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 June 12, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing to consider the President's Nomination of Yvette Roubideaux, to be Director of the Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. (Reappointment) Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, as we consider S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act, specifically amendment No. 903, I want to highlight critical emerging needs in our Nation's arctic. The arctic is opening at an alarming rate, which creates a number of economic opportunities for the Nation. This accessibility also creates new requirements for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy. Multiple bipartisan Presidential directives call for increased arctic presence to meet national security and homeland security needs; to facilitate safe, secure, and reliable navigation; to protect maritime commerce; and to protect the environment as resource development increases. With new shipping lanes and opportunities to obtain and transport natural resources, the arctic has become a new frontier. We need to have arctic infrastructure ready to accommodate this increase in commerce. That is why I have worked closely with Senator Begich to fight for heavy-duty icebreakers and other arctic infrastructure. We need to make sure the Coast Guard acquires the tools they need to fulfill their missions in the arctic. In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers is in the final phase of a study which assesses feasibility of deep draft ports in the arctic. The corps assessed over 3,000 miles of Alaskan coastline and identified a shortlist of two possible deep draft ports in Nome and Port Clarence. The U.S. Department of the Interior released a report on emerging Federal management needs in the arctic in March 2013. The report, titled ``Managing for the Future in a Rapidly Changing Environment,'' found that the U.S. arctic habitat encompasses St. Lawrence Island Northward, based on physical oceanography, seasonal sea ice, and other ecosystem characteristics. These northern seas are vastly different and require unique infrastructure compared to the majority of the Bering Sea, Alaska. It is the intent of this bill that these arctic deep draft ports are present in the arctic. And while there has been some dispute on how the U.S. arctic is defined, both the Army Corps study and the Department of the Interior report indicate the importance of deep draft ports in close proximity to the Arctic Circle, 66 degrees North. This is where ports of refuge, natural resource shipping, oilspill response, commercial shipping, and other commercial opportunities require a deep draft port. These key findings identify ports that must be prioritized when considering deep water draft port development in the arctic, where the Federal Government has a role including technical assistance outlined in amendment 903.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I would like to thank Chairman Baucus and Senator Murray for their support and resolve to work to address the issue of cargo diversion posed by the harbor maintenance tax. The Water Resources Development Act that we are discussing here today is an important bill that works to ensure the economic success of our Nation's waterways. The language we were able to include in this bill is just the start of our effort to address the serious issue of cargo diversion and international competition. It gives deep-water ports the ability to more cost-effectively utilize the funds raised by the harbor maintenance tax to keep competitive with their Canadian and Mexican counterparts. Over the past decade, we have seen increasing competition for the market share of U.S.-bound goods from ports beyond our border to the north and to the south. These diversions can be partially attributed to the added cost of paying the harbor maintenance tax at U.S. ports. In fact, among the top 25 North American ports, the fastest growing in 2012 were the Port of Prince Rupert in Canada and the Port of Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Instead of U.S.-bound cargo creating growth of U.S. ports, we are witnessing this cargo, previously shipped through our west coast ports, contributing to the growth of Canadian and Mexican ports. The loss of cargo shipments through American ports leads to decreased port activity and export capacity, and it erodes the harbor maintenance trust fund, which means fewer direct and indirect American jobs supporting U.S. international commerce. More than 200,000 jobs are tied to the activities at the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and with nearly 27 percent of international container cargo potentially at risk of moving to Canada from west voast ports, this could result in significant job losses. Cargo diversion is not my only concern with the harbor maintenance tax. I also am concerned by the poor utilization of the funds collected and the disparate distribution of the funds that are allocated. As of 2011, the balance of the harbor maintenance trust fund has built up to more than $6.4 billion. We should be investing this balance for its designed purpose of improving the ability of our ports to move goods. Furthermore, the harbor maintenance trust fund balance is rarely spent on operations and maintenance at west coast ports, where a significant amount of the tax revenue is generated. Our two largest ports in Washington Seattle and Tacoma generate, on average, close to 7 percent of the funding for the HMTF, but each received just over a penny for every dollar collected from shippers who pay the HMT in Seattle and Tacoma. To remain competitive in an international marketplace, we need a long-term plan for how to grow and support infrastructure development and that must include reform of the harbor maintenance tax. Essential to remaining competitive is the ability of our ports to shorten the time it takes to get goods to consumers. This means we must invest in the infrastructure of our ports and freight corridors something that I have worked with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on to more quickly deliver the goods from our ports to the rest of the Nation. If we don't make these infrastructure investments, America will face major opportunity costs. We are seeing this already with the cargo diversion to Canada from the Pacific Northwest. But I must warn my colleagues that the competition is only increasing and will spread throughout the country with major ports planned or coming online in Canada and Mexico on both coasts, as well as the forthcoming expansion of the Panama Canal. Now is the time to address the harbor maintenance tax and reverse cargo diversion by reforming this tax and better utilizing the money it generates. Today Chairman Baucus is proposing that we work together to address the competitive imbalances created by the harbor maintenance tax. While we acknowledge the work done to improve the spending out of the harbor maintenance trust fund collections in the Water Resources Development Act, we believe the efforts are just a starting point. Many of the underlying tax and trade issues cannot be addressed in this legislation. We believe it is important to clarify our intent to move on comprehensive reforms the harbor maintenance tax on the next available and appropriate legislative vehicle.

