truly wish it weren't so. I had
hoped they would change their mind. Maybe they will change their mind,
but it is false to say they haven't made up their mind and they are not
going forward to build a nuclear weapon. That is so plainly obvious I
don't know how anybody could ever suggest otherwise. The only question
is, Can we somehow bring to bear enough pressure on them to get them to
change their mind? There is a long article about that in today's paper.
I was pleased Chairman Levin and both Democratic and Republican
members of the Armed Services Committee produced a unanimous bill.
Senator McCain, Senator Levin, both fine, wonderful leaders of our
committee, and every member all signed off on the legislation. I think
that speaks well for our committee. They also approved this language
dealing with the failure of the Department to produce the hedging
report--and it has a number of fact-finding points in it which I will
share with my colleagues:

The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has
testified to Congress that . . . ``Iran already has the
largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East,
and it is expanding the scale, reach, and sophistication of
its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently
capable of carrying a nuclear payload.''

That is President Obama's National Intelligence Director, and he is
the man to make the final opinion on that for the President. Let me
quote additional language from the committee:

The 2012 Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of
Iran by the Department of Defense states that, in addition to
increasing its missile inventories, ``Iran has boosted the
lethality and effectiveness of its existing missile systems
with accuracy improvements and new submissions payloads.''

Also in the report:

North Korea warned the United States in October 2012 that
the United States mainland is within reach of its missiles.

I will wrap up, since I can't talk much longer anyway. We have to
recognize the grim fact there are very dangerous countries with nuclear
weapons--North Korea--or are rapidly developing them--Iran--capable of
putting them on missiles and that have missile systems already. So
North Korea has a missile system they believe can reach the United
States right now. We need to be sure our defense system is sufficient.
I wish it weren't so, but that is the way it is. I think the Defense
Department understands this.
I think the administration says it does, and we are doing some good
things to be prepared for that. However, we have to confront this
question of an east coast site, and we need this report. I believe we
are going to need additional layered defenses, and we might as well
prepare to do it. In the scheme of the entire investment in our
national defense, it won't be the kind of expenditure that will break
the defense budget. It is something we can work into our defense
budgets.
I thank Senators Ayotte and Kyl for their comments.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we are waiting for Senator Cornyn to come
to the floor, and he will be speaking on the modified Cornyn amendment.
We also are waiting for Senator Inhofe to come to the floor, and he
will be speaking on a Hagan amendment. Then we would expect, after a
fairly short amount of debate--perhaps 10 minutes but not set yet--by
each of them, perhaps a minute or two by the sponsors of the amendment,
particularly in the case of the Hagan amendment, to describe the
amendment, we would then go to a rollcall vote on both of those
amendments. That is the plan. It is not yet in a UC agreement formally
because we want to make sure we are protecting the Senators in terms of
the length of time they need to describe either their opposition to the
Hagan amendment in the case of Senator Inhofe or their support of the
Cornyn amendment in the case of Senator Cornyn.
We hope Senator Klobuchar will now be recognized for a few minutes to
describe a couple of amendments she has filed. She is not going to call
them up at this point, but this would be a period for her to describe
those two amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank Senator Levin and Senator
McCain for their leadership, including their leadership on this very
issue last year when the Defense Authorization Act was on the floor.
Last year we made some improvements.
Here is the issue. According to the Veterans Affairs Administration,
a full one in five female veterans at VA facilities across the country
says she has had an issue with sexual assault or harassment. In 2010
the Department of Defense cited more than 3,000 reports in the
military. We know that the vast majority of our soldiers are law-
abiding and would not engage in this kind of behavior, but this is
clearly an issue, and we have seen an increase.
I would like to again take the time to recognize Senator Levin and
Senator McCain, who last year supported the inclusion of the amendment
that I introduced to preserve records of military sexual assault in the
2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Until that time, it was really
a patchwork of rules for each branch of the military as far as how long
those records would be preserved. Thanks to the support of every woman
Senator, we were able to get this changed, and so now these records are
preserved.
But there are still some additional changes that can be made. Those
are the amendments that I submitted. There is a records retention
amendment--and I am working with the chairman and ranking member on
this issue--that once again tackles this issue. Unfortunately, not all
records are being stored for 50 years, as was our agreement last year.
Documents filed in a restrictive reporting setting are stored for just
5 years, and this amendment changes that.
Our second amendment, No. 3103, addresses another area of records
retention, and its purpose is to target the issue of repeat offenders.
As we all know, sex offenders are often repeat offenders, and what this
does is target it and makes clear that only substantiated charges of
sexual offenses would be preserved in the permanent personnel file of
the perpetrator.

