Floor Statements

Madam President, I too come to the floor to say goodbye to our colleague from Montana and wish him well in his new endeavor as Ambassador to China--something the Pacific Northwest cares dearly about. So I know we will be working with him in his new capacity, but it really is a very historic moment for all of us and certainly for those of us in the Pacific Northwest.

I will never forget Max and I riding back to our offices on the subway once

and talking about the Inland Empire. I think people thought we were making something up, but that is how we refer to our part of the country and the interior, which is this huge economy that is built on agriculture, built on trade, built on natural resources that we hold so dear and for which we fight.

To come to the Senate and to sit in the seat Scoop Jackson once held and think about how you will have the wherewithal and ability to remember all of what Scoop and Maggie and everybody fought for and to know the incarnation of that is right there in Max Baucus, the person who worked with them, who saw them, and who then carried that torch on these important policy issues, to me, is so important to recognize today because he really is a legislator in the mold of Magnuson and Jackson.

I thank Max for one thing in particular; that is, doing deals. Around here people sometimes criticize doing deals. But you know what. The art of compromise and moving our country forward requires that, and Max became a model dealmaker in the context of these important policies on which we have worked, whether the modernization of the trade legislation for dislocated workers and expanding that program and making it more robust because it needed to be modernized or whether some of the changes we have made to CHIP, because I can tell you he certainly helped us in Washington State in making sure we had our fair share as regards the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Just speaking about CHIP in general, I can't say enough about CHIP as a program. When you get discouraged around here about what we are actually getting done or what problems we are solving, if you think of nothing else but CHIP--just the Children's Health Insurance Program-- and literally giving health insurance to millions of children across America who wouldn't automatically get health insurance, this job is worth it right here and now. So I thank Max for that.

Certainly on the Affordable Care Act I have often said that Max applied his marathon skills to the patience of Job in actually crafting that legislation. I think we probably worked every day for 2 years in committee to make that legislation a reality, and it took a lot of patience. Many times late at night I would have lost my patience with the process and our colleagues, but Max didn't, and the end result is that this country is moving forward on a major health care policy that I know 30 or 40 years from now will be in the same category as our other key programs such as Social Security and Medicare, as a foundation and as a base of what we are doing to make sure people have affordable health care in this country.

Max, I thank you for the staff you hired as well because in the Finance Committee, while we didn't always agree on every single policy, they also came to the table ready to make things happen, and I certainly appreciate that.

To my colleagues, I feel as though we really are losing a piece of our institution today and somebody who really understood the issues that I care about in the Pacific Northwest and somebody who really knew how to make things happen. I know our path forward is a new course on the Finance Committee, but I hope we will continue in the way that Max brought forth issues because in the end it is about improving the lives of the people we represent, and that means we are not always going to agree, but we are going to have to put ideas on the table and we are going to have to get them passed into law.

So, Max, as you go across the big Pacific, I know you will remember us, but we will be looking to you too because there is a lot we have to get done. I know that as you are running around Beijing, you will have that little app they now have that shows the level of pollution in Beijing that comes right off the U.S. Embassy, and you will be talking to the Chinese about how we have to work together on a clean energy strategy, and we will applaud you for that. But don't forget all of us here because there is a lot of work to be done. We are very proud to call you a former colleague and a key leader in the history of the Inland Empire. Thank you very much, Max.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in asking for the passage of the farm bill that we are going to have a vote on shortly. I thank my colleague from Michigan, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, for her unbelievable work on this very important policy for America. I know she understands these issues well because, while everybody thinks of Michigan as a manufacturing State, it also is a very big agricultural State. We share a lot of the same crops, being kind of on a northern plateau: apples and wine and a variety of others. I certainly thank her for her help and support in getting an important new program in our school lunches for very nutritious peas and lentils, called pulse crops, and to thank her for her input.

I rise today to talk about the importance of the farm bill, because it is a jobs bill for our Nation. Two years ago I joined my colleague Senator Johanns from Nebraska and sent a bipartisan letter with 44 Senators saying it was time to act on the farm bill because we thought it was so important for our economy as we were still struggling coming out of a recession. Today it is finally here, that opportunity to put all of that hard work into a bill that goes to the President's desk.

