Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a business meeting to consider the following legislation and nomination: S. 1448, to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes; and the President's nomination of Vincent G. Logan to be Special Trustee, Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of the Interior. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on January 29 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a legislative hearing to receive testimony on the following bill: S. 919, to amend the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self- governance by Indian tribes, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to thank Leader Reid, Chairman Baucus, Senator Schumer, Senator Stabenow, Senator Wyden, Senator Brown, and Senator Menendez for coming to the floor to talk about this important issue of tax extenders and why we need to get them done now. In the State of Washington taxpayers are opening the morning newspaper and finding the Seattle Times editorial entitled ``Congress should extend the sales-tax deduction.'' The Seattle Times has been following this issue for years and knows that taxpayers are waiting to find out whether we can continue to deduct our sales tax from our Federal income tax obligation. As Washington is a State that doesn't have an income tax, we want parity with other States and we want to be able to deduct our sales tax as one of those taxes from our Federal tax obligations. Every year millions of Washingtonians have to wait to find out whether that particular tax provision is going to be extended. I want to make it permanent, and I hope when we do tax reform we will be able to do so. But in the meantime we have to give certainty to the taxpayers in Washington State that as far as these important tax policies are concerned, Congress can act and get things done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that particular Seattle Times editorial.

Ms. CANTWELL. At New Year's, as the ball drops in Times Square, a number of other tax provisions are going to expire, and the lapse of these important tax provisions makes it harder for Americans to invest in clean energy, to hire veterans, to pay for public transportation, and to build low-income housing. As my colleague Senator Brown was discussing, the Tax Extenders Act of 2013 is about providing predictability and certainty to citizens and to American businesses about tax benefits and investments. On January 1 the commuter tax benefit will expire. That will mean an increase in household expenses for 2.7 million public transit commuters. In King County, which is the county Seattle is in, more than 1,600 employers use the commuter tax benefit to enable employees to get to and from work. If you have ever been in the Puget Sound area, you know that transportation and traffic are big issues for us. So, obviously, trying to defer some of that traffic congestion by getting people into commuter transportation is a key part of our strategy. But if we take away the certainty and predictability of tax deductions with regard to commuting, we are going to make our transportation problems worse. On New Year's Day the tax benefits for those employees who take public transit will be cut nearly in half, from $245 to $130 per month. We need to extend this benefit as a matter of tax fairness. Transportation is the second largest expense in an American household. American families should be able to choose whether they want to drive or take public transit, and they shouldn't be punished because they are taking a bus or ferry or train. Across Washington State we have seen firsthand how the other tax extenders help to actually create an environment of certainty and predictability for jobs and job creation. These are bipartisan principles we can all get behind. Of particular importance to me, as I said, is the State and local sales tax deduction, which affects many people in our State. Individuals living in other States with a State income tax are not faced with these same challenges. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming are all in the same boat, and I am sure these citizens would want to have the sales tax deduction certainty and predictability. As a result, an average of $640 in deductions is real money back into people's pockets when they itemize those various tax benefits. We hope this won't continue to be a burden placed on Washington State. We need these tax extenders now. Additionally, there are other credits, such as the new market tax credit, which is a great program for encouraging investment in challenging areas of our country; the biodiesel tax credit; and the veterans work opportunity tax credit, which is a tax credit to encourage employers to hire veterans. We have had many of these events around Washington State, talking to employers who have successfully used this tax credit. There is also the low-income housing tax credit. I am sure the Presiding Officer probably has projects all over his State that have benefited from the low-income housing tax credit. This is a great incentive to get more affordable housing built in hard-to- serve areas and challenging areas because of high cost. I have already mentioned the commuter tax benefit. All of these are tied to job creation. Instead of giving predictability and certainty on tax credits, here we are not getting our job done. We should get this done as soon as possible. It is time for Congress to extend these important provisions and to make plans accordingly. I hope the IRS could be given the predictability and certainty as well in the new year about these provisions so that we are not delaying or affecting the tax season at the end of next year. The time to act is now, and I hope my colleagues will help us get these measures--which are usually renewed in a bipartisan fashion--done as soon as possible. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes, I will.