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 April 24, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget for Tribal Programs.'' Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues from the Northwest who have come to the floor this afternoon to speak in support of the nomination of Sally Jewell as Secretary of the Interior. Like my colleagues from the Northwest, I wish to express how much we appreciate her willingness to serve and how proud we are of her legacy and interests in a variety of issues so far. Obviously, the Department of the Interior is so important to us, with its broad range of services, including everything from our national parks, to wildlife refuge, to offshore drilling lease management, to the important science done by the USGS Service, and many other things. In fact, I read somewhere kind of humorously that the Department of the Interior was called the Department of Everything Else. As a nominee, Ms. Jewell came before our committee. I thank her family for their willingness to support her in her efforts to come to Washington, DC, because Sally is the exact type of leadership we need at the Department of the Interior. She represents a balanced person who not only knows how to help a growing business, as she did, she has served on the university board of regents and also worked on the nonpartisan National Conservation Parks Association. She has done everything in business, from dealing with oilfields in Oklahoma to commercial banking to, of late, running REI, one of our most successful companies in the Pacific Northwest. I know she has the kind of leadership it takes to figure out these issues about best use of public lands or the vigorous challenges the Department faces when it comes to modernizing the bureaucracy or thinking about climate change at the same time you are talking about deepwater drilling. There are a myriad of things we have to forge through, and Sally Jewell is the right person with the right balance to get that done. Having grown up in Washington, where over 40 percent of our lands is in public land, I know Sally understands these western issues, whether it is water rights or salmon recovery or understanding the impact on water levels, the fire season, wildlife on BLM lands, or the importance of access to hunting and fishing. I guarantee, because she grew up there, Sally Jewell understands these issues. I know she has been involved in many organizations to express that, and that has been a good training ground for her. I am confident, because she is a trained engineer, she is going to bring a very pragmatic, can-do attitude to the Interior Department's management and problem-solving efforts. I know science will be her compass, and I know she is not going to have an ideological bent, but she is going to have a ``get it done'' mentality. Given the importance of the Interior Department's agencies and very challenging mission, I am excited we are going to have somebody with a business background and a science background at the Department of the Interior. I hope our colleagues will vote today to move Ms. Jewell out of the Senate so we can get her into the Department of the Interior so she can begin this important job and continue to move our Nation's agenda forward. As the chairwoman of the Indian Affairs Committee I look forward to working with Ms. Jewell on all the issues related to Indian Country as well. There is much to accomplish and much to address. I think her background is exactly what we need in the Department. I hope my colleagues will move quickly on this issue. I thank the chairman, Senator Wyden, for his leadership in moving her nomination through the process. 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 April 10, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing on Identifying Barriers to Indian Housing Development and Finding Solutions. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Committee on Indian Affairs Rules of Procedure.

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 Tuesday, February 26, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 3:00 p.m. to conduct a business meeting to organize for the 113th Congress by electing the Chairwoman and Vice Chairman of the Committee and to adopt the rules of the Committee and any other organizational business the Committee needs to consider. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak against the amendment being offered by my colleague, Senator Coburn. I know he was on the Senate floor earlier today explaining his amendment, and I also know my colleague from Texas was just out here making general remarks about the Violence Against Women Act and its reauthorization. I am here to continue the debate and to make sure it is clear to my colleagues that, make no mistake, a vote for the Coburn amendment is a vote against Native American women. That is because the amendment would strip the bill of provisions that are intended to bring about better justice for women who have been the victims of domestic violence crimes on Indian reservations. Many people who have been out here on the floor have been talking about the breakdown in our political system and that somehow this is about partisan politics. Well, I can assure my colleagues this is an issue where many women in the Senate have been scratching their heads and asking themselves: Why is it the Violence Against Women Act and the Trafficking Prevention Reauthorization Act have both been stymied by various Members in both the House and Senate? These are crimes that are mostly perpetrated against women. Why aren't these bills resolved and passed so we can give clarity to local officials and partners so they can provide a better justice system and help so many women in the United States of America? Native American women are raped and assaulted at 2\1/2\ times the national average. That means more than 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped in their lifetime and 3 in 5 will suffer from domestic assault. Murder is the third leading cause of death among Native American women. However, less than 50 percent of the domestic violence cases in Indian Country are prosecuted because of a gap in our legal system. So this isn't about politics. This isn't a debate on what is a good way to win votes somewhere in America. This is about the life and death of women who need a better system to prosecute those who are committing serious crimes against them. My colleagues can certainly take exception to the solution that has been provided here, but as many of my colleagues have said in the past, they can't own the facts. They can have their opinions, but I am here to say the underlying bill does protect the constitutional rights of non-Native Americans who commit these crimes on tribal reservations. We are consulting with the Department of Justice, which did an elaborate study and analysis of exactly how to make sure the gap in the Federal system, which currently doesn't provide a prosecutor, doesn't provide a judge, which doesn't provide a court on every section of land in the United States of America, will be represented with a judicial partner that does guarantee the civil liberties of U.S. citizens, and guarantee that they are protected in both a fair trial and the ability to have habeas corpus review by a Federal court. What we have here are two or three Republican administrations whose Solicitor Generals have basically said these rights remain with Native Americans and the Federal Government. The last Solicitor General said: The policy of leaving Indians free from State jurisdiction and control is deeply rooted in our Nation's history. But this is about a Federal partnership and making sure a Federal law is upheld. So if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to say we are going to provide a Federal prosecutor and a Federal Court system on every reservation or close to every reservation across America, OK, great. My point is if you think you are rooting out crime in America, while letting a sieve happen in Indian Country, you are not rooting out crime. You are sending a signal to people that this is an easy place to go. If you want to conduct sex trafficking of women, go to tribal reservations. If you want to escape the law and not worry about violent behavior, then go to tribal reservations. That is what you are saying to people. You are saying this is the place where you can escape the law. We are trying to close that gap. So this is not something that has been done with sleight of hand. This is something where a great deal of thought has gone into it by the Department of Justice. I will remind my colleagues it was one of our former colleagues, the Indian Civil Rights Act was crafted by Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, to grant American Indians the same Bill of Rights in tribal courts as are afforded defendants in any other courts. Those rights included the Miranda right, a trial by jury, the right to counsel, the right to confront their accuser, and a right to habeas corpus. So all of these things are actually in the tribal system today. They are a part of what is called the Indian Civil Rights Act, and they affect Native Americans. My colleague, Senator Cornyn, said these civil liberties