Agriculture employs 16 million Americans, and it produces exports worth $115 billion of agricultural products to markets around the world. I do not think we always focus on that. A lot of times we come out here and we talk about the individual crops in our State or the individual focus. But what we really need to understand is it is a very big product for the United States.

We live in a very competitive global economy. One of the biggest advantages we have in this global economy is that we in the United States of America know how to grow things. So the emerging middle class around the world can now afford to eat higher quality products. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue put it best in a speech he gave about the global marketplace last year. He said:

You play to your strength. You leverage your advantages and

then you find ways to improve them. And one of the greatest

strengths in America is agriculture.

Mr. Donohue said those remarks as an example of what innovation is driving in American agriculture. He is absolutely right, because not only do we know how to grow things but we also know how to innovate. There is a lot of innovation going on in the ag economy. In fact, there are some people in the Pacific Northwest who say now there is as much investment going into new innovations in agriculture as there was recently in high tech or even green energy. So people get it. It is a great investment.

I have seen in Washington State cutting-edge research done at our lab in Prosser for new wheat rotation crops in the Palouse, to savvy entrepreneurs making connections like getting Washington cherries into the new Korean market. So simply put, this is a growing, growing opportunity for the U.S. economy.

American farmers and businesses are seeing demands for their products rise on two fronts: First, American consumers want to buy their products directly from the farms in their communities, so that means the farms are creating products for exactly what their end customer wants. Because they are doing that, they can make more money on delivering to the end customer exactly the kind of product they want.

Secondly, a rising middle class in places such as Asia to South America wants to use their new-found spending power on purchasing our products as well. So this farm bill helps on both of those fronts. Again, thanks to the chairwoman from Michigan. It helps get more goods to the market, whether that is a farmer's market around the corner from your local supermarket, or whether that is a new market in South Korea.

In 2030, China's middle class will have 1 billion people. That is up from 150 million today. India's middle class will grow by more than 800 percent. Maybe because we sit on the Pacific, just like the Presiding Officer, he knows how important it is to get products to those marketplaces.

In 2012, the United Nations reported that the world will need 70 percent more food by the middle of the century. This is a tremendous opportunity but only if Congress acts today and passes the farm bill. We need to maintain our investment in research and exports so American farmers can thrive and win in the expanding global marketplace. I am confident if we do that, our farmers and our businesses--and we make sure that they have a level playing--will win.

But other countries are playing for keeps too. Every farmer around the world wants access to that rising middle class. The European Union spent $700 million on export promotion for food products in 2011. That is nearly three times as much as America spent. China is planning to boost its agricultural investment over the next decade. It is a sentiment that I heard in October when I visited one of our wholesalers when he was talking to an overseas client. He was talking about export and agricultural leaders in Washington State and how other countries were starting to use particularly the apple market to try to open new opportunities.

That is why we need to increase opportunities within the farm bill and to move forward on trade deals that help open the door to new agricultural markets. That will help unleash an entrepreneurial spirit we need to be aggressive about. Many people have heard of Walla Walla-- or maybe you have not or maybe you thought that was a term. But Walla Walla is a great community in the southeast corner of our State with 30,000 people. It is deeply tied to the global economy. It has wine and wheat and peas and lentils. The farmers there, I know, are very appreciative of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. They thanked me many times for making sure that got passed. I can

tell you that many of those farmers went to Bogota to try to sell wheat to the growing Colombian middle class. That is what entrepreneurship in America is all about.

So Congress mist not dampen our entrepreneurial spirit. Farmers need to start this season and make sure they can put long-term plans in place. Then the seeds that will be planted, the fields that will be harvested, the crops that will be shipped, the smart, targeted investment toward those new international markets will be done. That is what this farm bill is about.

The bill, I can tell you, is a compromise. Again, I thank the chairwoman for her hard work, because I know how hard she worked on forging those compromises. I can tell you that it cuts SNAP far more than I would have cut it. I was one of 26 Senators who voted for the amendment by my colleague from New York offered to restore those cuts. But it is time we move forward.