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for that question. I think his charts pointed to the fact that he was articulating, the fact that everybody is arguing about the Web site. As somebody who has been involved in a software company that wrote code, what happened is very unfortunate, but writing code and fixing it is a straightforward task that can be achieved. It is a little less difficult than cleaning up oil in the gulf or something of larger environmental impact. To me, we will get that fixed. In the meantime, there are a lot of things that have to happen, that need to change in our delivery system that are about saving costs, delivering better quality care, that we know are proven, successful answers to this question. We need to get more than just these States to take us up on this offer. We need to get CBO to actually give us a score on how much money this has the potential of saving, and then we have to figure out a way to incentivize all other States to implement this as soon as possible. When you think about our senior population, this is what they want. They want to stay at home as long as possible. It is so much cheaper per Medicaid beneficiary to do this. This is what we have to achieve. We hope by coming out here and educating people about the various aspects of the Affordable Care Act, the things in the delivery system reform that are on the agenda to improve access and help save costs, that this will start taking hold and we will get more people talking about these solutions. This is absolutely the direction we need to go.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He is correct. There are the individuals who win. The State in this case saves Medicaid dollars, and the Federal Government saves dollars as well. But to the individual, if you ask them, this is their choice. They want to stay at home. Nobody says they want to go into nursing care. We appreciate the nursing home care delivery aspect of health care. They deal with some of the most complex patients. But they do not need to deal with people who do not need to be there. We have to have a delivery system that helps support community-based care for long-term care. I hope that we will get more support for these ideas and that we will help figure out a way to get a score for them as well. I think that part of the misery in this whole issue of health care savings is figuring out ways to do things that are not so complex in what they are doing. Moving from nursing home care to community-based care, $1,200 versus $6,000, that is not the hard part of the equation. What is hard is to get CBO to guesstimate how much population would be affected. We do know this. If you take the number of seniors to be affected as the baby boomer population reaches that retirement age, if you think they are going to be supported primarily by nursing home care--I think I am correct that our State has now made the shift so the majority of our people who are on Medicaid are taken care of by long-term care services in the community if they are seeking those services, versus the Federal numbers which are just the opposite. The majority of people seeking those Medicaid long-term care dollars, the average of those States is more towards nursing home care. We need to flip that. The Senator is right, it would be a win-win-win situation for all of us. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleague from Rhode Island. I applaud him for his diligence, making sure this debate happened today, and for his leadership on this issue. It might sound kind of wonky to say there is a group of Senators that have a caucus called the Delivery System Reform Caucus, but we wear that banner with pride because we know that there are savings in our health care delivery system. We want to make sure that they are delivered for the American people. While some want to talk about cutting people off of service or raising certain ages, we are focused on the fact that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings in the delivery system and that it is our job to improve upon them. I like to say to my office team: There is a reason why Ma Bell doesn't exist anymore. The challenge is I have so many young people, and some of them don't remember Ma Bell. But the issue is the delivery system for telecommunications changed, and look at what it unleashed--a lot of great technology. Yes, change, but with ways to drive down costs and deliver better access. That is what we are talking about here with the health care system. My colleague from Rhode Island has had a group for more than a year that has been talking about these delivery system reforms. We are going to come out on a more frequent basis and try to have a dialog with our colleagues about why it is so important. We have taken a small but very important step led by our senior Senator from Washington Senator Murray on the budget. But there is so much more we can do if we can include these delivery system reforms. So I thank Senator Whitehouse, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his leadership. I want to talk about one area today, the area of long-term care services. I authored a provision in the Affordable Care Act called the Balancing Incentive Payments Program. While that sounds in and of itself like a wonky title, Balancing Incentive Payments Program, this program is really there to promote home and community-based care over nursing home care. If you ask any senior they will say of course they would like to receive health care services in their home or in their community. No, they do not want to go to a nursing home. But the discussion has been limited on how much cheaper it is and how much better the care could be for delivery in the home as opposed to nursing home care. According to a survey by AARP, over 90 percent of seniors age 50 or over desire to remain in their home as long as possible. We know that home and community-based care is 70 percent cheaper than nursing home care--70 percent cheaper. So for us in Washington State we thought about this long ago, and we decided that we were going to implement a system to reform our State and put more community-based care in our State and pull Medicaid patients away from nursing home care. We did that. We successfully made that transition. This chart shows you what I was just referring to, that home-based care can be as little as $1,200 a person versus the same person getting care in an institutional facility at $6,000. We made the transition in Washington State to be predominantly a home and community-based care State. We did that with our own State dollars, our own program, and it was a transition that took place over many years. We are kind of the antithesis of what the Federal system is. It is still more weighted on a State by State basis towards nursing home care. That means people are going into nursing home care, and we are footing the bill for more expensive care at $6,000 per person when we could have services in the community that would allow them to stay in their home and get more efficient