provided to U.S. citizens are not included in this legislation. They are included. They are included in section 904 on page 182. Those same civil liberties are called out in this bill, S. 47, the reauthorization of the VAWA Act. They are called out specifically for nontribal U.S. citizens. So in that court system both tribal members and nontribal members are protected by the same civil liberties and are protected in their ability to have federal habeas corpus review in Federal Court. I am not sure to what my colleagues are referring. If I am missing some point, I would love to hear about it. But these safeguards were built into this system because this is such an egregious problem that we have to fix. So we are asking Indian Country and tribal courts to meet these same criteria. If a tribal court can't provide legal counsel to a defendant, if they can't follow these same things, then no one is going to be tried under a tribal court system. We are trying to address cases like the one mentioned in the New York Times today of a woman who was battered and beaten by a partner so many times, yet he was never arrested and tried because it happened on a tribal reservation. Only when he showed up at her worksite with a gun to kill her--and only because an employee pushed her out of the way is she here today--could something be done. We are trying to close that gap and protect everyone's civil liberties. I want to be clear. The civil liberties that are protected under this Senate bill--the civil liberties protections of due process, for no unreasonable search or seizure, no double jeopardy, a right to counsel, not being compelled to testify against yourself, the ability to get a speedy trial, the right to trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses, the right of habeas corpus review in federal court--are all in S. 47 as it relates to non-Native Americans. Those are the rights that are going to be protected. That is what we are passing in this legislation. So we shouldn't strip out this provision. We should move forward with what has been a discussion about how to partner and uphold Federal law in the most efficient, cost-effective manner possible, and in conjunction with what has been Federal law and determination about tribal sovereignty and issues by many Solicitor Generals, by many Supreme Courts, by many individuals who have looked at this situation. Members can decide they don't trust Indian Country. They can say: I don't trust this tribe, or I don't trust that one. If that is the case, they should come to the Senate floor and say that. Say they don't believe they can bring about justice in their courts, if that is what they mean. But under this statute they will absolutely have to, and they absolutely have to today for every tribal member who comes before that court, and they will be required to uphold those same issues for non-Native Americans as well. I would say to my colleagues that this is an epidemic. Believe me, I want to get the Violence Against Women Act passed. I want to get this human sex trafficking act out of the hands of the House of Representatives and passed. I know some of my colleagues are trying to attach some of that here, but I would say we should pass both of these. This is about an epidemic in America, and we are trying to put together some creative solutions. If I am wrong about the facts and the details about civil liberties, I would love to hear about it. Otherwise, I would like my colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment, which strikes these provisions, and pass this legislation so we can move on and get a final bill that protects women all across America whether they are tribal members or not. Clearly, we should not ignore the statistics and the gap that shows us that we need to do something very important to make sure all women, including Native American women, no longer suffer from these statistics that are just unbearable in the United States of America. So, Madam President, I hope our colleagues will turn down the Coburn amendment and vote for final passage on this legislation. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the leader, Senator Leahy, for his leadership in trying to get the Violence Against Women Act passed and for being down here and working on an agreement with the other side of the aisle so we can vote either today or in the near future. Hopefully, we will bring this issue to an end and get along with protecting the rights of women throughout the United States of America. I am very anxious to help and further that debate. I come to the floor as the chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and as somebody who has spent a lot of time dealing with tribal leadership in the State of Washington and throughout the Pacific Northwest. I know the Presiding Officer has a very large tribal population within her State too. I am sure she has had had many experiences with those tribes. Like me, she wants to make sure all victims of domestic violence are protected in America. In Washington State, we receive over 30,000 domestic violence calls a year. That is more than 500 incidents per week. Our domestic violence programs serve about 1,800 people each day, and that is why we need to move past this debate, get this legislation reauthorized, so we make sure we help protect victims. A woman named Carissa Daniels came to one of our events recently. She fled from a very abusive domestic violence situation with her 3-year- old daughter. She said she is alive because of the Violence Against Women Act. Those safeguards and protections protected her and her daughter. I come to the floor, and I am a little frustrated this debate has been bogged down over a few issues, particularly this issue as it relates to Native Americans and the rights of Native Americans. I think we had the Department of Justice come to the Congress with a very good solution because their point was we have an epidemic of violence against women in Indian country, and we don't have a ready solution as it relates to the necessary law enforcement there to protect them. I don't mean to be elementary, but going back through our country's history and our relationship with tribal governments, it is a Federal relationship. To secure that Federal relationship, we have basically said these are rights for the Federal Government and not the States. In many ways, we have eliminated what States can do as it relates to tribal land. The challenge we have is that on these tribal reservations we need to make sure the law is enforced--a Federal law--and that there are individuals to carry out that Federal law. By voting for the underlying amendment, maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have an appropriations authorization that says this is how we are going to deal with it: We are going to give you a Federal prosecutor and a Federal agent on every tribal reservation or in every jurisdiction. I don't know how many that would be in my State. We have vast and huge amounts of land. I guess, if they thought that was going to be effective, there would have to be a prosecutor and a Federal agent in probably 39 different parts of my State. If we multiply that in the West--or even just in the Presiding Officer's State--we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars the Federal Government would have to dole out to properly police and enforce Federal law as it relates to crimes against these women. Why isn't anybody recommending that? Because I think the Department of Justice has adequately seen that the best way to do this is to build a partnership with those tribal jurisdictions to get that done. In looking over the history of this, I am always amazed at what previous administrations--Republican administrations--said about this tribal relationship. Even George H.W. Bush's Solicitor General Kenneth Starr stated in a filing in the Supreme Court that ``it remains true today that the State has no jurisdiction over on-reservation offenses involving Indians. . . . '' George W. Bush's Solicitor General said that ``the policy of leaving Indians free from State jurisdiction and control'' is one that ``is deeply rooted in the Nation's history.'' So here are Republican administrations that have basically said the way to deal with this is a Federal relationship. I am saying to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that unless they are willing to put a Federal prosecutor and a Federal agent on all tribal reservations, who do they think is going to prosecute these crimes? Who? Who is going to prosecute them? That is why the Department of Justice came to us and said: We have an idea on how we might do it. Let's try to get a partnership with tribal jurisdictions to make sure justice is being brought on tribal land but do so by protecting the civil liberties of American citizens as we go through this process. That is the legislation that is before us. It passed out of the Judiciary Committee and is now on the Senate floor. My colleagues across the aisle are trying to strip those very rights that Native American women would have. The way this would work is obviously tribal jurisdictions would prosecute these individuals. If there is anyone who doesn't think this is a problem--it