[[Page S7142]]

The third amendment, No. 3104, involves sexual assault reporting and
expands the data the Department of Defense reports on sexual assault
incidents in the military.
The fourth amendment, No. 3105, tackles one of the key precursors to
sexual assault--sexual harassment.
The fifth and final amendment involves the disposition of sexual
assault cases. It makes a statement about what the U.S. policy should
be regarding the disposition of sexual assault charges in the military.
All of these requests came from women in the military. My office has
been working with these women. They signed up to serve. They performed
their service well and honorably. In the course of their service, if
they experienced an assault that could have been prevented, an assault
that would not have been experienced had they not volunteered for the
service, then our country owes them the basic decency of ensuring them
a fair trial, fair access to health benefits, and the promise of
justice. That is the goal of our amendments.
I appreciate the leadership of Senator Levin and Senator McCain in
not only working with me last year to dramatically alter this policy so
these records are now preserved for 50 years but for working this year
on improvements to that policy once again.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I request that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded for a point of inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding that the chair has an amendment
that is going be considered at the present time, and my question is,
Are we ready to go into that? Is the Presiding Officer going to be able
to do that from up there?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield, we thank him for noting that.
Senator Hagan did have an opportunity last night to go into her
amendment, and she was willing to do that at that time. We understood
that, of course, the Senator would like an opportunity to speak against
the Hagan amendment, which is the opportunity that is being provided
now, and then I think it would be appropriate for someone to take
Senator Hagan's place at the Presiding Officer's position so she can
speak for a few minutes in support of her amendment after the Senator
has completed. If the Senator could give us an idea about how long he
expects?
Mr. INHOFE. Not more than 7 or 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I was not here when the Presiding
Officer spoke last night; however, I am familiar with the amendment
that is here.
Let me share with some of the Members here. I hope they don't look at
this amendment as just part of the amendment that was defeated
yesterday.
We talked about biofuels. There are a lot of people here who are
supportive of biofuels. I am supportive of biofuels. In fact, we are
very active in Oklahoma right now in developing various biofuels. We
are one of the leaders in the Nation, and we actually have a lot of
plants located in my State of Oklahoma. This is not that issue. It is
not whether you believe biofuels is something we are working toward in
the future. We are. We all know that. This is whether we should take
our very scarce defense dollars--in this case, the dollars that would
otherwise go to the Department of Navy--and put them into subsidizing
the private sector in building these plants.
What we are looking at now is to either retrofit or build biofuel
refineries. This is interesting because right now I have a list of
about 100 different biofuel plants--many of which are in my State of
Oklahoma--that are not subsidized by the Federal Government, and there
is no reason for these to be subsidized by the Federal Government. This
is something that can be done.
If you look at the Navy and the problems they are having right now, I
think people realize their operation and maintenance funds are
stretched to the maximum. They have readiness problems right now. They
have a higher op tempo than they have had in the past. And I think it
is important for people to understand that if you keep giving away $170
million here and more there, that is coming out of O&M. It is coming
out of our readiness. Right now, if you talk to any of the higher
levels in the Navy, they will say they have never been in this
situation before. They have already had readiness problems over the
past few years, with more than one-fifth of the ships falling short of
combat readiness and fewer than half of their deployed combat aircraft
being mission-ready at any given time.
I urge us to reconsider whether we should be in the business of
building these plants or retrofitting them because this is something we
haven't done before.
Now, Energy and Agriculture are doing it currently. Yesterday I stood
on the floor and talked about how we are taking over the responsibility
of the Department of Energy. We are trying to make the decisions as to
how we are going to do this. Should we be developing the progress of
the biofuels--which we are doing in the State of Oklahoma without any
Federal Government assistance--or should we be defending America with
these dollars? Now, Energy, yes, they are going to spend money on this,
and the Department of Agriculture is certainly currently spending money
on it, but we have not been doing it.
I understand that the Presiding Officer, who is the author of this
amendment and who is from North Carolina--and I am reading now from one
of the Web sites, from a newspaper there saying that a private company
backed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture will build a $130 million
biofuel refinery in Sampson County, with an estimated 300 jobs there.
They talk about what they may be doing through the Department of
Defense. ChemTex was awarded a $3.9 million grant in June to convert
more than 4,000 acres across 11 counties to begin producing miscanthus
and switchgrass and biofuel conversions. The USDA, which is supposed to
be doing this, estimates that farmers will see a net revenue increase
of $4.5 million in growing and selling grass.
I come to two conclusions on this. One is, as I just read, they are
already doing it now in the State of North Carolina. They are already
paying, subsidizing these plants. That is their job, to evaluate and
decide whether to subsidize these biotech plants or whether that should
be a function of the Department of Energy.

