Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 235, to provide for the conveyance of certain property located in Anchorage, Alaska, from the United States to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium; S. 920, to allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of Minnesota to lease

Mr. President, on the 40th anniversary of the introduction of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in 1973, I wish to honor a distinguished advocate for Indian Country and one of the key architects of the Act, Forrest J. Gerard, and recognize him for a lifetime committed to public service.

Forrest, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, was the first American Indian to draft and facilitate the passage of Indian legislation through Congress. During the 1970s, Forrest partnered with Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson to dramatically change the United States' policy on Indian affairs. Together, they ended the policy of termination and assimilation, and launched the era of self-governance and self-determination, which continues to guide Federal Indian policy today.

Forrest's service began with the U.S. Army Air Corps as a member of a bomber crew in World War II. After flying 35 combat missions over Nazi- occupied Europe, he became the first member of his family to attend college, receiving a bachelor's degree from the University of Montana in 1949.

Over the next two decades, Forrest worked for the State of Montana, the newly formed Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a legislative liaison officer, and as the Director of the Office for Indian Progress in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. His goal was to enable future generations of Indian leaders to build healthy and educated communities.

Forrest arrived at the U.S. Senate in 1971 to work with Senator Jackson, then chair of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Senator Jackson had become a strong supporter of self-determination, and believed Forrest Gerard, with his significant background with Federal agencies and his understanding of the American Indian experience, would bring an important perspective to the debate. Forrest was able to combine significant issue expertise with his solid relationships with tribes to enact meaningful legislation that would alter the course of Indian affairs.

Forrest's unique skills and relationships played a critical role in producing the landmark Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. With the leadership of Senator Jackson and Forrest Gerard, this critical bill was signed by President Ford in 1975 and remains the basis for Federal dealings with tribal governments.

Following the success of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Forrest worked to strengthen tribal governance by helping to pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and the Submarginal Lands Act.

As Native American journalist Mark Trahant put it:

Gerard did great work--subtly, without fanfare, and too

often without recognition or even thanks. His approach was

honesty and directness in dealing with Indian Country, and he

never wavered in his loyalty to the Tribes.

Today we recognize Forrest Gerard for his dedication, intelligence, and persistence, which paved the way for the political achievements that transformed the landscape of Indian affairs. Tribes now have greater autonomy in managing their resources, preserving their cultures, and utilizing their land base. And the government-to- government relationship between the United States and tribes is now a mature relationship.

Forrest Gerard was honored for his work by the National Congress of American Indians. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter appointed him to be the first Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Forrest spent the last 30 years advising Indian people on how to effectively participate in developing policy with government leaders and be part of the political process. Forrest truly has devoted his life to empowering tribal communities.

I think we are long overdue in commending Forrest for his pioneering, industrious career as a voice for Indian Country. Today we celebrate his leadership in charting a new path for American Indians--a path that won the support of Congress, tribal governments, and the Nation.

Forrest Gerard is a hero among a new generation of great Indian leaders. And his contributions will be remembered forever.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Fred Hochberg and his nomination to the second term as Chairman of the Export-Import Bank. I have heard now two speeches on the other side of the aisle from my colleagues who not only seem to take exception with Mr. Hochberg's nomination but the Export-Import Bank in and of itself.

I think they are wrong. I think they are wrong because they do not understand Washington's need to focus on the fact that we have an export economy. We want U.S. products to be bought and sold in countries and markets all over the world. We are here today to talk about a critical vote to support 225,000 jobs that are part of our export economy. If we fail to confirm Fred Hochberg for a second term as Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, businesses across the United States will lose a key tool in job creation.

This is because his term expires, runs out, on July 20.

What would that mean? It would mean the Export-Import Bank, which needs at least three of its five board members to have a quorum, would not have a quorum and would not be able to issue any new loans. This means the transactions that U.S. companies depend on, the guarantees and the transactions to finance the sale of U.S. products and services overseas, would not be able to move forward.

If we don't confirm Mr. Hochberg this week, the bank cannot approve loans and it would take away a job-creating tool that American innovators and businesses count on. This is why I am calling on my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, to confirm Mr. Hochberg as the Export-Import Bank Chairman for a second term.

His nomination is supported by the Chamber of Commerce and by the National Association of Manufacturers. He has proven to be a solid leader in his organization by listening, implementing, innovating, and administering a very critical job-creation tool.

When I visited businesses across my State in 2012 to talk about the Export-Import Bank, I heard the American people wanted us to focus on job creation and supporting business. The Export-Import Bank helps American-made products to be shipped all around the world.

