Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight Hearing on Implementation of Corps of Engineers Water Resources Policies.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``No Child Left Behind: Early Lessons from State Flexibility Waivers'' on February 7, 2013, at 10:00 am, in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in SD-216 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues, Senator Murkowski from Alaska and Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, to express my disappointment and frustration along with them that the disaster relief funding for our Nation's fishermen has been stripped from this emergency relief bill. I agree with all of those who want to make sure the victims of Hurricane Sandy along the east coast get the help they need. I think that is something to which we all are committed. But the fact is that fishermen in New England and Alaska and other parts of this country are also facing hard times. They are grappling with onerous regulations that are designed to end overfishing, and in spite of these restrictions, the amount of codfish in the Gulf of Maine has declined drastically. It has a huge impact on New Hampshire, and the problem for fishermen in my State is now one of survival.

Our fishermen have already seen their incomes decrease significantly in recent years. They depend on cod more than fishermen from any other State in New England. Cod accounts for more than 90 percent of the revenues of the fishing industry in New Hampshire. This is because our fishermen use small day boats, they fish close to shore, and most don't have the boats or equipment to catch other deep-sea species to compensate for the lack of cod. Our fishing businesses are small, and they are mostly owned by families who have been fishing for generations.

For 400 years, we have been fishing in New Hampshire. Generations of fishermen in New Hampshire have continued this proud tradition. Yet, under what is happening with the fishing regulations, we are going to lose this industry. Our coastline is short in New Hampshire--it is only 18 miles--but the fishing industry is still a crucial driver of the economy. It generates $106 million in economic activity, it supports 5,000 full-time and part-time jobs in the State, and it provides our stores and our restaurants with a local and fresh supply of fish, just as it does in Alaska and Rhode Island. This historic way of life is going to become extinct if we don't help the fishing industry.

I welcomed the decision of the Secretary of Commerce back in September to declare a Federal disaster for the Northeast fishing industry for the upcoming fishing year, but this declaration, as well as those already provided for Alaska, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and other States, is meaningless if Congress does not provide relief funding to these fishing communities.

As my colleagues have said so eloquently, the Senate voted last month to appropriate $150 million in funding for these disasters, and as Senator Whitehouse said, it was not a large percentage of the emergency relief bill. I am disappointed and, like the fisher men and women in New Hampshire who depend on this industry, frustrated that this funding has been taken out of the bill we voted on today.

It is critical that we provide relief to the fishermen and to the coastal economies in New England--and in New Hampshire as a part of the New England economy--and Mississippi and New Jersey and New York and Alaska and the other States that are affected. We have to work to ensure the long-term sustainability of these vital resources and of this historic way of life. I intend to continue to work with my colleagues from those States that are affected to make sure the fishing industry gets the help it needs to survive.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

It is not just the people who are fishing directly who are affected by this, it is also all of the other jobs that depend on that fishing industry that are going to be lost.

And in my small State of New Hampshire, where we only have 18 miles of coastline, we have 5,000 jobs dependent on this industry. So in Rhode Island and Alaska, I am sure my colleagues have a significant number of jobs dependent on the fishing industry. What happens to those jobs if the industry doesn't survive? They are gone.

And I will certainly join my colleague in that effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 9, and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 19, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, but in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes; finally, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

We anticipate the Foreign Relations Committee will report out Senator Kerry's nomination and look forward to full Senate consideration tomorrow.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the success of Victoria Arlen of Exeter, NH. This summer, Victoria represented the United States in a number of swimming events at the 2012 Paralympic Games in London.

Victoria Arlen is an 18-year-old young woman who 7 years ago was diagnosed with transverse myelitis, a neurological disorder that causes inflammation of a section of the spinal cord. Victoria's resulting paralysis from the waist down has not damaged her determination or her competitive spirit, and her achievements this year have been truly remarkable.

Victoria was a very active child prior to her diagnosis, and was involved in dancing, swimming, playing field hockey, lacrosse, and soccer. For more than 2 years, Victoria lived in a coma and only began swimming competitively again at the age of 16, and it came as no surprise to Victoria's family when the honors student earned a place on the U.S. Paralympic Team. In London, she competed in the 100-meter, 50- meter, 400-meter and 4x100-meter relay freestyle events and the 100- meter breaststroke event. Victoria set a world record and won a gold medal in the 100-meter freestyle, in her final competition, and earned silver medals in three of her other races.

Victoria's determination in the face of adversity and ability to accomplish her goals demonstrate her strength of spirit and her quality of character. Citizens of New Hampshire are incredibly proud of her achievements; she is a role model and an inspiration. I am confident that her success at the 2012 Paralympic Games is one great accomplishment in what is certain to be a lifetime of impressive feats.