When we look at these--I asked my staff before this--we didn't have
notice, to my knowledge--I asked my staff on the floor to tell me
whether there are any of these plants currently being subsidized in any
way by the Department of Defense. His answer was no, after a very
cursory look.
We do have the DOE and DOA, Department of Agriculture and Energy,
doing that. I hope everyone here will look at this. I will actually
join the author of this amendment in encouraging the Department of
Agriculture and Department of Energy to look carefully at this, as well
as some of our plants in my State of Oklahoma. On this list I am going
to submit as part of the Record, there are about 100 plants scattered
throughout the country, including my State of Oklahoma. We need to look
at those and evaluate those and make the determination is this a
function government should perform? If so, wouldn't it be more logical
to do it as we are doing it today, through the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Energy and not use our scarce
readiness--in this case Navy--dollars that are desperately needed to
subsidize this?
I retain the remainder of my time. I know the Senator who is offering
the amendment may want to make some comments. Maybe not. But I urge my
colleagues to stop and realize this is something brandnew, having the
Department of Defense do a function that has heretofore been done by
the Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy, and keep it
that way.
When the appropriate time comes, I will ask for the yeas and nays on
the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next

[[Page S7143]]

amendment in order to be called up is the Cornyn amendment, No. 3158;
that after the Cornyn amendment is reported it be in order for Senator
Hagan or designee to call up her amendment, No. 3095; that there be up
to 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and
ranking member or their designees prior to votes in relation to the
amendments in the order offered; finally, there be no amendments in
order to either amendment prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. That means we would be voting on the amendment of Senator
Cornyn first, the amendment of Senator Hagan second.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. That will take approximately 30 minutes? Before the vote?
Mr. LEVIN. I think Senator Cornyn only needs about 5 minutes. We have
cleared that amendment. There is support for it.
Senator Hagan only needs, I believe, 5 minutes. That means that in
about 10 minutes----
Mr. McCAIN. Ten minutes we will be ready to vote.
Mr. LEVIN. Unless there are others who wish to speak. A couple of
votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 3158