care. So in 2009, the long-term care budget overall for Medicaid accounted for 32 percent of the Medicaid expenditures or $360 billion a year. You can see that this is a very expensive area for us at the Federal level. If we could do anything to help change those numbers, we would be delivering an improvement to the system. When we first made this transition from 1995 to 2008, the State of Washington saved $243 million from this investment. But more important, even, than the money--in an article in 2010, the Spokesman Review in Spokane ran a story called ``Dying to live at home,'' the family of Nancy and Paul Dunham, a couple of more than 60 years, said they wanted to age at home. Because of the Medicaid funding for in-home services, they were able to stay. Mr. Dunham was able to stay in his home until the age of 83. I am sure many of my colleagues know people who are getting on in years who prefer to stay at home. But the Balancing Incentives Program, which was in the Affordable Care Act, was the first Federal effort that we had that tried to assist States to move away from nursing home care and move towards community-based care. We put some incentives in the program. Here are the States so far that have taken up the Federal Government in the Affordable Care Act on this incentive program: New Hampshire, Maryland, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Texas, Indiana, Connecticut, Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, Ohio, Maine, and Illinois. It is a diverse group of States, I might add. Some States, probably, where Governors said they did not want to support the Affordable Care Act yet are taking advantage of this provision. Some States probably are forerunners of delivery system reform and have done lots of delivery system reform and want to do more. It is a mix of States. I think we have a lot of great examples in those States and what we can do to transition away from institutional care to home and community-based care. The program authorizes grants to States to increase access to their non-institutional long-term care services, and it supports including structural changes that help streamline the system--conflict-free case management, core standardization of assessment instruments, single entry-point systems so it is not confusing, so that the system is very streamlined. States have until September of 2015 to increase their long-term care services in the community and support expenditures of these noninstitutional-based care facilities. We are very excited that it has had a robust uptake by these States. I am encouraged that there has been so much interest shown in changing the political orientation, if you will, of States, to how do you deal with long-term care. We know everybody is living longer. We know as baby boomers retire, it is going to be a bubble to our health care delivery system. But this is an excellent idea, a way for us to deliver better care. What does it do? As I said in the first chart, $1,200 versus $6,000 in nursing home care. It reduces costs. Reducing those costs has to be a key focus for us. These Medicaid recipients are people who maybe even start on Medicare but because of the extreme cost of health care at the end of life, end up spending it out, end up on Medicaid, end up being a Federal responsibility. If we can reduce those costs by driving more community- based care, it is a win-win situation. The second thing it does is it helps improve quality. If people can stay at home and get access to the delivery system by these new requirements, making sure it is case managed and has the single point of entry and standardization of the home care system, it helps us to be efficient about the quality of care that is being delivered. Again, when you have a community-based setting, either in the home or where care is delivered through the home, there are lots of ways for us to have checks and balances on the system. I have talked to many people who are in the nursing home industry. They will say we like the idea that we are only going to take the sickest patients. We like the idea we are only going to serve people who really need to be there as opposed to some people who may not be ready for those facilities but end up there anyway just because there are not the community efforts to support it. Besides reducing costs and improving quality, we save money. That is why we are here today, to talk about these important ideas that save money. This is a simple one, but it is already in place. It has already started. There are many States taking us up on this offer, but it is critical that we understand and score these costs because they can show how we can save billions of dollars in our health care delivery system. I know my colleagues, some of them on the other side of the aisle-- well, all of them on the other side of the aisle--didn't support the Affordable Care Act. Take a second look at what your States are doing. Your States are supporting the legislation, at least through one provision. I think when you check, you will see that one provision is going to save your State money. It is going to give your citizens better choice in their quality of care. It is going to help us reduce our Federal costs and expenditures as well, and that is what delivery system reform is all about.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a nomination hearing to consider the President's nomination of Vincent G. Logan, to be Special Trustee, Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of the Interior, and an Oversight Hearing to receive testimony on Implementation of the Department of the Interior's Land Buy-Back Program. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, each November the President declares this month as National Native American Heritage Month and the Senate dedicates a resolution honoring the Nation's first Americans. As chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, it is my privilege to introduce this resolution. I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues, including Senators Baldwin, Barrasso, Begich, Cochran, Crapo, Franken, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Hirono, Hoeven, Johnson of South Dakota, Klobuchar, Markey, Merkley, Moran, Reid, Schatz, Tester, Thune, Udall of Colorado, Udall of New Mexico, Warner, and Wyden, in submitting this resolution. Since time immemorial, American Indians have occupied the lands we now know as the United States. To date, the Federal Government recognizes 566 distinct tribal nations across the country. While these Indian tribes share many attributes, each tribe is unique. The contributions American Indians have made to the foundation of the United States are significant and continue today. From influencing the documents that founded our Nation to serving in World War II as code talkers, American Indians have helped shape the face of our Nation. It is fitting that we are honoring the Code Talkers this week with a Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony, as Native Americans have served in the military at a higher rate per capita than any other group in the country. Native American heroes played a significant role in World War II. Among them was Charles Chibitty of the Comanche Nation, who aided the successful landing at Normandy and the capture of an enemy flag in a French village, for which he was recognized by the French Government. The Code Talkers came from many tribes, including the Navajo, who played a crucial role in the Pacific. The Choctaw, Sioux, Assiniboine, Apache, Hopi, Mohawk and many other tribes gave this Nation their dedication, determination, and courage. They will never be forgotten. I am honored to represent the 29 tribes in my home State of Washington. Tribal culture is woven into the fabric of our State as a critical part of not only the State's history but also its modern-day economy and governance. In 2012, Washington State tribes purchased more than $2.4 billion in goods, paid $1.3 billion in wages, and spent $259 million on construction activities. The tribes and the State are partners in virtually every aspect of governance, from natural resource management to tax collection. Many of the tribes in my State entered into agreements with the U.S. Government over the last two and a half centuries for cessions of land and natural resources. In exchange for these lands, the United States promised essential services to American Indians. As the trustee for Indian nations across the United States, the Federal Government has much work to do. I am encouraged by events like the Tribal Nations Conference, which has been convened annually since the election of President Obama. While this is a step in the right direction, we must do more to ensure that our Indian communities are thriving. As we celebrate National Native American Heritage Month, I encourage my colleagues to take some time and think about the Federal Government's responsibilities to our first people. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution designating November 2013 as National Native American Heritage Month and November 29 of this year as Native American Heritage Day, and I encourage all Americans to recognize the important contributions American Indians have made to this great Nation. S. Res. 308

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in highlighting the epidemic of sexual assault in our Nation's armed services, and I am glad to join many of my colleagues here--the Senators from Maine and New Hampshire and our leader, the Senator from Maryland--in making sure the voices of women are heard in this debate. We know that in May 2013 the Defense Department released a report that showed 26,000 incidents of unwanted sexual contact among servicemembers. That is an increase of 35 percent over 2 years. In my State, Washingtonians are very proud of the incredible men and women who keep our country safe and defend us, and we are proud of the 10 military installations across our State. There are more than 65,000 men and women serving in military installations in the State of Washington--places such as Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Naval Station Everett, Naval Base Kitsap, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Bangor Naval Submarine Base, and Fairchild Air Force Base. So we took it seriously when there were 116 reports of sexual assault across all of these installations in the State of Washington in 2010. That number is too high, and that is only the amount that is being reported. We know there may be many assaults that go unreported. As my colleagues are saying, we need to do everything we can to address this problem. I am pleased that Joint Base Lewis-McChord is developing a sexual assault prevention program, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to act to address this epidemic problem. The men and women of our Armed Forces are basically defending our country, so why are we leaving them unprotected while they serve? I have cosponsored legislation authored by my colleague the senior Senator from Washington to provide special victims' counsel to victims of sexual assault. This will ensure that professionals trained in dealing with sexual assault are there to support the victims. There may be differing opinions on how best to achieve the overall goals of reducing sexual assault in the military, but I believe all my colleagues can agree on one common goal: protecting the victims from further abuse. We need to put an end to an environment that allows sexual assault to occur and that lets the perpetrators go unpunished and discourages victims of sexual assault through fear and intimidation. Again, we may differ on how to best achieve that goal, but we are all here to say the same thing: Enough is enough. We will not tolerate sexual assault in the military and Armed Forces, and we owe it to our servicemembers to come together and act toward a solution today. That is why my colleagues are here--to emphasize this point in a way that speaks volumes about how this tragedy is affecting men and women in the armed services and the fact that this institution needs to come together to address it. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 14, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing entitled ``Contract Support Costs and Sequestration: Fiscal Crisis in Indian Country.'' Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251. Committee on Indian Affairs

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 20, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing to receive testimony on ``Carcieri: Bringing Certainty to Trust Land Acquisitions.'' Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on November 14, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to consider the following legislation: S. 1352, A bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act of 1996, and for other purposes; S. 1448, A bill to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes; and S. 434, A bill to authorize and implement the water rights compact among the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and the State of Montana, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251. Committee on Indian Affairs