is amazing to me to think this concept that one of our other colleagues might be proposing, that somehow we would say: OK. A solution would be to say it is a lesser crime if an Indian woman is assaulted on a tribal reservation, and it would be a misdemeanor. Somehow aggressive abuse and violent attacks against women would be a misdemeanor. I am not going to treat Native American women as second- class citizens in the United States of America. I get that might have been the cultural norm of the 1700s and 1800s, but it has no place in our history in 2013. This is about legislation that will protect tribal women on Indian reservations and make sure these cases of abuse--whether they are done by a Native American or non-Native American--are protected. Consider the case of Diane Millich. Her ex-husband was never arrested any of the more than 100 times he had beaten her or attacked her. Finally, he showed up at her workplace with a gun to kill her. She is alive because an individual from her workplace pushed her out of the way. Her husband is being treated as a first-time offender because all those other times he beat her or domestically assaulted her, he was never prosecuted because it took place on a reservation. This epidemic is so great that now these people who are involved in sex and drug trafficking are targeting reservations and Indian women because they know they will not get prosecuted. They know this. We are allowing an intolerable situation to grow in great extremes simply because we are missing a vital tool. I get that many of my colleagues may not understand the history of tribal law and the history of our country and securing a relationship with tribes and the treaties we signed. Again, as I said before, this is a relationship we have preserved for the Federal Government, and the Federal Government is saying this is how we can best solve these crimes by getting the help and support of tribal jurisdictions. I wish to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because I have heard some of them say that somehow this violates the civil liberties of non-Native Americans if these crimes happen in Indian Country, that nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, all tribal courts also adhere to the Indian Civil Rights Act, which is basically our 14th amendment. So the security of the 14th amendment is right there in the law and will protect any non- Native American who is charged with this crime on a reservation. Secondly, this law has specifically broad language, making sure the defendant would be protected with all rights required by the United States in order for this jurisdiction to have oversight. It is almost like a double protection--saying it twice--that the habeas corpus rights of individuals will be protected under this statute. The notion that this is somehow abrogating individual rights just because the crime takes place on a tribal reservation is incorrect. So I ask my colleagues: Do we want to continue to have this unbelievable growth and petri dish of crime evolving--when criminals know there is a porous border, that is where they are going to go--or do we want to partner with a recommendation that has been determined by the Department of Justice, which has the authority to carry out this Federal law on tribal reservations and is asking for this partnership but with due protection so we can root out this evil in our communities. I would say to my colleagues, it is time to pass this legislation and protect these rights for all individuals. We cannot vote for an amendment on the other side of the aisle that basically strips the rights of Native American women and treats them like second-class citizens, nor can we just go silent on what is an epidemic problem in our country. What we have to do is stand and realize that the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Country is a very mature relationship with a lot of Federal case law behind it. A lot of Republican administrations recognize it is a Federal relationship and that we can--asking Indian Country to help us--solve this problem and prosecute these individuals under the rights we have as constitutional citizens of the United States. I am confident we can get to an answer and resolve this issue. I say to my colleagues: We need to do so with urgency. We cannot allow another 1,800 calls to go unanswered or not supported because we have not authorized this legislation. Let's get our job done and protect all women throughout the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor to join my colleagues on the women's side of the Senate who will be coming to the floor this morning, along with Senator Mikulski--and I thank her for her leadership--to talk about pay equity and the issue of equal pay for equal work. I am proud to stand here on what is the 4-year anniversary of the historic Lilly Ledbetter legislation that we were able to pass. What an unbelievable moment that was, to work for what is equal treatment for women in our court system. Lilly Ledbetter went across the Nation and came to Congress and communicated very well to many Americans on this issue that sometimes you could be discriminated against and not even know it until your retirement, which was the case with her. Yet the legal system failed to take any action at that point. So we passed the Lilly Ledbetter legislation to make sure that in our court system women could find out and have those remedies brought before our system and fight for equal pay. My State of Washington has been a leader in increasing the minimum wage. We have a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation, and I am proud of that. But pay disparity continues to persist between men and women, and that is why I am here, to urge my colleagues to help close this gap. We are here to advocate for the Paycheck Fairness Act because full-time working women still earn 75 percent of what their male counterparts earn for the same job, according to a report by the Economic Opportunity Institute. While the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a step forward, we need to pass this additional legislation to help end pay inequity and take the next steps toward helping women. The Paycheck Fairness Act will help us move toward closing the gap between men and women, and it does the following things: It requires employers to provide justification other than gender for paying men higher wages than for women; it protects employees who share the same salary information from potential retaliation from their employers; and it provides victims of pay discrimination the same remedies available to victims of other kinds of discrimination, including punitive and compensatory damages. This bill also helps create outreach programs for employers to help them understand this issue and to help end pay disparity. I certainly look forward to the passing of this legislation because closing this gap means women in my State will be able to afford 13 more months of rent or 39 more months of family health insurance premiums, according to an estimate by the National Partnership for Women and Families. We have to level the playing field so these kinds of estimates are not just projections but they are realities. We can't support the status quo while the economic security of women and families is undermined. One-third of families headed by women in my State are in poverty. This can be attributed, in part, to policies that perpetuate lower pay for women. So we must end unequal pay practices and level the playing field. It is in this spirit of fair play that we ask for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. I know Senator Mikulski and others who have fought hard on this legislation will be here to speak this morning, and I am proud we are sponsors of the Paycheck Fairness Act that was introduced just last week. Today, almost 50 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act and 4 years after the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we still need to hit another giant milestone in helping women get fair pay in America. We made a big step toward all this with Lilly Ledbetter's leadership, but now we need to pass this new legislation. It was an important milestone that will help women be confident they will be treated fairly in the workplace and to make sure they continue to have access to the courts. Whether they are an engineer or a lawyer or a police officer, women should not have to earn less doing the same job as a coworker. That is why we need to pass this Paycheck Fairness Act today. I want women who grow up in the United States of America to know there is no doubt they will earn the same pay they deserve for their work. That is what our country is all about, and that is why we are going to work hard this session to pass this legislation. I thank the President pro tempore, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sterling Laudon, Sarah Weaver, Rebecca Nolan, Kevin Murray, Will Stein, and Will Kellogg, staff on the Finance Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the 113th Congress.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on January 30, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``What Should America Do About Gun Violence?''