I saw a company in my State, Yakima, WA, the Manhasset music stand company, use the Export-Import Bank to make sure sales go all around the globe, including China.

I saw a grain silo manufacturer called SCAFCO in Spokane, which also would testify to the fact that they have been able to sell their grain to many countries around the globe because of the financing the Export- Import Bank guarantees.

Airline cockpit hardware made by the Esterline Corporation factory in Everett, WA, also testified to the same effect; that when you are looking around the globe to secure financing of U.S. products into more developing countries, it is hard to get the financing to work.

The United States can be left at the starting line or the United States can use this vital tool that I call a tactic for small business to get access to make sure their products get a final sale.

The Export-Import Bank supports 83,000 jobs in my State alone, which benefits from the finance mechanism. Over the last 5 years, it has supported many jobs throughout the United States. Overall, it supported, as I said, 225,000 jobs and more than 3,000 businesses in 2012.

In the small business area, 2,500 of those are small businesses. The notion that this is somehow crony capitalism--and maybe he is talking about the shenanigans that happened on Wall Street, but he is certainly not talking about the Export-Import Bank.

I am advocating that we keep the very positive results of this bank, keep Mr. Hochberg, and make sure we continue to sell our products from Everett, WA, or Auburn, KY, all over the globe.

Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders. The question is: are we going to make sure that U.S. products get into the hands of the growing middle class around the globe? In 2030, China's middle class will be 1 billion people, 1 billion middle- class people in China, up from 150 million today. India's middle class will grow 80 percent, from 50 million to 475 million.

We need our businesses, large and small, to have the tools to reach this new, growing tool of consumers. Not only does this help businesses, the Ex-Im Bank also helps taxpayers.

I don't know where the idea that this is crony capitalism comes from, but this program is a very good deal for the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In fact, it returned nearly $1.6 billion to the U.S. Treasury since 2005. It actually is helping us return money to the Treasury and it helps our businesses continue to grow in export markets.

As we speak, there are almost $4 billion in transactions awaiting approval for the bank; that is, if we don't approve the chairman, these deals might not go through. There are many American businesses counting on their transaction so they can compete in an international market.

The international competitor is not going to wait until we approve Mr. Hochberg if we delay this. They are going to go ahead, cash in on the business deals, and our competitors will win.

I think the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it best in a 2011 letter to congressional leaders: The Export-Import Bank enables U.S. companies, large and small, to turn export opportunities into real sales that help create real jobs in the United States of America.

I was proud that Mr. Hochberg came to Seattle last year for the opening of a regional Ex-Im office, focusing on small businesses to make sure they can get the financing for end products to get to these markets. We should be moving more toward policies to help businesses, the small businesses, grow with confidence into these international markets.

I ask my colleagues to do the right thing, follow through, and confirm this chairman.

Since its creation in 1934, the Export-Import Bank was approved by unanimous consent or voice vote 24 times. For 24 times no one called this crony capitalism. No, they were supporting it. The last time we authorized it, it had 78 votes. It ended up in the House of Representatives with 330 votes.

I am pointing this out because all of the delay in Mr. Hochberg's confirmation hurts business in the end, when the majority of my colleagues do agree this is a vital tool to help boost products made in America.

In the last reauthorization we did make improvements to strengthen the Ex-Im Bank. Quarterly reports are delivered on the default rates, which now can't go above 2 percent.

The Government Accountability Office also is required to work with risk management structures to make sure loans and businesses are not too risky. Transactions above a certain dollar amount receive public comment, and they deliver a yearly report on those transactions.

I know my colleagues have mentioned this issue about aviation, and I can guarantee, as the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, I want U.S. airline industries to be competitive in international markets. Certainly, the world community on financing of airplane sales is working together to make sure those are closer to market-based rates and working on the same page so these financing schemes work together.

The 2011 Aircraft Sector Understanding sets out the terms and conditions on how airlines can finance aircraft purchases using Government-backed financing. The Understanding requires a closer alignment with commercial market borrowing rates. This agreement covers all major trading partners except China.

All of these improvements we continue to make in the Ex-Im Bank are important. As I said, Mr. Hochberg has been open to many discussions as to how we move ahead. Let us not deny the fact that in developing markets, a financial tool such as the Export-Import Bank, that actually delivers on helping job creation in the United States by getting the sales of many different products into these developing countries and growing middle class, is very good for the United States. The fact that it returns to the taxpayer is very positive.