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chair of the
Armed Services Committee and ranking member for their work with us on
this important amendment.
The Veterans' Administration defines a backlogged claim as one that
has been pending for more than 125 days. Scandalously, there are
600,000-plus backlogged claims in the Veterans' Administration system
and about two-thirds of all pending claims are backlogged.
There has been a lot of attention, particularly in my State and
across the country, by veterans to this unacceptable situation. In my
State we have currently at the Veterans' regional office in Texas a
State agency called the Texas Veterans Commission that is working with
both the Waco office and other field offices in Houston and elsewhere
to clear these backlogs. The Texas Veterans Commission is doing
outstanding work, working on a voluntary basis to help make sure
veterans file fully developed claims which shortens the processing time
dramatically. The goal of the Texas Veterans Commission is to reduce
the backlog of VA claims in Texas by 17,000 in 1 year.
You can see from the size of the problem this is an important first
step but it is only that, a first step. The purpose of my amendment is
to provide this useful model across the country, to require a plan from
the Veterans' Administration to deal with this backlog. I am confident
that Members will have no trouble voting for this amendment because I
am sure they have heard what I have heard from my constituents about
how outraged and upset they are at the current backlog of claims.
In order to capitalize on the successful model we have implemented,
this amendment would require the Veterans' Administration to report to
Congress with a plan to address the claims backlog through partnerships
between the Veterans' Administration and other entities including State
veterans affairs offices and county veterans service offices, similar
to the Texas Veterans Commission operation in my State. The purpose, of
course, is to eliminate the current backlog of claims and ensure that
new claims are fully developed when they are submitted, all with the
purpose of making sure that we keep our commitments to veterans who
have made great sacrifices serving our country, that we will keep our
commitments to them, that we will keep our promises once they return
home having suffered the wounds of war, both seen and unseen.
I ask the support of my colleagues on this important amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside all pending amendments and call
up Cornyn amendment No. 3158.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 3158.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to
Congress a plan to reduce the current backlog of veterans claims)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1084. PLAN TO PARTNER WITH STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES TO
ADDRESS VETERANS CLAIMS BACKLOG.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of Veterans Affairs defines any claim
for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs as backlogged if the claim has been pending
for 125 days or more.
(2) According to the Department, as of November 24, 2012,
there were 899,540 pending claims, with 604,583 (67.2
percent) of those considered backlogged.
(3) The Department's data further shows that, on November
22, 2010, there were 749,934 claims pending, with only
244,129 (32.6 percent) of those considered backlogged.
(4) During the past two years, both the overall number of
backlogged claims and the percentage of all pending claims
that are backlogged have doubled.
(5) In order to reduce the claims backlog at regional
offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs located in
Texas, the Texas Veterans Commission announced two
initiatives on July 19, 2012, to partner with the Department
of Veterans Affairs--
(A) to assist veterans whose claims are already backlogged
to complete development of those claims; and
(B) to help veterans who are filing new claims to fully
develop those claims prior to filing them, shortening the
processing time required.
(6) The common goal of the two initiatives of the Texas
Veterans Commission, called the ``Texas State Strike Force
Team'' and the ``Fully Developed Claims Team Initiative'', is
to reduce the backlog of claims pending in Texas by 17,000
within one year.
(7) During the first two months of these new initiatives,
the Texas Veterans Commission helped veterans complete
development of more than 2,500 backlogged claims and assisted
veterans with the submission of more than 800 fully developed
claims.
(8) In testimony before the Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 21,
2012, Diana Rubens, Deputy Under Secretary for Field
Operations of the Veterans Benefits Administration, indicated
that the Department of Veterans Affairs has experienced
positive outcomes in projects with the Texas Veterans
Commission, stating that both Veterans Service Organizations
``and state and county service officers . . . are important
partners in VBA's transformation to better serve Veterans.''.
(9) At the same hearing, Mr. John Limpose, director of the
regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs in
Waco, Texas, testified that the ``TVC is working very, very
well'' with regional offices of the Department in Texas,
calling the Texas Veterans Commission a ``very positive story
that we can branch out into . . . all of our stakeholders.''.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to Congress a plan to reduce the current backlog
of pending claims for benefits under laws administered by the
Secretary and more efficiently process claims for such
benefits in the future.
(2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A summary of all steps the Secretary has taken thus far
to partner with non-Federal entities in support of efforts to
reduce the backlog described in paragraph (1) and more
efficiently process claims described in such paragraph in the
future, including two previous initiatives by the Texas
Veterans Commission, namely the 2008-2009 Development
Assistant Pilot Project and the 2009-2011 Claims Processing
Assistance Team.
(B) A plan for the Secretary to partner with non-Federal
entities to support efforts to reduce such backlog and more
efficiently process such claims in the future, including the
following:
(i) State and local agencies relating to veterans affairs.
(ii) Organizations recognized by the Secretary for the
representation of veterans under section 5902 of title 38,
United States Code.
(iii) Such other relevant government and non-government
entities as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(C) A description of how the Secretary intends to leverage
partnerships with non-Federal entities described in
subparagraph (B) to eliminate such backlog, including through
increasing the percentage of claims that are fully developed
prior to submittal to the Secretary and ensuring that new
claims are fully developed prior to their submittal.
(D) A description of what steps the Secretary has taken and
will take--
(i) to expedite the processing of claims that are already
fully developed at the time of submittal; and