I want to take a second to talk about three reasons why people should be for this farm bill. First, as I talked about, it continues to expand the export programs that are so important for America's new markets. While I might have been for a more robust program, some of my colleagues obviously have not quite understood why this is such a great benefit to market U.S. products around the globe. I think some people think of big global corporations and things; why do we need that?

Well, I can tell you, when I am talking about apples or cherries or pears, these are not big corporations. They are a collection of hundreds or thousands of farmers working together. When MAP helps target getting people in the Asian market to consume those products, it is a win-win situation for America.

Secondly, this bill funds research, making our crops stronger and healthier and more competitive.

Third, it starts initiatives on products such as a pulse crop that I think can be so beneficial to us over the long run with new, as I said, school lunches, but just healthier products.

Our new farm bill will do the research on specialty crops that are so important for us in the Pacific Northwest. This is the first time in this farm bill that the reauthorization makes long-term investments in specialty crop block grant programs and specialty crop research initiatives. Again, I thank the Senator from Michigan for her help on that, understanding how important these specialty crops are.

I think everybody in America and around the world knows the brand of Washington apples. I can tell you, I have been in the Chinese marketplace and seen how people took off the Washington label, particularly on Fuji apples, and tried to stick it on other apples, because they knew if that sticker was on that apple, everybody in China would consume those apples even though they were not really Washington Fuji.

So what this specialty research initiative does is say we are not going to let apples and pears and cherries basically constantly fall off the radar as it relates to research, but they will be a permanent part of a program for research and have a block grant program so they can basically continue to do the research that is needed.

Again, if any of my colleagues have ever had a chance to visit the research facilities within their State, they will know what I am talking about. If they haven't, they should go and do it.

But when we are fighting against or upon a competitive field with Israel, China, or anybody else when it comes to apples, we constantly have to answer questions about phytosanitary issues, and we have to constantly talk about ways we can make sure we gain access to those marketplaces. Science and research are the only ways we can fight some of these trade barriers that exist when our products can't get into those countries. So we need to make sure we continue to fight that.

Lastly, I am very pleased about pulse crops--peas, lentils, things like chickpeas. I am sure a lot of people ate a lot of hummus over the weekend while they were watching the Super Bowl and the Seattle Seahawks victory. Hummus is a crop that has exploded 500 percent in the last 15 years. It is definitely a product people have been consuming all over the world for a long time, but we in the United States are starting to consume more of it. The fact that product has had such a huge increase has given our farmers in Washington State great opportunity. But this product is also a very healthy product and one that we fought hard to make sure would be included in a new school lunch program, something where students could get access to a high- protein, high-fiber product that certainly is more affordable for our schools. With the research that is going to go on on pulse crop derivatives and the fact that school lunches are now going to have the opportunity to serve pulse crops more aggressively, we are very excited about this farm bill.

I thank my colleagues in the Senate, Senators Crapo and Risch. I also thank my colleagues from South Dakota and North Dakota for helping because both States are very big on these pulse crops. They certainly helped to make sure this stayed in the conference report.

To all of my colleagues, please vote for a bill that will really help our economy, will help us tackle the growing middle class around the world and keep America putting great products on those market shelves and help create more jobs in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Indian Law and Order Commission Report: A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer.''

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

committee on indian affairs

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Leader Reid, Chairman Baucus, Senator Schumer, Senator Stabenow, Senator Wyden, Senator Brown, and Senator Menendez for coming to the floor to talk about this important issue of tax extenders and why we need to get them done now.

In the State of Washington taxpayers are opening the morning newspaper and finding the Seattle Times editorial entitled ``Congress should extend the sales-tax deduction.'' The Seattle Times has been following this issue for years and knows that taxpayers are waiting to find out whether we can continue to deduct our sales tax from our Federal income tax obligation. As Washington is a State that doesn't have an income tax, we want parity with other States and we want to be able to deduct our sales tax as one of those taxes from our Federal tax obligations.

Every year millions of Washingtonians have to wait to find out whether that particular tax provision is going to be extended. I want to make it permanent, and I hope when we do tax reform we will be able to do so. But in the meantime we have to give certainty to the taxpayers in Washington State that as far as these important tax policies are concerned, Congress can act and get things done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that particular Seattle Times editorial.