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her leadership on the floor this afternoon. It is great to join her and my other colleagues to talk about the importance of judicial nominees, and in particular today, because today we are talking about the nomination of more female representation on the courts which I think is incredibly important. I served my first 2 years in the Senate on the Judiciary Committee, and I was struck to find that, I think at that time, I may have been the fourth woman in the whole history of our country to be on the Judiciary Committee. Now I am so proud that my colleague from Minnesota serves on that committee and does an excellent job and that we have other representation as well. But the point we have to ask ourselves is, do we have to get women elected to the Senate to get women on the Judiciary Committee to get women on the courts because our colleagues aren't going to help us do that? I am rising to support moving these nominations. President Obama has nominated Cornelia Pillard and Patricia Millett. We want to see these vacancies filled. We don't want the same dysfunction which led to a government shutdown to let us move toward the kind of the stopping of putting people on the court. Nominating highly qualified individuals is what the President's job is, and filling seats on the court is not packing the court. It is simply doing the job. On October 31, 2013, many of my colleagues voted against a motion to end debate on Patricia Millett to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She is a very highly qualified attorney who has argued before the Supreme Court 32 times and is recognized both by Democrats and Republicans for her legal acumen. Despite her qualifications, her nomination was being blocked. Had she been confirmed, she would only be the sixth woman to sit on the DC District Court of Appeals. So I am questioning the place we are now on this nomination. Professor Nina Pillard is another filibustered nominee who has argued historic cases before the Supreme Court, including a case to open the Virginia Military Institute to women for the first time in history and a case defending the family medical leave law. American people want to know why are these qualified female judges being blocked. Just 32 percent of the U.S. Appeals Court judges are women. In my opinion, it is time to move forward with more highly qualified nominees to add diversity to the courts. I have not heard any of my colleagues question the credentials of these nominees. In fact, Ms. Millett has been called ``a brilliant mind, a gift for clear persuasive writing, and a genuine zeal for the rule of law.'' This is not a quote by a Democratic Senator or a liberal think tank. That quote is from former Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr in a letter with six other Solicitors General, top lawyers who have served in the George H. Bush and George W. Bush and Clinton administrations, basically saying, ``Equally important, she is unfailingly fair minded.'' That is from Mr. Starr. So the DC Circuit Court currently has four judges chosen by Democratic Presidents and four by Republicans. There are three vacancies on the court. Republicans are arguing we shouldn't fill these vacancies, that we should just eliminate them. I think my colleague from Minnesota just spoke to this. This is a proposal that is even opposed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who argues that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is similar to many of the Federal courts and is operating in a state of crisis. He said, ``Based on our current caseload methods, the D.C. Circuit Court should continue to have 11 judgeships.'' So we need a court that is fully staffed. The primary responsibility of this court is the handling of cases involving Federal regulations on environmental safety, health care reform, and insider trading. We should trust that our judicial branch can nominate and get judges on that court that basically will look at the law and not party affiliation and stop obstructing people whom I believe are qualified to be on the court. I hope we can move forward. Ms. Millett is the second female nominee opposed by Republicans after the nomination of Georgetown professor Pillard was filibustered. However, she joins a long list of judicial nominees who happen to be female who have been opposed, not because of their qualifications but because they were nominated by this President. I will submit that list for the Record. I hope this discussion today points out the need of more women on the courts. Maybe we also need more women elected to the Senate so we can make sure we get more women on the courts. But this is, today, about asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to not look past this court. Do not try to diminish it by narrowing its focus. Get more people who will support qualified women so we can have the diversity in America that we need represented on our courts, even at the DC district appeals level. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for arranging for all of us to be here today to share our views.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to consider the following legislation: S. 235, to provide for the conveyance of certain property located in Anchorage, AK, from the United States to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium; S. 611, to make a technical amendment to the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area Act, and for other purposes; and S. 920, to allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of Minnesota to lease or transfer certain land. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251. Committee on Indian Affairs

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on October 30, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1074, to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe; S. 1132, to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes; and S. 161, to extend the Federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting to authorize expenditures by the Committee through February of 2015. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251. committee on energy and natural resources