[[Page S7144]]

(ii) to support initiatives by non-Federal entities
described in subparagraph (B) to help claimants gather and
submit necessary evidence for claims that were previously
filed but require further development.
(E) A description of how partnerships with non-Federal
entities described in subparagraph (B) will fit into the
Secretary's overall claims processing transformation plan.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3095

Mrs. HAGAN. I call up amendment No. 3095.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Hagan], for herself,
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Udall of
Colorado proposes an amendment numbered 3095.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the prohibition on biofuel refinery construction)

Strike section 2823.

Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators
Shaheen, Collins, Schumer, Stabenow, Whitehouse, Coons, Udall of New
Mexico, and Tester as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I spoke about this bill last night at
length. I want to give a brief summary today of this amendment.
This bipartisan amendment would remove provisions from the underlying
bill that prohibit the Department of Defense from participating in a
program with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy
and private industry to develop advanced biofuels refineries. It is a
1-to-1 match. As the largest single consumer of fuel in the world, the
DOD uses approximately 120 million barrels of oil each year, spending
over $17 billion in fiscal year 2011. This dependency on a single
source of energy leaves our military readiness at risk. When the price
of oil goes up $1, it costs the Navy an additional $30 million. We are
looking at an investment here of $170 million by the Department of the
Navy. Last year alone, this additional fuel cost forced the Navy to pay
an additional $500 million more because the price of fuel was $1
higher.
Our senior military leaders recognize the importance of diversifying
the fuel supply with advanced biofuels. The Navy Secretary Mabus, Chief
of Naval Operations ADM Johnathon Greenert, and Marine Corps Commandant
GEN James Amos wrote to the Armed Services Committee about this.
I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mrs. HAGAN. They write that:

The demand for fuel in theater means we depend on
vulnerable supply lines--the protection of which puts lives
at risk. Our potential adversaries, both on land and sea,
understand this critical vulnerability and seek to exploit
it. The Navy and Marine Corps have been aggressively
evaluating how both energy efficiency and alternative sources
of energy can provide tactical benefits to our expeditionary
forces.