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to salute my colleague, Senator Dan Inouye, and remember him for his great service to our country. Like so many of my colleagues, I come down to the Senate floor with a great deal of sadness but also admiration for the incredible life that Danny Inouye led. He certainly was a giant among Senators, and for the work he did-- everything from investigating Watergate to fighting for Native Hawaiian rights, to everything he did in the United States every day--he will be remembered as a man who fought for justice. When I think about Danny Inouye and the mentoring he has done for me and my colleague Senator Murray and for the State of Washington, I can tell you he will be sorely missed. We know something about long-term Senators in the State of Washington. Certainly, Danny Inouye and Scoop and Maggie were all friends. He was also a friend to Washington State. He forged a great relationship with Scoop and Maggie. That started when Scoop Jackson actually championed statehood for Hawaii starting as early as the late 1940s. He played a key role in supporting it and passing it into the Hawaii Statehood Act. That is something Danny Inouye was so appreciative of. They forged a great relationship. Senator Inouye and Senator Maggie were great friends and mentors. I had the opportunity many years ago to hear both of them at Senator Magnuson's house in Seattle reminisce about their days together. Some of those stories I could share on the floor; some I could not. But they were longtime friends. The one story that is written about in Warren Magnuson's biography by Shelby Scates is a story about how, when Mount St. Helens blew up, Senator Magnuson went to Senator Inouye and said: We need about $1 billion to help for the cleanup of Mount St. Helens. You can imagine in 1980 what a tremendous amount of money that would be. Senator Inouye said: Senator Magnuson, we have volcanoes blowing up all the time in Hawaii, and we never get a dime. Magnuson responded: Just wait, it will be your turn soon. So these are two incredible individuals who forged a relationship and, along with Jackson, were some of the big giants of our day in the Senate. We in the State of Washington certainly benefited greatly from Senator Inouye's incredible help and support. I know he traveled to our State many times at my request and participated in many different events. Probably one of the most important things he did for us in the State of Washington was the Puyallup land claim settlement and how Senator Inouye led the fight as the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee to make sure the right thing was done. Together with Congressman Norm Dicks, we had a very difficult situation. The Puyallup Tribe, the Port and the City of Tacoma, and others all had a difficult dispute going on. The end result was the second largest Native American land claim settlement in U.S. history. The deal led to tremendous economic growth for the tribe, for the port, and for the surrounding committees. Senator Inouye, as I said, was the chairman of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs in 1980 when the Puyallup Tribe successfully sued to assert its claim for land around its reservation. This land included the Port of Tacoma, many parts of downtown Tacoma, and the towns of Fife and Puyallup. Because of his strong commitment to Native American rights, the Puyallup Tribe trusted Senator Inouye to serve as an intermediary between the parties involved in the negotiation to try to resolve this dispute. He made around a dozen trips to Washington State at key moments of this negotiation. If you can imagine, a Senator who has to represent his State, be a leader on the Appropriations Committee, and who would spend so much time on one particular dispute. During one tense session at a Tacoma hotel, Senator Inouye described his role as ``messenger boy,'' running between tribal negotiators on the second floor and non-Indian negotiators on the fifth floor. By his own estimate, he shuttled between those two floors 21 times. His tireless commitment and work helped keep the negotiations moving along. Finally, in 1988, a deal was struck and the settlement was passed into law in 1989. The tribe relinquished claims to land it originally held. In exchange, they received $162 million that included 200 acres of disputed land. Of this total, $77 million were Federal funds, which Senator Inouye and Congressman Dicks worked to obtain. When Senator Inouye was asked about the Federal Government's contribution toward the settlement, he replied: ``I got my training from Magnuson.'' For the Puyallup Tribe, the results have been dramatic. Today the tribe is one of the largest employers in Pierce County, and it is moving forward with its port development partnership. The Puyallups have become a prominent leader for other tribes in important areas such as protecting natural resources, providing law enforcement, and improving health care. As for the Port of Tacoma, the results have been impressive as well. With the settlement, the port was able to tear down the Blair Bridge and open the waterways to the world's largest container ships. Removing the uncertainty of land ownership and relocating Highway 509 also unlocked land in the upper Blair Waterway for development, and a lot of new development occurred. According to the port, these improvements provided 43,000 jobs in Pierce County. The volume of cargo at the port has nearly doubled, growing from 782,000 containers in 1988 to nearly 1.5 million containers in 2011. Now the Port of Tacoma handles more containers than its friendly rival to the north, the Port of Seattle, so it is something they very much take with great pride. Senator Inouye has stood with Washingtonians on an issue that was so important to us and has led to so much growth and economic development, and only his leadership provided the necessary oversight to navigate this thorny issue. He also has helped us on many other issues, protecting salmon and our other fisheries, fighting for Native Americans and supporting strong defense and veterans' issues. He certainly will be remembered in the Northwest as a true friend. Our Nation's veterans had no greater friend than Senator Inouye. But when it came time to pass national legislation recognizing the Japanese-American veterans' contributions to our country during World War II, he let others take the lead, knowing he, himself, would also be an honorary recipient of this award. During a ceremony in November of 2001, with the other Nisei veterans at his side, Senator Inouye accepted the Congressional Gold Medal on behalf of the 100th Infantry Battalion, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence Service. In his remarks, Senator Inouye said, ``Seventy years ago, we were enemy aliens, but today, this great Nation honors us in this special ceremony.'' I can tell you because there were many Nisei veterans from the Pacific Northwest who traveled to