At New Year's, as the ball drops in Times Square, a number of other tax provisions are going to expire, and the lapse of these important tax provisions makes it harder for Americans to invest in clean energy, to hire veterans, to pay for public transportation, and to build low-income housing.

As my colleague Senator Brown was discussing, the Tax Extenders Act of 2013 is about providing predictability and certainty to citizens and to American businesses about tax benefits and investments.

On January 1 the commuter tax benefit will expire. That will mean an increase in household expenses for 2.7 million public transit commuters. In King County, which is the county Seattle is in, more than 1,600 employers use the commuter tax benefit to enable employees to get to and from work.

If you have ever been in the Puget Sound area, you know that transportation and traffic are big issues for us. So, obviously, trying to defer some of that traffic congestion by getting people into commuter transportation is a key part of our strategy. But if we take away the certainty and predictability of tax deductions with regard to commuting, we are going to make our transportation problems worse.

On New Year's Day the tax benefits for those employees who take public transit will be cut nearly in half, from $245 to $130 per month. We need to extend this benefit as a matter of tax fairness.

Transportation is the second largest expense in an American household. American families should be able to choose whether they want to drive or take public transit, and they shouldn't be punished because they are taking a bus or ferry or train.

Across Washington State we have seen firsthand how the other tax extenders help to actually create an environment of certainty and predictability for jobs and job creation. These are bipartisan principles we can all get behind.

Of particular importance to me, as I said, is the State and local sales tax deduction, which affects many people in

our State. Individuals living in other States with a State income tax are not faced with these same challenges. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming are all in the same boat, and I am sure these citizens would want to have the sales tax deduction certainty and predictability. As a result, an average of $640 in deductions is real money back into people's pockets when they itemize those various tax benefits.

We hope this won't continue to be a burden placed on Washington State. We need these tax extenders now.

Additionally, there are other credits, such as the new market tax credit, which is a great program for encouraging investment in challenging areas of our country; the biodiesel tax credit; and the veterans work opportunity tax credit, which is a tax credit to encourage employers to hire veterans. We have had many of these events around Washington State, talking to employers who have successfully used this tax credit. There is also the low-income housing tax credit. I am sure the Presiding Officer probably has projects all over his State that have benefited from the low-income housing tax credit. This is a great incentive to get more affordable housing built in hard-to- serve areas and challenging areas because of high cost. I have already mentioned the commuter tax benefit. All of these are tied to job creation.

Instead of giving predictability and certainty on tax credits, here we are not getting our job done. We should get this done as soon as possible. It is time for Congress to extend these important provisions and to make plans accordingly.

I hope the IRS could be given the predictability and certainty as well in the new year about these provisions so that we are not delaying or affecting the tax season at the end of next year.

The time to act is now, and I hope my colleagues will help us get these measures--which are usually renewed in a bipartisan fashion--done as soon as possible.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleague from Rhode Island. I applaud him for his diligence, making sure this debate happened today, and for his leadership on this issue. It might sound kind of wonky to say there is a group of Senators that have a caucus called the Delivery System Reform Caucus, but we wear that banner with pride because we know that there are savings in our health care delivery system. We want to make sure that they are delivered for the American people.

While some want to talk about cutting people off of service or raising certain ages, we are focused on the fact that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings in the delivery system and that it is our job to improve upon them. I like to say to my office team: There is a reason why Ma Bell doesn't exist anymore. The challenge is I have so many young people, and some of them don't remember Ma Bell. But the issue is the delivery system for telecommunications changed, and look at what it unleashed--a lot of great technology.

Yes, change, but with ways to drive down costs and deliver better access. That is what we are talking about here with the health care system. My colleague from Rhode Island has had a group for more than a year that has been talking about these delivery system reforms. We are going to come out on a more frequent basis and try to have a dialog with our colleagues about why it is so important.

We have taken a small but very important step led by our senior Senator from Washington Senator Murray on the budget. But there is so much more we can do if we can include these delivery system reforms. So I thank Senator Whitehouse, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his leadership.