Since 1960, the Paralympic Games have provided athletes who have certain physical disabilities the chance to compete in a broad range of sports and athletic events on the international level, providing them with an opportunity similar to that of their able-bodied counterparts. Victoria's inspiring performance throughout the 2012 Paralympic Games should serve as a reminder of the hard work and dedication required to succeed.

I applaud and congratulate Victoria for her devotion and determination. I also commend her family, including her parents, Jacqueline and Larry, and her three brothers, Cameron, LJ, and William, for their role in her success. I know that her victories give her family, her friends, the Exeter community, and the State of New Hampshire great pride.

I wish to recognize Victoria Arlen for her accomplishments and her victory in the 2012 Paralympic Games in London, and I commend her dedication, maturity, and hard work. She is truly an inspiring young woman.

My friend from Massachusetts understands the challenges we have in New Hampshire, as does Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island because, in fact, fishing is one of the oldest industries we have in New England. In New Hampshire, it dates back over 400 years. Because we have a much smaller coastline than Massachusetts and Rhode Island, we have a smaller group of people who earn their living through fishing. They have smaller boats, and therefore they are more affected by some of the fishing regulations and some of the adverse weather conditions that have affected fishing.

About 90 percent of the fishing New Hampshire's fishermen do is for cod, and cod is the species that has been most affected by declining fish stocks. It is a huge issue for our small remaining fishing industry. The fact that there is funding to help them in this bill is absolutely critical because without this funding we are going to lose that industry in New Hampshire. We have 5,000 jobs affected here, $106 million in income to the State of New Hampshire.

I think it is important to point out that this is a bipartisan effort. Last week we had a letter with 13 of our colleagues, including Senators Wicker, Murkowski, Collins, Snowe, and Brown, urging the committee to include this funding in the bill. It is there now. I certainly hope we are going to see bipartisan support for keeping this funding in the bill.

Let me just turn----

We are from New England. Senator Mikulski is further south on the east coast. But this is a bicoastal problem because, as I know Senator Begich will tell us, it is a huge issue for people in Alaska and for those on the west coast. They have the same problem.

Will the Senator from Maryland yield for a minute?

Isn't it true that since 1994, Federal fishery failures have been declared on 29 different occasions and that nearly $827 million in Federal funding has been appropriated for fishery disaster relief?

Mr. President, I will be brief because my friend from Massachusetts was eloquent in talking about the livelihood of people in our fishing industry who have been affected by the disaster, and as a result there have been low species and low catch numbers because of regulations in an effort to bring back those fish.

I hope if we can support these disaster funds that as the Department of Commerce is allocating this funding, that they will do it with a collaborative process that invites fishermen and fishing businesses to have a say in that process. Given that their livelihoods have been affected, I think it is important for them to be part of the process of how this funding is given out.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the legislation before us, the repeal for Jackson-Vanik for Russia and Moldova and the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.

The two main components of this package represent a win-win for U.S. businesses and for human rights defenders in Russia. Chairman Baucus and Chairman Kerry deserve a lot of credit for working together to get us to this point.

I also want to join my colleague Senator Durbin in singling out and commending Senator Cardin of Maryland for his tremendous effort to bring this historic piece of human rights legislation to the floor tonight.

As one of the original cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act, I remember back in May of last year when Senator Cardin first introduced the bill. Since that time, he has been the driving force that has pushed this measure forward. It has taken a lot of patience, a lot of perseverance, but his work on behalf of human rights in Russia has paid off, and he is a big reason why we are here debating this bill today.

This legislation comes at a complex time in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia. The truth is the history of this relationship has always been full of complexity and seeming contradictions, and today is no different.

Over the last 4 years the subtle change in tone brought on by the reset has allowed us to establish substantial progress on some limited areas of mutual interests including the New START Treaty, Afghanistan, and Iran.

In addition, Russia has finally joined the World Trade Organization, which is another mutually beneficial outcome. Russia will become a more fully engaged member of the global trade community, and in exchange it will be forced to abide by internationally recognized rules on trade and investment, including international property enforcement, the elimination of some key tariffs, and greater transparency in its laws and regulations.

Despite these obvious advantages for the United States, our businesses are currently stuck on the sidelines and unable to benefit from Russia's accession because of the outdated Jackson-Vanik legislation. Although it was successful in its time, Jackson-Vanik remains the last obstacle for U.S. businesses to gain critical access to Russian markets and create jobs here at home.