our Nation's Capital to participate in that event. Their families were so honored to be there with their parents and to honor them in this great ceremony. It would not have happened if it had not been for Senator Inouye's incredible leadership. He also successfully fought to honor the veterans who served in the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines on the side of the United States during World War II. Because of a law passed in 1946, their service was not recognized. They were denied access to health care and given only half the disability and death compensation of U.S. veterans. Senator Inouye changed that. Over the years, he secured nearly $200 million in compensation for Filipino veterans, and he fought to grant Filipino veterans the same access as U.S. veterans to VA hospitals. Senator Inouye's strong sense of honor and justice drove him to fight for the recognition of these veterans' service. He was fond of saying ``justice is a matter of continuing education.'' For that reason, he also made sure injustices endured by U.S. citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry during World War II will never be forgotten. He led passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which acknowledged their forced internment and provided compensation for those surviving detainees. Senator Inouye also understood that recognizing and honoring the service of these veterans meant helping them prosper as they were entering civilian life. I was proud to work with Senator Inouye and my colleague Senator Murray on the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. Because of the act, businesses that hire qualified veterans can get tax credits up to $9,600. Back in April of this year, Senator Inouye and I visited a company in Seattle, VECA, which hires primarily veterans, and I can tell you they were so happy to meet him. They were so excited to see one of our Nation's true heroes and to honor him by talking about the service they were trying to give back to our country. From the battlefields of World War II to the Halls of Congress, Senator Inouye brought grace, charm, and an unbelievable sense of duty to our country. He truly was a giant of a statesman, not just in Hawaii but in the State of Washington. A few years ago, Senator Inouye was visiting some underprivileged children in Hawaii to see the digital media center he helped support. One of the students he met said, ``I feel like I met one of the most important people in the world.'' I couldn't agree more. Senator Inouye's legacy and impact cannot be overstated. He was an old-school Senator who was always courteous, respectful to his colleagues no matter what the circumstances, and he will not be forgotten. I join our Nation in praying for his wife Irene, his son Ken, and daughter-in-law Jessica, his stepdaughter Jennifer, and his granddaughter Maggie. I hope they understand how much we appreciate them sharing him with us and all he did. His service to our country will not be forgotten, and it certainly will be impossible to match. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to say what an important day it is for the U.S. Coast Guard. Our communities benefit from the services provided by the men and women who have answered the call to serve. The reason I say that is because we have passed a bill that gives 43,000 Active-Duty Coast Guard members the support they need. It is a worthy tribute to a force of men and women who in 2011 alone saved 3,800 lives across the United States, confiscated 166,000 pounds of cocaine, and secured over 472,000 vessels before they arrived at our ports. This will give the Coast Guard the funds it needs to upgrade equipment and purchase the right vessels for carrying out every mission. This kind of work exemplifies the heroes such as CPO Terrell Horne of California. Officer Horne died in the line of duty last week while chasing down drug smugglers off the coast of California. Our thoughts are with his family, friends and the Coast Guard. His actions and service remind us of the dangerous tasks the men and women of the Coast Guard do on a daily basis, and that is why it was so important that we passed this reauthorization bill. We could not have done this reauthorization without the many hours Senator Begich put in to help get it across the finish line. He knows how important the Coast Guard is to the men and women in the Pacific Northwest and to my State, Washington. The Coast Guard is part of our maritime culture in the Pacific Northwest, and this bill helps the Coast Guard watch over our people, our businesses, and protect our coastline. I would like to expound on three provisions that were particularly helpful for us in the Northwest. One, this legislation helps to protect the Polar Sea, an icebreaker based in Seattle; two, it helps us clean up tsunami debris that is already hitting the west coast; and three, it analyzes the potential risk of tar sands supertankers, tankers and barges in our waters off Washington State. In October of this year, I visited Vigor Shipyards in Seattle where our heavy-duty icebreaker fleet is currently serviced. These ships are a testament to American shipbuilding prowess and ingenuity, and, inspecting them up close, we can see they are the most critical tool for the United States in our economic security and national security in the Arctic. We see that building icebreakers means jobs to Washington State, and that is why in this final package, the importance of these ships--the Polar Sea in particular was prioritized. The Polar Sea was in danger of being scrapped before we passed this bill. There is no denying that we need to build a new icebreaker fleet for our Arctic economic future, and for the Coast Guard and Navy Arctic missions. But, these specialized vessels will take up to 10 years to build. In the meantime, we want to make sure U.S. companies can continue to develop business in the Arctic and keep U.S. Arctic operations running. It is very fitting that the icebreakers that work fine now are not dismantled. This legislation prevents the Polar Sea from being scrapped and helps us protect the resources we need to serve interests in the Arctic. This bill stipulates that we won't scrap our current icebreakers if it is more cost-effective to keep them, and it will make sure our icebreakers are seaworthy so the crews don't go out on faulty equipment. These ships won't go away unless it can be proven that it makes financial sense to replace them. Last January, the world watched as the Healy icebreaker successfully cut through a path in the Arctic Sea to deliver fuel to Nome, AK. The Healy is primarily a research vessel but was forced to do the job because our two heavy-duty icebreakers were not currently in active status; they were being repaired. This bill also ensures that the Polar icebreaking fleet will continue to be based in Seattle. Refurbishing a large icebreaker, such as the Polar Sea, can take roughly 5 years and employ 300 workers. For