I want to talk about one area today, the area of long-term care services. I authored a provision in the Affordable Care Act called the Balancing Incentive Payments Program. While that sounds in and of itself like a wonky title, Balancing Incentive Payments Program, this program is really there to promote home and community-based care over nursing home care. If you ask any senior they will say of course they would like to receive health care services in their home or in their community. No, they do not want to go to a nursing home. But the discussion has been limited on how much cheaper it is and how much better the care could be for delivery in the home as opposed to nursing home care.

According to a survey by AARP, over 90 percent of seniors age 50 or over desire to remain in their home as long as possible. We know that home and community-based care is 70 percent cheaper than nursing home care--70 percent cheaper. So for us in Washington State we thought about this long ago, and we decided that we were going to implement a system to reform our State and put more community-based care in our State and pull Medicaid patients away from nursing home care. We did that. We successfully made that transition. This chart shows you what I was just referring to, that home-based care can be as little as $1,200 a person versus the same person getting care in an institutional facility at $6,000.

We made the transition in Washington State to be predominantly a home and community-based care State. We did that with our own State dollars, our own program, and it was a transition that took place over many years. We are kind of the antithesis of what the Federal system is. It is still more weighted on a State by State basis towards nursing home care. That means people are going into nursing home care, and we are footing the bill for more expensive care at $6,000 per person when we could have services in the community that would allow them to stay in their home and get more efficient care. So in 2009, the long-term care budget overall for Medicaid accounted for 32 percent of the Medicaid expenditures or $360 billion a year. You can see that this is a very expensive area for us at the Federal level. If we could do anything to help change those numbers, we would be delivering an improvement to the system.

When we first made this transition from 1995 to 2008, the State of Washington saved $243 million from this investment. But more important, even, than the money--in an article in 2010, the Spokesman Review in Spokane ran a story called ``Dying to live at home,'' the family of Nancy and Paul Dunham, a couple of more than 60 years, said they wanted to age at home. Because of the Medicaid funding for in-home services, they were able to stay. Mr. Dunham was able to stay in his home until the age of 83.

I am sure many of my colleagues know people who are getting on in years who prefer to stay at home. But the Balancing Incentives Program, which was in the Affordable Care Act, was the first Federal effort that we had that tried to assist States to move away from nursing home care and move towards community-based care. We put some incentives in the program. Here are the States so far that have taken up the Federal Government in the Affordable Care Act on this incentive program: New Hampshire, Maryland, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Texas, Indiana, Connecticut, Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, Ohio, Maine, and Illinois.

It is a diverse group of States, I might add. Some States, probably, where Governors said they did not want to support the Affordable Care Act yet are taking advantage of this provision. Some States probably are forerunners of delivery system reform and have done lots of delivery system reform and want to do more. It is a mix

of States. I think we have a lot of great examples in those States and what we can do to transition away from institutional care to home and community-based care.

The program authorizes grants to States to increase access to their non-institutional long-term care services, and it supports including structural changes that help streamline the system--conflict-free case management, core standardization of assessment instruments, single entry-point systems so it is not confusing, so that the system is very streamlined. States have until September of 2015 to increase their long-term care services in the community and support expenditures of these noninstitutional-based care facilities.

We are very excited that it has had a robust uptake by these States. I am encouraged that there has been so much interest shown in changing the political orientation, if you will, of States, to how do you deal with long-term care. We know everybody is living longer. We know as baby boomers retire, it is going to be a bubble to our health care delivery system. But this is an excellent idea, a way for us to deliver better care.

What does it do? As I said in the first chart, $1,200 versus $6,000 in nursing home care. It reduces costs. Reducing those costs has to be a key focus for us.

These Medicaid recipients are people who maybe even start on Medicare but because of the extreme cost of health care at the end of life, end up spending it out, end up on Medicaid, end up being a Federal responsibility. If we can reduce those costs by driving more community- based care, it is a win-win situation.

The second thing it does is it helps improve quality. If people can stay at home and get access to the delivery system by these new requirements, making sure it is case managed and has the single point of entry and standardization of the home care system, it helps us to be efficient about the quality of care that is being delivered. Again, when you have a community-based setting, either in the home or where care is delivered through the home, there are lots of ways for us to have checks and balances on the system.