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting to authorize expenditures by the Committee through February of 2015. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1448, to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes; S. 1219, to authorize the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement, and for other purposes; and S. 1447, to make technical corrections to certain Native American water rights settlements in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251. Committee on Indian Affairs

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 235, to provide for the conveyance of certain property located in Anchorage, Alaska, from the United States to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium; S. 920, to allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of Minnesota to lease or transfer certain land; and S. __, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, on the 40th anniversary of the introduction of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in 1973, I wish to honor a distinguished advocate for Indian Country and one of the key architects of the Act, Forrest J. Gerard, and recognize him for a lifetime committed to public service. Forrest, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, was the first American Indian to draft and facilitate the passage of Indian legislation through Congress. During the 1970s, Forrest partnered with Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson to dramatically change the United States' policy on Indian affairs. Together, they ended the policy of termination and assimilation, and launched the era of self-governance and self-determination, which continues to guide Federal Indian policy today. Forrest's service began with the U.S. Army Air Corps as a member of a bomber crew in World War II. After flying 35 combat missions over Nazi- occupied Europe, he became the first member of his family to attend college, receiving a bachelor's degree from the University of Montana in 1949. Over the next two decades, Forrest worked for the State of Montana, the newly formed Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a legislative liaison officer, and as the Director of the Office for Indian Progress in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. His goal was to enable future generations of Indian leaders to build healthy and educated communities. Forrest arrived at the U.S. Senate in 1971 to work with Senator Jackson, then chair of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Senator Jackson had become a strong supporter of self-determination, and believed Forrest Gerard, with his significant background with Federal agencies and his understanding of the American Indian experience, would bring an important perspective to the debate. Forrest was able to combine significant issue expertise with his solid relationships with tribes to enact meaningful legislation that would alter the course of Indian affairs. Forrest's unique skills and relationships played a critical role in producing the landmark Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. With the leadership of Senator Jackson and Forrest Gerard, this critical bill was signed by President Ford in 1975 and remains the basis for Federal dealings with tribal governments. Following the success of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Forrest worked to strengthen tribal governance by helping to pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and the Submarginal Lands Act. As Native American journalist Mark Trahant put it: Gerard did great work--subtly, without fanfare, and too often without recognition or even thanks. His approach was honesty and directness in dealing with Indian Country, and he never wavered in his loyalty to the Tribes. Today we recognize Forrest Gerard for his dedication, intelligence, and persistence, which paved the way for the political achievements that transformed the landscape of Indian affairs. Tribes now have greater autonomy in managing their resources, preserving their cultures, and utilizing their land base. And the government-to- government relationship between the United States and tribes is now a mature relationship. Forrest Gerard was honored for his work by the National Congress of American Indians. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter appointed him to be the first Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Forrest spent the last 30 years advising Indian people on how to effectively participate in developing policy with government leaders and be part of the political process. Forrest truly has devoted his life to empowering tribal communities. I think we are long overdue in commending Forrest for his pioneering, industrious career as a voice for Indian Country. Today we celebrate his leadership in charting a new path for American Indians--a path that won the support of Congress, tribal governments, and the Nation. Forrest Gerard is a hero among a new generation of great Indian leaders. And his contributions will be remembered forever.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Fred Hochberg and his nomination to the second term as Chairman of the Export-Import Bank. I have heard now two speeches on the other side of the aisle from my colleagues who not only seem to take exception with Mr. Hochberg's nomination but the Export-Import Bank in and of itself. I think they are wrong. I think they are wrong because they do not understand Washington's need to focus on the fact that we have an export economy. We want U.S. products to be bought and sold in countries and markets all over the world. We are here today to talk about a critical vote to support 225,000 jobs that are part of our export economy. If we fail to confirm Fred Hochberg for a second term as Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, businesses across the United States will lose a key tool in job creation. This is because his term expires, runs out, on July 20. What would that mean? It would mean the Export-Import Bank, which needs at least three of its five board members to have a quorum, would not have a quorum and would not be able to issue any new loans. This means the transactions that U.S. companies depend on, the guarantees and the transactions to finance the sale of U.S. products and services overseas, would not be able to move forward. If we don't confirm Mr. Hochberg this week, the bank cannot approve loans and it would take away a job-creating tool that American innovators and businesses count on. This is why