If you look back in history, the Navy's leadership on energy
innovation is nothing new. It was the Navy that shifted from sailing
ships to steam-powered ships in the middle of the 19th century, steam
to oil in the 20th, and pioneered nuclear power in the middle of the
20th century.
In the 1950s, the Defense Production Act, which is the same entity
the Department of the Navy, Department of Energy, and Department of
Agriculture are working under, played a critical role in the
development of nuclear-powered submarines and the commercial nuclear
power industry.
Yesterday the Senate approved Senator Udall's amendment having to do
with the cost of fuel and being able to invest in biofuels. With strong
bipartisan support this amendment passed. However, our work is not done
in this area. It is critically important that we approve this amendment
so the Navy can continue working with the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Energy to spur the development of advanced biofuels
refineries capable of producing cost-competitive drop-in biofuels for
our military.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Department of the Navy,

Washington, DC, July 9, 2012.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are concerned that certain
legislative provisions adopted by the Senate Armed Services
Committee may restrict the Department of the Navy's ability
to improve its exposure to the price volatility of petroleum-
based fuels.
The ability to use fuels other than petroleum will increase
our flexibility and reduce the services' vulnerability to
rapid and unforeseen price changes, which can negatively
impact readiness. A $1 change in the price of a barrel of
oil, for example. results in an approximately $30 million
change in the Navy budget. In addition to alternative fuels,
operational and tactical energy efficiencies improve the
endurance of our forces, reduce dependence on a vulnerable
logistics tail, and in the end, lower total ownership costs.
Shore energy efficiency improves the resilience of our
facilities and conserves resources that can be reapplied to
enhance readiness.
The demand for fuel in theater means we depend on
vulnerable supply lines--the protection of which puts lives
at risk. Our potential adversaries, both on land and at sea.
understand this critical vulnerability and seek to exploit
it. The Navy and Marine Corps have been aggressively
evaluating how both energy efficiency and alternative sources
of energy can provide tactical benefits to expeditionary
forces by reducing their dependence on external fuel
supplies, as is the case at many Combat Outposts in Helmand
Province today. We are quickly incorporating these promising
technologies into regular procurement.
Our military knows how to innovate in areas crucial to our
national defense. GPS, the internet. and much of modern
medical and surgical procedures owe their existence to
military innovation. The Navy has been a leader in energy
innovation, moving from wind to coal, coal to oil, and then
nuclear power. Our modest investment to qualify and partner
in developing alternative sources of energy such as wind,
solar, and advanced biofuel, is a continuation of our long
tradition of American ingenuity to provide greater energy
security.
In accordance with Department of Defense Policy. the
Department of the Navy is pursuing assured access to enemy
with a balanced approach that includes the flexibility to use
alternate sources of energy. History highlights that over-
reliance on a single critical resource jeopardizes
operational success and thereby degrades energy security.
We request your support in enabling the Department to
pursue a judicious, balanced and diversified energy
portfolio. This course of action will enhance combat
capability, reduce costs and improve the security of energy
supplies for our forces.
Sincerely,
Jonathan W. Greenert,
Chief of Naval Operations.
James F. Amos,
Commandant of the Marine Corps,
Ray Mabus,
Secretary of the Navy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. With reference to the Udall amendment yesterday, I want
to make sure our colleagues note this is not the Udall amendment. This
is something different. This would mean for the first time we would be
spending our DOD dollars, very scarce dollars--in this case the
Department of the Navy--to build refineries or retrofit refineries.
That has not been done before. As I said to the Senator from North
Carolina when she was presiding: This is a function that has always
been performed by the Department of Energy and the Department of
Agriculture. In my State of Oklahoma we have several of these
refineries and potential refineries and retrofits that are needed.
However, we went through the proper channels, the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Energy. So if we vote for this
amendment, it will be the first time we are using our readiness dollars
to do something the DOA and the DOE are supposed to be doing. That is
what distinguishes the difference between the two.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I come to the floor today
in