I have talked to many people who are in the nursing home industry. They will say we like the idea that we are only going to take the sickest patients. We like the idea we are only going to serve people who really need to be there as opposed to some people who may not be ready for those facilities but end up there anyway just because there are not the community efforts to support it.

Besides reducing costs and improving quality, we save money. That is why we are here today, to talk about these important ideas that save money. This is a simple one, but it is already in place. It has already started. There are many States taking us up on this offer, but it is critical that we understand and score these costs because they can show how we can save billions of dollars in our health care delivery system.

I know my colleagues, some of them on the other side of the aisle-- well, all of them on the other side of the aisle--didn't support the Affordable Care Act. Take a second look at what your States are doing. Your States are supporting the legislation, at least through one provision. I think when you check, you will see that one provision is going to save your State money. It is going to give your citizens better choice in their quality of care. It is going to help us reduce our Federal costs and expenditures as well, and that is what delivery system reform is all about.

Yes, I will.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for that question. I think his charts pointed to the fact that he was articulating, the fact that everybody is arguing about the Web site. As somebody who has been involved in a software company that wrote code, what happened is very unfortunate, but writing code and fixing it is a straightforward task that can be achieved. It is a little less difficult than cleaning up oil in the gulf or something of larger environmental impact.

To me, we will get that fixed. In the meantime, there are a lot of things that have to happen, that need to change in our delivery system that are about saving costs, delivering better quality care, that we know are proven, successful answers to this question. We need to get more than just these States to take us up on this offer. We need to get CBO to actually give us a score on how much money this has the potential of saving, and then we have to figure out a way to incentivize all other States to implement this as soon as possible.

When you think about our senior population, this is what they want. They want to stay at home as long as possible. It is so much cheaper per Medicaid beneficiary to do this.

This is what we have to achieve. We hope by coming out here and educating people about the various aspects of the Affordable Care Act, the things in the delivery system reform that are on the agenda to improve access and help save costs, that this will start taking hold and we will get more people talking about these solutions. This is absolutely the direction we need to go.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He is correct. There are the individuals who win. The State in this case saves Medicaid dollars, and the Federal Government saves dollars as well. But to the individual, if you ask them, this is their choice. They want to stay at home. Nobody says they want to go into nursing care.

We appreciate the nursing home care delivery aspect of health care. They deal with some of the most complex patients. But they do not need to deal with people who do not need to be there. We have to have a delivery system that helps support community-based care for long-term care. I hope that we will get more support for these ideas and that we will help figure out a way to get a score for them as well. I think that part of the misery in this whole issue of health care savings is figuring out ways to do things that are not so complex in what they are doing. Moving from nursing home care to community-based care, $1,200 versus $6,000, that is not the hard part of the equation. What is hard is to get CBO to guesstimate how much population would be affected.

We do know this. If you take the number of seniors to be affected as the baby boomer population reaches that retirement age, if you think they are going to be supported primarily by nursing home care--I think I am correct that our State has now made the shift so the majority of our people who are on Medicaid are taken care of by long-term care services in the community if they are seeking those services, versus the Federal numbers which are just the opposite. The majority of people seeking those Medicaid long-term care dollars, the average of those States is more towards nursing home care. We need to flip that. The Senator is right, it would be a win-win-win situation for all of us.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on

Wednesday, December 11, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a nomination hearing to consider the President's nomination of Vincent G. Logan, to be Special Trustee, Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of the Interior, and an Oversight Hearing to receive testimony on Implementation of the Department of the Interior's Land Buy-Back Program.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. President, each November the President declares this month as National Native American Heritage Month and the Senate dedicates a resolution honoring the Nation's first Americans. As chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, it is my privilege to introduce this resolution. I am pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues, including Senators Baldwin, Barrasso, Begich, Cochran, Crapo, Franken, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Hirono, Hoeven, Johnson of South Dakota, Klobuchar, Markey, Merkley, Moran, Reid, Schatz, Tester, Thune, Udall of Colorado, Udall of New Mexico, Warner, and Wyden, in submitting this resolution.