I am calling on my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, to confirm Mr. Hochberg as the Export-Import Bank Chairman for a second term. His nomination is supported by the Chamber of Commerce and by the National Association of Manufacturers. He has proven to be a solid leader in his organization by listening, implementing, innovating, and administering a very critical job-creation tool. When I visited businesses across my State in 2012 to talk about the Export-Import Bank, I heard the American people wanted us to focus on job creation and supporting business. The Export-Import Bank helps American-made products to be shipped all around the world. I saw a company in my State, Yakima, WA, the Manhasset music stand company, use the Export-Import Bank to make sure sales go all around the globe, including China. I saw a grain silo manufacturer called SCAFCO in Spokane, which also would testify to the fact that they have been able to sell their grain to many countries around the globe because of the financing the Export- Import Bank guarantees. Airline cockpit hardware made by the Esterline Corporation factory in Everett, WA, also testified to the same effect; that when you are looking around the globe to secure financing of U.S. products into more developing countries, it is hard to get the financing to work. The United States can be left at the starting line or the United States can use this vital tool that I call a tactic for small business to get access to make sure their products get a final sale. The Export-Import Bank supports 83,000 jobs in my State alone, which benefits from the finance mechanism. Over the last 5 years, it has supported many jobs throughout the United States. Overall, it supported, as I said, 225,000 jobs and more than 3,000 businesses in 2012. In the small business area, 2,500 of those are small businesses. The notion that this is somehow crony capitalism--and maybe he is talking about the shenanigans that happened on Wall Street, but he is certainly not talking about the Export-Import Bank. I am advocating that we keep the very positive results of this bank, keep Mr. Hochberg, and make sure we continue to sell our products from Everett, WA, or Auburn, KY, all over the globe. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders. The question is: are we going to make sure that U.S. products get into the hands of the growing middle class around the globe? In 2030, China's middle class will be 1 billion people, 1 billion middle- class people in China, up from 150 million today. India's middle class will grow 80 percent, from 50 million to 475 million. We need our businesses, large and small, to have the tools to reach this new, growing tool of consumers. Not only does this help businesses, the Ex-Im Bank also helps taxpayers. I don't know where the idea that this is crony capitalism comes from, but this program is a very good deal for the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In fact, it returned nearly $1.6 billion to the U.S. Treasury since 2005. It actually is helping us return money to the Treasury and it helps our businesses continue to grow in export markets. As we speak, there are almost $4 billion in transactions awaiting approval for the bank; that is, if we don't approve the chairman, these deals might not go through. There are many American businesses counting on their transaction so they can compete in an international market. The international competitor is not going to wait until we approve Mr. Hochberg if we delay this. They are going to go ahead, cash in on the business deals, and our competitors will win. I think the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it best in a 2011 letter to congressional leaders: The Export-Import Bank enables U.S. companies, large and small, to turn export opportunities into real sales that help create real jobs in the United States of America. I was proud that Mr. Hochberg came to Seattle last year for the opening of a regional Ex-Im office, focusing on small businesses to make sure they can get the financing for end products to get to these markets. We should be moving more toward policies to help businesses, the small businesses, grow with confidence into these international markets. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing, follow through, and confirm this chairman. Since its creation in 1934, the Export-Import Bank was approved by unanimous consent or voice vote 24 times. For 24 times no one called this crony capitalism. No, they were supporting it. The last time we authorized it, it had 78 votes. It ended up in the House of Representatives with 330 votes. I am pointing this out because all of the delay in Mr. Hochberg's confirmation hurts business in the end, when the majority of my colleagues do agree this is a vital tool to help boost products made in America. In the last reauthorization we did make improvements to strengthen the Ex-Im Bank. Quarterly reports are delivered on the default rates, which now can't go above 2 percent. The Government Accountability Office also is required to work with risk management structures to make sure loans and businesses are not too risky. Transactions above a certain dollar amount receive public comment, and they deliver a yearly report on those transactions. I know my colleagues have mentioned this issue about aviation, and I can guarantee, as the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, I want U.S. airline industries to be competitive in international markets. Certainly, the world community on financing of airplane sales is working together to make sure those are closer to market-based rates and working on the same page so these financing schemes work together. The 2011 Aircraft Sector Understanding sets out the terms and conditions on how airlines can finance aircraft purchases using Government-backed financing. The Understanding requires a closer alignment with commercial market borrowing rates. This agreement covers all major trading partners except China. All of these improvements we continue to make in the Ex-Im Bank are important. As I said, Mr. Hochberg has been open to many discussions as to how we move ahead. Let us not deny the fact that in developing markets, a financial tool such as the Export-Import Bank, that actually delivers on helping job creation in the United States by getting the sales of many different products into these developing countries and growing middle class, is very good for the United States. The fact that it returns to the taxpayer is very positive. Let's not let this slip another moment. Let's get Mr. Hochberg back to the task at hand, which is approving these transactions so U.S. companies can continue to grow jobs here by accessing new markets overseas. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 235, to provide for the conveyance of certain property located in Anchorage, Alaska, from the United States to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and S. 920, to allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of Minnesota to lease or transfer certain land. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate with my colleagues, but I came to share a few thoughts about the passing of our dear friend Senator Frank Lautenberg. He was a dear friend, a colleague. When I originally sat in the Senate, he sat right behind me. We shared seats together on the Commerce Committee. I can tell you Frank's wit was as quick as his downhill slalom skiing. He always had something funny to say. We knew him as somebody who had been in one of the largest computer services companies, ADP, and helped get that company started, and as somebody who represented veterans as one of the last World War II veterans in this body. He served here for almost 30 years. What always amazed me about Frank is that he brought that business attitude to the Senate when it came to legislating; that is, results matter. Because of that, he had a long list of legislative accomplishments. I don't know if everybody, because of the turnover in the Senate, realized how many things Frank accomplished: banning smoking on airplanes, lowering the threshold for drunk driving, better protection against toxic chemicals, helping to improve the everyday safety of Americans, improving the quality of our environmental laws in the United States. He also had an amendment that helped allow for better refugee status, for members of historically persecuted groups to easily get refugee status in the United States. He did many different things while he was in the Senate, and he worked very hard because of that experience in World War II and being a veteran and going to school on the GI bill--somebody who lost his father at a very early age. He used that GI bill to get the education he needed to do these incredible things. When Frank had a victory, he didn't stop at that victory, he kept going. After he and Dick Durbin helped ban smoking on commercial flights, he followed that with a provision to the Transportation appropriations bill that extended the ban to include all Federal buildings. In the same kind of fervor, once he helped make our drunk driving laws stronger, he continued to try to implement stronger measures as a key player in establishing a national blood alcohol level at 0.08 percent. At the time, many States decided to do otherwise, but Frank worked to try to champion this at the Federal level, and as a result he helped to save tens of thousands of lives. He was also a huge champion of our environment. He championed ocean acidification issues before they were probably really known by a lot of people in America. He understood that this was a looming disaster and that we needed to do more research for marine life, our economy, and our way of life. He also knew and understood that Americans needed protection from toxic pollutants. Well, that is something most of us would say: Yes, we don't like toxic pollutants. Back in 1986 he wrote a bill that created a public database about toxins released in the United States. That was certainly brave for somebody from New Jersey because it was a leading chemical-producing State. The fact that Frank took that on showed a lot of tenacity and a lot of courage, and just as he did on the other things, he followed that up. Recently, he introduced the Safe Chemicals Act to improve the understanding and reporting of chemicals found in products that make their way into the hands of Americans every single day. He also championed improving our transportation system. I asked him: Frank, how did you already get a train station named for you on the Jersey line? Anyone who has taken the Amtrak up to New York has had a chance to see that one of the stops in Secaucus is named the Frank R. Lautenberg Station. He had been a great champion for Amtrak, but he was also a great champion for freight and freight mobility. He knew it was important to New Jersey as a major port in our country, and he wanted to make sure that not only people but products got to where they needed to go and got there on time. We all like to think we are remembered by the American people for the accomplishments we have, and I am not sure whether they will remember all of the things Frank Lautenberg did to contribute to their way of life. One thing I can say is that when I think about his advocacy for a modernized GI bill or banning smoking on planes, he touched the lives of millions of Americans. He also had tenacity. He had the tenacity once to help a boy from New Jersey who had been involved in a domestic dispute where the father had lost custody. The young boy at that time, Sean Goldman, who was from New Jersey, had been taken by a family member and was in Brazil. His father tried going through the Brazilian courts for years to get him back. He really wasn't successful until Frank Lautenberg joined the fight. Frank brought the same tenacity he had shown in the past and held up a generalized system of preferences bill--which remove tariffs on $2.7 billion worth of Brazilian goods--here in the Senate. He knew that threatening to hold up that bill would get their attention, and he was right. He literally got them to do something and return this young boy, Sean Goldman, to his father. Frank really cared about results. He knew it was important to get that father and son reunited, and he knew the importance of getting results for his constituency in New Jersey. We will miss Frank. We will miss all of his legislative actions, his standing on the Senate floor and giving a speech or, as he would say, giving heck to somebody. Oftentimes it was somebody on the other side or somebody he thought was a big giant doing too many things that needed to be challenged. He will be remembered as part of a great generation of Americans who were successful in so many ways. He lived the American dream, came to the Senate and was a contributor. He will be remembered for his tenacity and standing and fighting for people. We are going to miss you, Frank. I yield the floor.