The legislation before us now retires Jackson-Vanik and lets American businesses compete with the rest of the world to sell exports to and attract investment from Russia. Each and every State stands to gain from this legislation. In my home State of New Hampshire, exports to Russia have been on the rise over the last 2 years, particularly with respect to transportation equipment, computers, electronics, and machinery. If given the opportunity, I am confident that New Hampshire businesses will be able to successfully compete in the growing Russian market, and this legislation will help them

to do that. So even as we seek areas of mutual interest with Russia, we should be honest and admit that areas of disagreement remain.

Perhaps the most pressing issue for today's relationship with Russia is the human rights situation there. Indeed, over the last 6 months we have seen perhaps the worst deterioration in Russia's human rights record since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Putin government has enacted a series of laws that restrict protests and public expression and severely constrain civil society in the country.

As some may know, my home State of New Hampshire has a motto that is well known throughout this country. It is: ``Live free or die.'' We are not ambiguous regarding how we feel about the principles on which this country was founded. The United States is not, should not, and will not be shy about our staunch support for democratic values around the world. When it comes to Russia, we should be no different.

The Magnitsky bill before us is an important tool to raise the profile of human rights in Russia. It is supported almost unanimously by opposition and civil society figures across Russia. The case of Mr. Magnitsky is a tragic one, as so many people have eloquently talked about today. We are here as part of this legislation to press for accountability in his death. However, this is really more than simply a question of one man's tragic case.

The State Department's human rights report annually describes countless human rights violations, including attacks on journalists, physical abuse of citizens, politically motivated imprisonments, and government harassment and violence. There are numerous cases like Magnitsky and, unfortunately, there are likely to be many more.

That is why this bill before us is so important. It seeks to ensure that no human rights abusers in Russia are granted the privilege of traveling to this country or using our financial system. A strong, successful, and transparent Russia that protects the rights of its citizens is squarely in the interest of the United States. The Magnitsky Act will demonstrate that we stand unambiguously for the rule of law, for democracy, and for respect for human rights in Russia.

As we look forward and think about our relationship with Russia, we have to be both pragmatic and principled. A successful policy with Russia will find a way to both protect our interests and defend our values. I think the legislation that is before us today is a perfect example of how we can do both, and I certainly hope my colleagues will strongly support its passage and send it directly to the President for his signature.

Thank you very much.

Madam President, today I wish to honor the military service of Jonathan Mickle. Jonathan died on October 30 in Rye, NH. He is remembered as a dedicated servicemember who served in the U.S. Army and deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from January 2006 to February 2007.

Jonathan was born August 19, 1985 in Portsmouth, NH. He graduated from Portsmouth High School in 2003 and went on to attend Southern New Hampshire University where he received high academic honors and made the dean's list.

Jonathan joined the U.S. Army after graduating college. He became a Fire Direction Specialist with Charlie Battery, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment. For his service during the war in Iraq, he was awarded numerous medals, including the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal.

Jonathan took pride in his service to his country. After returning from Iraq, he became a member of the Emerson Hovey Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #168, supporting and being supported by fellow veterans and continuing to stay involved in the Army. He was also a dedicated New England Sports fan.

There are no words to adequately thank this brave New Hampshire son for his commitment to our country. I hope that, during this hard time, Jonathan's friends and family can find comfort knowing that Americans everywhere share a deep and profound appreciation for their Jonathan's willingness to answer the call to defend America and our way of life.

Sadly, Jonathan's mother, Katie Mickle, passed away suddenly in 2000 from pancreatic cancer at the age of 39. Jonathan is survived by his father Warren of Portsmouth, his brothers, Robert and Matthew and his wife, Kristy, of Kittery, ME; his sister Whitney Mickle and her fiance Michael Foley of Eliot; and niece Marlee Jane Mickle.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life and service of this dedicated servicemember and brave young American, Jonathan Mickle.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to a provision that is actually already in this bill, the NDAA authorization bill before us. It is a provision that would provide for reproductive health parity for women in the military.

You know, we talk a lot in this Chamber and in the Armed Services Committee about the service of our men and women in uniform. We talk about their courage in the face of our enemies, we talk about their selflessness as they continually deploy around the world, sometimes uprooting their families and sometimes leaving them behind. We talk about our responsibilities to the men and women who are serving, from the tools they will need to accomplish their missions to the support they have earned when they return home.

I am pleased, as I know we all are, about the growing recognition of the unprecedented contribution our female servicemembers are making to our national defense. There are over 214,000 women serving in our Armed Forces. They make up over 14 percent of our total Armed Forces. Women are flying our F-15 Strike Eagles, Apaches, and Black Hawks. Women are training to be Marine Corps infantry officers and working alongside our special operations units in Afghanistan. Women are an integral part of nearly all of our military operations. Earlier this year the Department of Defense opened 14,000 new positions to women.

When he was asked about the move, Secretary Panetta said, ``Through their courage, sacrifice, patriotism and great skill, women have proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles on and off the battlefield.''

The women serving in the U.S. military continue to overcome barriers and strive for new opportunities to serve their country. They have carried on the finest traditions of our military and should make us all very proud.

Yet despite their service, women in the military continue to face discrimination when it comes to reproductive

health care. In the United States, women are receiving health care through Medicaid, Medicare, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the Indian Health Service, so all of the Federal health care programs. All have access to the care they need if they face pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

Even women incarcerated in Federal prison are protected in the case of rape. Yet right now our women in the military are not granted the same access to abortion services in cases of rape or incest.

To be clear, a general ban on abortion coverage remains for millions of women who receive health care through the Federal Government. However, in nearly all cases, these bans allow for coverage if the life of the mother is in danger or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. It is simply unfair that military women continue to be denied such reproductive health care.

Like so many of us in the Chamber, I was so encouraged that during this year's markup of the NDAA, a strong bipartisan majority of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, including Chair Levin and Ranking Member McCain, supported providing reproductive health parity to our servicewomen.

The NDAA bill before us will finally bring the Department of Defense policy on abortion coverage in line with the policies governing the rest of the Federal Government.

Over the coming weeks, I will continue to work with my colleagues here in the Senate, many of whom are long-time champions on this issue, to ensure that this provision is included during the conference with the House and ultimately signed by the President.

In the end, this is an issue of basic equality. Women serving in our Armed Forces should be able to access the same reproductive health services as the civilians they protect. Access to care should no longer be one of the sacrifices women in the U.S. military are forced to make. Women in the military deserve the best, most comprehensive health care we can provide.

I am encouraged by the bipartisan support this provision has received thus far, and I am hopeful we will see it become law this year. It is way past time, and it is the least we can do for our female servicemembers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member, for your support on this provision.

If I could briefly reply, I very much appreciate the Senator's remarks about yesterday's reception and especially the wonderful tribute you made to Senator Rudman, who was a real giant, not just in the Senate but, of course, in New Hampshire. It was such a remarkable collection of celebrated political people from this country's history who were there yesterday to give tribute, and I so appreciate that.

Also, I so much appreciate Senator McCain's support for this provision in the bill and thank the Senator for that.

Yes, there was an interesting bet between former Secretary Cohen and the Vice President relative to who would have the shortest speech, and I think the Vice President lost that.

But I thank the Senator for his kind words, and the Senator would have loved it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, to honor the life and service of a distinguished former Member of this Senate and a proud son of New Hampshire, Warren B. Rudman.

Senator Rudman was widely and deservedly hailed in both life and now in his death as a public servant who reached across party lines to get the job done for his country and his State. Warren Rudman didn't do this out of weakness, he acted so because of the strength and courage that marked his entire life. An Army combat veteran of the Korean conflict, Warren Rudman earned a Bronze Star Medal. He was an amateur boxer. As the attorney general for the State of New Hampshire, he was

a ferocious prosecutor. His memoir was aptly entitled ``Combat.''

As a Senator, Warren Rudman relished taking on big battles. In the 1980s, he joined with Senators Fritz Hollings and Phil Gramm to tackle deficits. If the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act had been followed by subsequent Congresses, we would not be struggling today to reduce massive deficits.

He didn't shrink from holding a President of his own party accountable either, when he served on the congressional panel investigating the Iran Contra affair. Nor was he reluctant to hold his fellow Senators accountable when he chaired the Senate Ethics Committee.

Warren Rudman's public service did not end after he left the Senate. Most notably, he cochaired with another former Senator, Gary Hart, a national security commission that correctly predicted a terrorist attack within America's borders.

Warren Rudman was always blunt and outspoken. During the Iran Contra hearings he said to Oliver North:

The American people have the constitutional right to be

wrong. And what Ronald Reagan thinks or Oliver North thinks

or what I think or what anybody else thinks matters not a

whit.

He said he left the Senate because Congress was ``stuck in the mud of strident partisanship, excessive ideology, never-ending campaigns.'' That was how he saw Congress 20 years ago. Obviously, he was very aware of what was happening in this body.

But it was his more quiet work that Warren Rudman was most proud of. His greatest achievement, he said, was his behind-the-scenes efforts to get David Souter, another son of New Hampshire, nominated to serve on the Supreme Court.

Sometimes forgotten is Senator Rudman's authorship and successful push to enact the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which to this day still enables small businesses to compete for Federal research and development awards.

Warren B. Rudman lived a long and full life. His service graced the Senate, and to the end he had New Hampshire granite in his veins.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.