Let's not let this slip another moment. Let's get Mr. Hochberg back to the task at hand, which is approving these transactions so U.S. companies can continue to grow jobs here by accessing new markets overseas.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate with my colleagues, but I came to share a few thoughts about the passing of our dear friend Senator Frank Lautenberg. He was a dear friend, a colleague. When I originally sat in the Senate, he sat right behind me. We shared seats together on the Commerce Committee. I can tell you Frank's wit was as quick as his downhill slalom skiing. He always had something funny to say.

We knew him as somebody who had been in one of the largest computer services companies, ADP, and helped get that company started, and as somebody who represented veterans as one of the last World War II veterans in this body. He served here for almost 30 years.

What always amazed me about Frank is that he brought that business attitude to the Senate when it came to legislating; that is, results matter. Because of that, he had a long list of legislative accomplishments.

I don't know if everybody, because of the turnover in the Senate, realized how many things Frank accomplished: banning smoking on airplanes, lowering the threshold for drunk driving, better protection against toxic chemicals, helping to improve the everyday safety of Americans, improving the quality of our environmental laws in the United States. He also had an amendment that helped allow for better refugee status, for members of historically persecuted groups to easily get refugee status in the United States.

He did many different things while he was in the Senate, and he worked very hard because of that experience in World War II and being a veteran and going to school on the GI bill--somebody who lost his father at a very early age. He used that GI bill to get the education he needed to do these incredible things.

When Frank had a victory, he didn't stop at that victory, he kept going. After he and Dick Durbin helped ban smoking on commercial flights, he followed that with a provision to the Transportation appropriations bill that extended the ban to include all Federal buildings.

In the same kind of fervor, once he helped make our drunk driving laws stronger, he continued to try to implement stronger measures as a key player in establishing a national blood alcohol level at 0.08 percent. At the time, many States decided to do otherwise, but Frank worked to try to champion this at the Federal level, and as a result he helped to save tens of thousands of lives.

He was also a huge champion of our environment. He championed ocean acidification issues before they were probably really known by a lot of people in America. He understood that this was a looming disaster and that we needed to do more research for marine life, our economy, and our way of life.

He also knew and understood that Americans needed protection from toxic pollutants. Well, that is something most of us would say: Yes, we don't like toxic pollutants. Back in 1986 he wrote a bill that created a public database about toxins released in the United States. That was certainly brave for somebody from New Jersey because it was a leading chemical-producing State. The fact that Frank took that on showed a lot of tenacity and a lot of courage, and just as he did on the other things, he followed that up.

Recently, he introduced the Safe Chemicals Act to improve the understanding and reporting of chemicals found in products that make their way into the hands of Americans every single day.

He also championed improving our transportation system. I asked him: Frank, how did you already get a train station named for you on the Jersey line? Anyone who has taken the Amtrak up to New York has had a chance to see that one of the stops in Secaucus is named the Frank R. Lautenberg Station. He had been a great champion for Amtrak, but he was also a great champion for freight and freight mobility. He knew it was important to New Jersey as a major port in our country, and he wanted to make sure that not

only people but products got to where they needed to go and got there on time.

We all like to think we are remembered by the American people for the accomplishments we have, and I am not sure whether they will remember all of the things Frank Lautenberg did to contribute to their way of life. One thing I can say is that when I think about his advocacy for a modernized GI bill or banning smoking on planes, he touched the lives of millions of Americans.

He also had tenacity. He had the tenacity once to help a boy from New Jersey who had been involved in a domestic dispute where the father had lost custody. The young boy at that time, Sean Goldman, who was from New Jersey, had been taken by a family member and was in Brazil. His father tried going through the Brazilian courts for years to get him back. He really wasn't successful until Frank Lautenberg joined the fight. Frank brought the same tenacity he had shown in the past and held up a generalized system of preferences bill--which remove tariffs on $2.7 billion worth of Brazilian goods--here in the Senate. He knew that threatening to hold up that bill would get their attention, and he was right. He literally got them to do something and return this young boy, Sean Goldman, to his father. Frank really cared about results. He knew it was important to get that father and son reunited, and he knew the importance of getting results for his constituency in New Jersey.

We will miss Frank. We will miss all of his legislative actions, his standing on the Senate floor and giving a speech or, as he would say, giving heck to somebody. Oftentimes it was somebody on the other side or somebody he thought was a big giant doing too many things that needed to be challenged. He will be remembered as part of a great generation of Americans who were successful in so many ways. He lived the American dream, came to the Senate and was a contributor. He will be remembered for his tenacity and standing and fighting for people.

We are going to miss you, Frank.

I yield the floor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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