Since time immemorial, American Indians have occupied the lands we now know as the United States. To date, the Federal Government recognizes 566 distinct tribal nations across the country. While these Indian tribes share many attributes, each tribe is unique. The contributions American Indians have made to the foundation of the United States are significant and continue today. From influencing the documents that founded our Nation to serving in World War II as code talkers, American Indians have helped shape the face of our Nation. It is fitting that we are honoring the Code Talkers this week with a Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony, as Native Americans have served in the military at a higher rate per capita than any other group in the country.

Native American heroes played a significant role in World War II. Among them was Charles Chibitty of the Comanche Nation, who aided the successful landing at Normandy and the capture of an enemy flag in a French village, for which he was recognized by the French Government. The Code Talkers came from many tribes, including the Navajo, who played a crucial role in the Pacific. The Choctaw, Sioux, Assiniboine, Apache, Hopi, Mohawk and many other tribes gave this Nation their dedication, determination, and courage. They will never be forgotten.

I am honored to represent the 29 tribes in my home State of Washington. Tribal culture is woven into the fabric of our State as a critical part of not only the State's history but also its modern-day economy and governance. In 2012, Washington State tribes purchased more than $2.4 billion in goods, paid $1.3 billion in wages, and spent $259 million on construction activities. The tribes and the State are partners in virtually every aspect of governance, from natural resource management to tax collection.

Many of the tribes in my State entered into agreements with the U.S. Government over the last two and a half centuries for cessions of land and natural resources. In exchange for these lands, the United States promised essential services to American Indians. As the trustee for Indian nations across the United States, the Federal Government has much work to do. I am encouraged by events like the Tribal Nations Conference, which has been convened annually since the election of President Obama. While this is a step in the right direction, we must do more to ensure that our Indian communities are thriving.

As we celebrate National Native American Heritage Month, I encourage my colleagues to take some time and think about the Federal Government's responsibilities to our first people. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution designating November 2013 as National Native American Heritage Month and November 29 of this year as Native American Heritage Day, and I encourage all Americans to recognize the important contributions American Indians have made to this great Nation.

S. Res. 308

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in highlighting the epidemic of sexual assault in our Nation's armed services, and I am glad to join many of my colleagues here--the Senators from Maine and New Hampshire and our leader, the Senator from Maryland--in making sure the voices of women are heard in this debate.

We know that in May 2013 the Defense Department released a report that showed 26,000 incidents of unwanted sexual contact among servicemembers. That is an increase of 35 percent over 2 years.

In my State, Washingtonians are very proud of the incredible men and women who keep our country safe and defend us, and we are proud of the 10 military installations across our State. There are more than 65,000 men and women serving in military installations in the State of Washington--places such as Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Naval Station Everett, Naval Base Kitsap, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Bangor Naval Submarine

Base, and Fairchild Air Force Base. So we took it seriously when there were 116 reports of sexual assault across all of these installations in the State of Washington in 2010. That number is too high, and that is only the amount that is being reported. We know there may be many assaults that go unreported.

As my colleagues are saying, we need to do everything we can to address this problem. I am pleased that Joint Base Lewis-McChord is developing a sexual assault prevention program, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to act to address this epidemic problem. The men and women of our Armed Forces are basically defending our country, so why are we leaving them unprotected while they serve?

I have cosponsored legislation authored by my colleague the senior Senator from Washington to provide special victims' counsel to victims of sexual assault. This will ensure that professionals trained in dealing with sexual assault are there to support the victims.

There may be differing opinions on how best to achieve the overall goals of reducing sexual assault in the military, but I believe all my colleagues can agree on one common goal: protecting the victims from further abuse. We need to put an end to an environment that allows sexual assault to occur and that lets the perpetrators go unpunished and discourages victims of sexual assault through fear and intimidation. Again, we may differ on how to best achieve that goal, but we are all here to say the same thing: Enough is enough. We will not tolerate sexual assault in the military and Armed Forces, and we owe it to our servicemembers to come together and act toward a solution today. That is why my colleagues are here--to emphasize this point in a way that speaks volumes about how this tragedy is affecting men and women in the armed services and the fact that this institution needs to come together to address it.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her leadership on the floor this afternoon. It is great to join her and my other colleagues to talk about the importance of judicial nominees, and in particular today, because today we are talking about the nomination of more female representation on the courts which I think is incredibly important.