[[Page S7145]]

strong support of amendment No. 3095 offered by Senator Hagan to strike
section 2823 from the National Defense Authorization Act.
Section 2823 would severely limit the Department of Defense's ability
to use alternative fuels to enhance our Nation's national security.
This section would needlessly prohibit the Department of Defense from
entering into a contract to plan, design, refurbish, or construct a
biofuels refinery or any other facility or infrastructure used to
refine biofuels unless such planning, design, refurbishment, or
construction is specifically authorized by law.
Under the authorities of the Defense Production Act, DPA, the
Department of Defense has created the Advanced Drop-In Biofuels
Production Project. This initiative is focused on creating a public-
private partnership that will provide incentives for private sector
investment in cost-competitive, advanced biofuels production
capability. This initiative requires at least a one-to-one cost share
with private stakeholders.
In furtherance of this initiative, in August 2011, the Department of
Navy, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy signed
a memorandum of understanding to invest $510 million, equally shared
among them, for investments in the joint construction or retrofitting
of plants and refineries to produce advanced biofuels. Now is not the
time to prevent this important program from continuing. Before this
project can be finalized, the President has to determine that this is
essential to the national defense. Only then will it go forward. I am
confident that this requirement in the DPA will ensure that only the
most important projects for our national security will go forward.
As chairman of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the
DPA, I believe it is misguided to limit the authority of the Defense
Department to continue with this project. As the largest single
customer of oil in the world, the Department of Defense spent $17
billion in fiscal year 2011 on fuel. This dependency on a single source
of energy forces the Department of Defense to reallocate funding from
other critical needs when oil prices spike. An increase of $1.00 in the
price of oil costs the Department of Defense over $100 million. Last
year alone, spikes in oil prices required the Navy to pay an additional
$500 million on higher fuel costs.
The renewable fuels industry has played an important role in
addressing our energy needs. Unfortunately, section 2823 would hinder
our Nation's ability to promote renewable energy sources within our
country. By striking this provision, we will allow the Defense
Department to retain its authority to take essential steps to diversify
the energy sources available to our military. I believe that energy
security is an essential part of national security.
I thank Senator Hagan for offering this amendment. I urge all my
colleagues to support this important amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Amendment No. 3158

Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment
No. 3158 offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Between the first and second votes we are having now, we
will have an announcement as to the next part of this roadmap. I hope
all Senators who wish amendments to be considered will come between and
during these votes to Senator McCain and myself and our staffs to
discuss other amendments which are out there and which there is
interest in pursuing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs.
McCaskill) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint),
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

YEAS--95

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker

NOT VOTING--5

DeMint
Heller
Kirk
McCaskill
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3158) was agreed to.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, members of the Armed Services
Committee, immediately after you vote on this second vote, please, we
are trying to clear nominations in the hallway, so stay around for a
couple minutes, members of the Armed Services Committee.
Secondly, I know the leader was going to make this statement, but he
had to leave for a minute, so I will make it for him. We are planning
on staying late tonight, and everyone can expect to be here tomorrow.
We are going to have votes tomorrow unless we somehow or other finish
this bill tonight. The leader would have said that if he were here, so
I am saying it for him.
Next, after this vote, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus be
recognized for 10 minutes to speak on amendments we have either adopted
or are going to adopt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Then we will line up some additional amendments. There are
two we can line up now. I thought it was going to be four, but it can
only be two at the moment that we would take up immediately after
Senator Baucus speaks.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that following Senator
Baucus's remarks we then turn to Senator Merkley, who will call up
amendment No. 3096 on Afghanistan, and following him Senator Portman,
who will call up amendment No. 2995, and I do not have the subject of
that amendment. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we will try to get time agreements on those
two amendments. In the meantime we are continuing to work through
amendments. We are going to have more cleared amendments. We are going
to get to the detention issue today. We are going to try to get to all
of the issues people want to raise today so we can finish by the end of
the day tomorrow. We have assured everyone who is interested in the
detention issue that we will be getting to that later this afternoon.

Vote on Amendment No. 3095

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 3095 offered by the Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs.
McCaskill), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) and are necessarily
absent.

[[Page S7146]]

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse

NAYS--41

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Webb
Wicker

NOT VOTING--5

DeMint
Heller
Kirk
McCaskill
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3095) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to modify the consent agreement
that the Senators from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte and Mrs. Shaheen, have
15 minutes equally divided following the remarks of Senator Baucus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I wish to take a moment to shine the light on a dark
topic in my home State of Montana.
On Sunday I read something that hit me in the gut. The Billings
Gazette reported that during 2010 at least 210 Montanans committed
suicide. That is according to the Montana Department of Health and
Human Services. That was 2010. In 2011 that number was 225. Another
5,600 Montanans attempted to kill themselves last year. That is a
startling average of about 15 per day. In a State with roughly 1
million residents, that is nearly twice the national average.
We in Montana have a saying that I think is quite accurate. Montana
is really one big small town. We know each other, only about 1 or 2
degrees of separation. You know what. If you ask if we know Uncle Joe,
we all know each other. We know somebody who knows someone very close
to us. We know each other's families.
These numbers are devastating. Among the victims of suicide in
Montana are children, parents, neighbors, friends, and sadly many are
also our military veterans who return home only to be held behind an
invisible enemy line known as PTSD.
In Montana, we are a proud home to more veterans than nearly any
other State per capita. We also had more Montanans volunteer for
service after 9/11 than anywhere else in the country per capita. There
are nearly 300 Montanans serving in Afghanistan today. We are proud of
these men and women, and we are grateful. We take our responsibility to
honor them very seriously. So the statistics are all the more alarming.
They are very important.
In 2011 a report from the Center for a New American Security found
that from 2005 to 2010, all across the country a servicemember took his
or her life almost every 36 hours.
Matt Kuntz, the executive director of the Montana chapter of the
National Alliance of Mental Illness, has described Montana's suicide
epidemic as a public health crisis. Matt knows all too well that behind
each and every one of those numbers is a family and community
devastated by the loss. Matt is a veteran himself. In 2007 he lost his
stepbrother, an Iraq war veteran. I know Matt, and I knew his
stepbrother. He lost his stepbrother to suicide. His stepbrother was so
scared, so frightened to go back to Iraq after serving three or four
tours of duty. He knew--he said to Matt: If I go back, I know I am
going to die. So many of my friends and buddies have died. I know if I
go back, I am going to die too.
That caused him to be very depressed, and it caused his suicide. So
my friend Matt took action. He dedicated himself to raising awareness.
Largely because of Matt's dedication, the Montana National Guard led
the way with a successful pilot program to increase screening of
veterans both before and after deployment. That is natural in Montana
because, as I said earlier, we are really one big small town. We know
each other, we want to take action, and we want to get results.
I was proud to champion particularly the 2010 Defense authorization
bill that took the Montana National Guard model, which we developed in
Montana. With the DOD Defense bill, it is now implemented nationwide.
Now every branch of the military has implemented screenings. We started
screening before kids go over, as soon as they come back, 6 weeks later
after they are back, another 6 months later after they are back, just
continually screening, personal screenings. Thousands of health care
providers have been trained under this legislation and, most
importantly, thousands of servicemembers are now getting personal and
private one-on-one attention from a trained health care provider.
There is still a lot more to be done, and I am proud we took steps to
advance the ball yesterday by passing the Mental Health ACCESS Act as
an amendment to the current bill. I applaud Senator Murray for her work
on the measure, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. This provision
creates comprehensive standardized suicide prevention within the DOD.
It expands eligibility for VA mental health services to family members
of veterans. It creates more peer-to-peer counseling opportunities, and
it requires the VA to establish accurate, reliable measures for mental
health services.
When duty calls, we in Montana answer proudly. This is about taking
care of these men and women just as they have taken care of us. These
people put their lives on the line in the name of our State, our
country, and our freedom. We have a responsibility to try to do all we
can to help them return to their families and live a reasonable,
healthful life back at home. Too many Montanans are suffering in
silence, as in other parts of the country.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring a voice to this important
cause. Thank you, Matt, and thank you all for taking action in the
Senate to further our efforts to give servicemembers and veterans the
care and support they deserve.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________