us, this means shipbuilding jobs, it means an impact in keeping smaller shipyards in Washington State busy, and it means keeping icebreakers that help save places such as Nome, AK, by cutting paths through the ice. However, that is not the only thing in this legislation that I am proud we got a decision on. Our economy in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii has been threatened by hundreds of thousands of tons of debris washing ashore as a result of the tragic tsunami in Japan nearly 2 years ago. That is why this legislation asks NOAA to take a closer look at tsunami debris and makes sure we are putting an accurate assessment in place to protect the west coast. If NOAA decides tsunami debris is a severe marine debris event, then they will need to present a specific coordination plan developed to meet that threat. And they will need to work with local governments, counties, and tribes to ensure there is a coordinated effort to protect our economy and environment from tsunami debris. In the Northwest we have already seen ships, docks, and various other forms of debris float ashore. Oftentimes, our local communities have had to pay more than their share of the burden and expense of cleaning up the tsunami debris. With over 165,000 jobs and nearly $11 billion in our coastal economy from fishing, to tourism, to various activities, we want to make sure that tsunami debris does not hurt our coastal economies. All we need to do is ask the mayor of Long Beach, who said, ``An uncoordinated or unmanaged response to this debris event is a blow that Long Beach and the Columbia-Pacific region cannot endure.'' This is about getting a plan in place for local communities to coordinate, to have opportunities to work together, and to remove debris as cost- effectively as possible. Third, this legislation has important language protecting Washington waterways in very precious parts of the Pacific Northwest. Recently, Canada announced that over the next decade they would double the production of the Alberta tar sands oilfields. Today, fifteen billion gallons of oil is already shipped through Washington waters. A spill in a heavily populated area, around the San Juan Islands or in the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca could cause billions of dollars of damage and harm businesses throughout the region. The response cannot be, especially if the spill occurs in Canadian waters, don't worry, just call the Americans. I am proud this legislation looks at the potential threat caused by supertankers and whether they are equipped to respond to a spill that could occur from corrosive tar sand oil. Thanks to this legislation, the Coast Guard will have to prepare a study that will analyze how much vessel traffic will increase in the region due to the proposed increase in tar sands oil production and transportation, whether the movement of tar sands oil would require navigating through our fragile waters, it would look at the oil spill response plans and response capability in the U.S. and Canada's shared waters, identify the tools needed to clean up this kind of an oil spill and estimate the cost and benefits to the American public of moving this oil through our waterways. And, this assessment has to be completed in 180 days. I want to make sure our fishing fleets, our restaurants, our resort economy, and everything that is so important to us in the Northwest, is protected. This legislation is good news for coastal communities, for jobs in Washington State and across our country, and I wish to thank both the chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee and full committee for making sure we have given the Coast Guard the resources it needs to protect our economy, keep our public safe, and protect our environment. We have much more work to do, but in a Congress that is down to its waning days, it is important that this legislation has seen action and is on its way to the President's desk. I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Murkowski raising this issue, as I know it is of great importance to both our States, and I am happy to discuss the intent and effect of the provision to which she is referring. Senator Murray and I have worked closely with Senator Begich, with the Commerce Committee, and with our colleagues in the other body to develop this language for inclusion in the Coast Guard bill. Section 307 of H.R. 2838 does, as Senator Murkowski states, clarify longstanding restrictions that apply to certain vessels under the American Fisheries Act. The intent of this language is to maintain the status quo between two separate and distinct fisheries: one regulated under the American Fisheries Act and the other by Amendment 80 to the Bering Sea Fishery Management Plan. There has always been a careful balance struck between these two sectors, and we need to maintain that balance in order to protect the investments and job opportunities they provide. This language is in no way intended to upset that balance, but rather to insure that the status quo of separate and mutually exclusive sectors remains in place while affording the Amendment 80 fleet the opportunity to replace their older vessels with new ones and to encourage the economic investments that would follow. Mr. BEGICH Madam President, as chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard, I concur with my colleagues that this is an important provision, and I want to reiterate that it is only designed to maintain and reinforce the separation between these two fisheries, and nothing more. As NOAA informed our offices via email this week: ``There is currently a regulatory prohibition on AFA vessels from being used as replacement vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet. The concerns addressed in the assistance address what would occur if that regulatory prohibition were to be removed. Subject to judicial interpretation, any change to the status quo would need to be made through the Council's and NOAA Fisheries' rulemaking process and is unlikely to occur in the near future.'' I thank my colleagues. survival craft

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my colleague from West Virginia. We thought the minority leader was coming to the floor to speak so we have gotten a little behind, but I appreciate his indulgence for me to recognize a very important Washingtonian. Honoring Our Foreign Servants However, before I start, I wish to take a moment to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of the horrific attack that happened in Libya, and that it is now time to remember all of the men and women who serve our country abroad at these embassies and to thank them for their service and hope for their protection. Remembering George Hickman, Tuskegee Airman

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, on a chilly day in January of 2009, Americans watched with pride as Barack Obama stood before the Nation and took the Presidential oath of office. For some, that experience was another milestone in a long journey to ensure America lives up to the idea that this country was built for everyone. The election of an African-American President shattered a barrier that many thought would never happen. The American struggle for civil rights has produced many seminal moments, including Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott, Martin Luther King at the march on Washington, and Jackie Robinson stepping to the plate for the first time. Before all of these events, however, there were the Tuskegee Airmen. George Hickman, a Washington resident and a Tuskegee Airman, was truly part of America's ``greatest generation.'' They were a catalyst for an eventual desegregation of the entire U.S. military. On March 19, 1941, the 99th Pursuit Squadron was formed at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. When the United States was waging war against tyranny abroad, the members of what became known as the Tuskegee Airmen fought it; they fought the globe for us. Breaking barriers is never easy. At the time, the competence and patriotism of these African-Americans sometimes were openly questioned, but the Tuskegee Airmen didn't listen to those critics. They were fighting for what this country could be, not what it was. In the first class of graduates there were only five, but before the war ended almost 1,000 pilots went through training at Tuskegee. Of those, 450 flew planes in the 99th Squadron and the 332nd Fighter Group in missions across Europe. They used the steely resolve they had shown in the face of racism to their advantage. The 99th conducted bomber escort missions with stunning success. They flew 200 of 205 of these missions without a loss of a single bomber to the enemy aircraft. The 332nd group achieved just as much. The Red Tail fighters came to be feared in the skies because of the feats like the one Lieutenant Pierson pulled off when he took out a German destroyer in the Harbor of Trieste, Italy, with just a 50-caliber machine gun. Equally important were the Tuskegee pilots who broke barriers at home. They may not have participated in combat, but they proved they were instrumental in powering the American military that eventually won the war. Amidst jeers and insults, the Tuskegee Airmen quietly went about their job with grace. Through grit and determination they barreled through dead ends and blocked doors and shined a light for others to follow. President Obama acknowledged as much when he said: ``My career in public service was made possible by the path heroes like the Tuskegee Airmen trail-blazed.'' These important Tuskegee Airmen were pioneers, and among them was George Hickman from Seattle, proud and smiling as always, as we can see in this photograph. So I rise today to honor the life of this American hero and loyal Washingtonian. George Hickman passed away on August 19 at the age of 88. We owe George Hickman a great deal because beneath that big smile lay a quiet determination and courageous spirit that helped him make America a better place for all. George grew up in St. Louis, MO. He loved building model planes which he bought for 10 cents at Woolworth's, and he dreamed of becoming a pilot. At age 18 he pursued that dream. When he graduated from high school in 1943, George trained with the Army's all African-American 99th Pursuit Squadron in Tuskegee, AL. He was a Tuskegee Airman and one of our Nation's first African-American pilots. George's passion for aviation continued after his service was up, and as a mechanic with the Tuskegee Airmen he developed skills that allowed him to succeed in and graduate from college. Eventually George brought his expertise to Boeing when he moved to Seattle in 1955. Over a 29- year history he rose through the ranks at Boeing, but that is not where this story ends. George was also an uplifting spirit, and he had the most radiant smile. We can see that from this picture. That smile was there for his community, his family, and everyone who met him. George became a well- known figure at Seattle sporting events for the University of Washington Huskies and the Seattle Seahawks. In fact, people called him ``our lucky charm.'' For more than 40 years, he served as a press attendant and usher at UW sporting events. George never missed a game, including Rose Bowls, and he was there to give moral support to everyone. He even went to the basketball and volleyball games and gave high fives to everyone on the court. As the University of Washington basketball coach Lorenzo Romar put it: ``He is a guy that is selfless. He is always trying to lift someone else up.'' I also wondered, seeing this picture of George many times before today, if it was the steely reserve of being an airman that grounded him for what he considered to be really important in life; that is, lifting up other people. That is exactly what George did. The University of Washington community lifted up George too. They helped collect enough money so he could travel to Washington, DC, to be part of President Obama's inauguration, along with 188 other Tuskegee Airmen. Some estimates are that more than half of those Tuskegee Airmen who attended the inauguration are no longer with us. With George's passing, certainly there is one more angel in heaven with a very big smile on his face, but here on Earth we have one fewer American hero from the Tuskegee Airmen days to tell his story. So, today, I encourage all Americans to learn about the story of the Tuskegee Airmen. For those in the Pacific Northwest, I encourage people to visit the Museum of Flight in Seattle and the Northwest African American Museum because they both have exhibits on display that showcase this epic story. It is a great opportunity to reflect on the people who inspired our Nation's founding ideals and who ended up changing the course of American history. George Hickman may no longer be with us, but he will always be remembered for that very big smile, especially by those he touched in his life. His spirit will live on. It is almost as if he is saying in that picture: You can get it done. We can get it done. His legacy lives on through his children Regena, Sheri, Vincent, and Shauniel, as well as his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We will all carry on this legacy with the U.S. military and the trailblazing Tuskegee Airmen. George's spirit will also carry on back home at Husky Stadium and at Hec Edmundson Pavilion. Many people, including the Seattle City Council, those at the university, and the Seahawks have all honored him in their special ways. So on behalf of a grateful nation, it is my pleasure to submit a resolution to honor the life of an American hero, a great Washingtonian, George Hickman. As his wife Doris summed it up: ``George loved his family and enjoyed life to the fullest.'' George Hickman was a true American hero and an inspiration for all of us. I hope we agree to this resolution.

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.