I served my first 2 years in the Senate on the Judiciary Committee, and I was struck to find that, I think at that time, I may have been the fourth woman in the whole history of our country to be on the Judiciary Committee. Now I am so proud that my colleague from Minnesota serves on that committee and does an excellent job and that we have other representation as well. But the point we have to ask ourselves is, do we have to get women elected to the Senate to get women on the Judiciary Committee to get women on the courts because our colleagues aren't going to help us do that?

I am rising to support moving these nominations. President Obama has nominated Cornelia Pillard and Patricia Millett. We want to see these vacancies filled. We don't want the same dysfunction which led to a government shutdown to let us move toward the kind of the stopping of putting people on the court. Nominating highly qualified individuals is what the President's job is, and filling seats on the court is not packing the court. It is simply doing the job.

On October 31, 2013, many of my colleagues voted against a motion to end debate on Patricia Millett to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She is a very highly qualified attorney who has argued before the Supreme Court 32 times and is recognized both by Democrats and Republicans for her legal acumen. Despite her qualifications, her nomination was being blocked. Had she been confirmed, she would only be the sixth woman to sit on the DC District Court of Appeals. So I am questioning the place we are now on this nomination.

Professor Nina Pillard is another filibustered nominee who has argued historic cases before the Supreme Court, including a case to open the Virginia Military Institute to women for the first time in history and a case defending the family medical leave law. American people want to know why are these qualified female judges being blocked. Just 32 percent of the U.S. Appeals Court judges are women. In my opinion, it is time to move forward with more highly qualified nominees to add diversity to the courts.

I have not heard any of my colleagues question the credentials of these nominees. In fact, Ms. Millett has been called ``a brilliant mind, a gift for clear persuasive writing, and a genuine zeal for the rule of law.'' This is not a quote by a Democratic Senator or a liberal think tank. That quote is from former Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr in a letter with six other Solicitors General, top lawyers who have served in the George H. Bush and George W. Bush and Clinton administrations, basically saying, ``Equally important, she is unfailingly fair minded.'' That is from Mr. Starr.

So the DC Circuit Court currently has four judges chosen by Democratic Presidents and four by Republicans. There are three vacancies on the court. Republicans are arguing we shouldn't fill these vacancies, that we should just eliminate them. I think my colleague from Minnesota just spoke to this. This is a proposal that is even opposed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who argues that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is similar to many of the Federal courts and is operating in a state of crisis. He said, ``Based on our current caseload methods, the D.C. Circuit Court should continue to have 11 judgeships.''

So we need a court that is fully staffed. The primary responsibility of this court is the handling of cases involving Federal regulations on environmental safety, health care reform, and insider trading. We should trust that our judicial branch can nominate and get judges on that court that basically will look at the law and not party affiliation and stop obstructing people whom I believe are qualified to be on the court.

I hope we can move forward. Ms. Millett is the second female nominee opposed by Republicans after the nomination of Georgetown professor Pillard was filibustered. However, she joins a long list of judicial nominees who happen to be female who have been opposed, not because of their qualifications but because they were nominated by this President. I will submit that list for the Record.

I hope this discussion today points out the need of more women on the courts. Maybe we also need more women elected to the Senate so we can make sure we get more women on the courts. But this is, today, about asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to not look past this court. Do not try to diminish it by narrowing its focus. Get more people who will support qualified women so we can have the diversity in America that we need represented on our courts, even at the DC district appeals level.

I thank my colleague from Minnesota for arranging for all of us to be here today to share our views.

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Committee on Indian Affairs

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Committee on Indian Affairs

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Committee on Indian Affairs

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting to authorize expenditures by the Committee through February of 2015.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

committee on energy and natural resources

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Committee on Indian Affairs

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting to authorize expenditures by the Committee through February of 2015.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions