Floor Statements

Madam President, I come to the Senate floor to join my colleagues on the women's side of the Senate who will be coming to the floor this morning, along with Senator Mikulski--and I thank her for her leadership--to talk about pay equity and the issue of equal pay for equal work.

I am proud to stand here on what is the 4-year anniversary of the historic Lilly Ledbetter legislation that we were able to pass. What an unbelievable moment that was, to work for what is equal treatment for women in our court system. Lilly Ledbetter went across the Nation and came to Congress and communicated very well to many Americans on this issue that sometimes you could be discriminated against and not even know it until your retirement, which was the case with her. Yet the legal system failed to take any action at that point. So we passed the Lilly Ledbetter legislation to make sure that in our court system women could find out and have those remedies brought before our system and fight for equal pay.

My State of Washington has been a leader in increasing the minimum wage. We have a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation, and I am proud of that. But pay disparity continues to persist between men and women, and that is why I am here, to urge my colleagues to help close this gap. We are here to advocate for the Paycheck Fairness Act because full-time working women still earn 75 percent of what their male counterparts earn for the same job, according to a report by the Economic Opportunity Institute.

While the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a step forward, we need to pass this additional legislation to help end pay inequity and take the next steps toward helping women. The Paycheck Fairness Act will help us move toward closing the gap between men and women, and it does the following things: It requires employers to provide justification other than gender for paying men higher wages than for women; it protects employees who share the same salary information from potential retaliation from their employers; and it provides victims of pay discrimination the same remedies available to victims of other kinds of discrimination, including punitive and compensatory damages.

This bill also helps create outreach programs for employers to help them understand this issue and to help end pay disparity. I certainly look forward to the passing of this legislation because closing this gap means women in my State will be able to afford 13 more months of rent or 39 more months of family health insurance premiums, according to an estimate by the National Partnership for Women and Families.

We have to level the playing field so these kinds of estimates are not just projections but they are realities. We can't support the status quo while the economic security of women and families is undermined. One-third of families headed by women in my State are in poverty. This can be attributed, in part, to policies that perpetuate lower pay for women. So we must end unequal pay practices and level the playing field.

It is in this spirit of fair play that we ask for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. I know Senator Mikulski and others who have fought hard on this legislation will be here to speak this morning, and I am proud we are sponsors of the Paycheck Fairness Act that was introduced just last week. Today, almost 50 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act and 4 years after the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we still need to hit another giant milestone in helping women get fair pay in America.

We made a big step toward all this with Lilly Ledbetter's leadership, but now we need to pass this new legislation. It was an important milestone

that will help women be confident they will be treated fairly in the workplace and to make sure they continue to have access to the courts. Whether they are an engineer or a lawyer or a police officer, women should not have to earn less doing the same job as a coworker. That is why we need to pass this Paycheck Fairness Act today.

I want women who grow up in the United States of America to know there is no doubt they will earn the same pay they deserve for their work. That is what our country is all about, and that is why we are going to work hard this session to pass this legislation.

I thank the President pro tempore, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to salute my colleague, Senator Dan Inouye, and remember him for his great service to our country. Like so many of my colleagues, I come down to the Senate floor with a great deal of sadness but also admiration for the incredible life that Danny Inouye led.

He certainly was a giant among Senators, and for the work he did-- everything from investigating Watergate to fighting for Native Hawaiian rights, to everything he did in the United States every day--he will be remembered as a man who fought for justice. When I think about Danny Inouye and the mentoring he has done for me and my colleague Senator Murray and for the State of Washington, I can tell you he will be sorely missed.

We know something about long-term Senators in the State of Washington. Certainly, Danny Inouye and Scoop and Maggie were all friends. He was also a friend to Washington State. He forged a great relationship with Scoop and Maggie. That started when Scoop Jackson actually championed statehood for Hawaii starting as early as the late 1940s. He played a key role in supporting it and passing it into the Hawaii Statehood Act. That is something Danny Inouye was so appreciative of. They forged a great relationship.

Senator Inouye and Senator Maggie were great friends and mentors. I had the opportunity many years ago to hear both of them at Senator Magnuson's house in Seattle reminisce about their days together. Some of those stories I could share on the floor; some I could not. But they were longtime friends.

The one story that is written about in Warren Magnuson's biography by Shelby Scates is a story about how, when Mount St. Helens blew up, Senator Magnuson went to Senator Inouye and said: We need about $1 billion to help for the cleanup of Mount St. Helens.

You can imagine in 1980 what a tremendous amount of money that would be. Senator Inouye said: Senator Magnuson, we have volcanoes blowing up all the time in Hawaii, and we never get a dime.

Magnuson responded: Just wait, it will be your turn soon.

So these are two incredible individuals who forged a relationship and, along with Jackson, were some of the big giants of our day in the Senate. We in the State of Washington certainly benefited greatly from Senator Inouye's incredible help and support. I know he traveled to our State many times at my request and participated in many different events. Probably one of the most important things he did for us in the State of Washington was the Puyallup land claim settlement and how Senator Inouye led the fight as the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee to make sure the right thing was done.

Together with Congressman Norm Dicks, we had a very difficult situation. The Puyallup Tribe, the Port and the City of Tacoma, and others all had a difficult dispute going on. The end result was the second largest Native American land claim settlement in U.S. history. The deal led to tremendous economic growth for the tribe, for the port, and for the surrounding committees.

Senator Inouye, as I said, was the chairman of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs in 1980 when the Puyallup Tribe successfully sued to assert

its claim for land around its reservation. This land included the Port of Tacoma, many parts of downtown Tacoma, and the towns of Fife and Puyallup. Because of his strong commitment to Native American rights, the Puyallup Tribe trusted Senator Inouye to serve as an intermediary between the parties involved in the negotiation to try to resolve this dispute. He made around a dozen trips to Washington State at key moments of this negotiation.

If you can imagine, a Senator who has to represent his State, be a leader on the Appropriations Committee, and who would spend so much time on one particular dispute.

During one tense session at a Tacoma hotel, Senator Inouye described his role as ``messenger boy,'' running between tribal negotiators on the second floor and non-Indian negotiators on the fifth floor. By his own estimate, he shuttled between those two floors 21 times. His tireless commitment and work helped keep the negotiations moving along. Finally, in 1988, a deal was struck and the settlement was passed into law in 1989.

The tribe relinquished claims to land it originally held. In exchange, they received $162 million that included 200 acres of disputed land. Of this total, $77 million were Federal funds, which Senator Inouye and Congressman Dicks worked to obtain.

When Senator Inouye was asked about the Federal Government's contribution toward the settlement, he replied: ``I got my training from Magnuson.''

For the Puyallup Tribe, the results have been dramatic. Today the tribe is one of the largest employers in Pierce County, and it is moving forward with its port development partnership. The Puyallups have become a prominent leader for other tribes in important areas such as protecting natural resources, providing law enforcement, and improving health care.

As for the Port of Tacoma, the results have been impressive as well. With the settlement, the port was able to tear down the Blair Bridge and open the waterways to the world's largest container ships. Removing the uncertainty of land ownership and relocating Highway 509 also unlocked land in the upper Blair Waterway for development, and a lot of new development occurred.

According to the port, these improvements provided 43,000 jobs in Pierce County. The volume of cargo at the port has nearly doubled, growing from 782,000 containers in 1988 to nearly 1.5 million containers in 2011. Now the Port of Tacoma handles more containers than its friendly rival to the north, the Port of Seattle, so it is something they very much take with great pride.

Senator Inouye has stood with Washingtonians on an issue that was so important to us and has led to so much growth and economic development, and only his leadership provided the necessary oversight to navigate this thorny issue. He also has helped us on many other issues, protecting salmon and our other fisheries, fighting for Native Americans and supporting strong defense and veterans' issues.

He certainly will be remembered in the Northwest as a true friend. Our Nation's veterans had no greater friend than Senator Inouye. But when it came time to pass national legislation recognizing the Japanese-American veterans' contributions to our country during World War II, he let others take the lead, knowing he, himself, would also be an honorary recipient of this award.

During a ceremony in November of 2001, with the other Nisei veterans at his side, Senator Inouye accepted the Congressional Gold Medal on behalf of the 100th Infantry Battalion, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence Service.

In his remarks, Senator Inouye said, ``Seventy years ago, we were enemy aliens, but today, this great Nation honors us in this special ceremony.'' I can tell you because there were many Nisei veterans from the Pacific Northwest who traveled to our Nation's Capital to participate in that event. Their families were so honored to be there with their parents and to honor them in this great ceremony. It would not have happened if it had not been for Senator Inouye's incredible leadership.

He also successfully fought to honor the veterans who served in the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines on the side of the United States during World War II. Because of a law passed in 1946, their service was not recognized. They were denied access to health care and given only half the disability and death compensation of U.S. veterans.

Senator Inouye changed that. Over the years, he secured nearly $200 million in compensation for Filipino veterans, and he fought to grant Filipino veterans the same access as U.S. veterans to VA hospitals.

Senator Inouye's strong sense of honor and justice drove him to fight for the recognition of these veterans' service. He was fond of saying ``justice is a matter of continuing education.''

For that reason, he also made sure injustices endured by U.S. citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry during World War II will never be forgotten. He led passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which acknowledged their forced internment and provided compensation for those surviving detainees. Senator Inouye also understood that recognizing and honoring the service of these veterans meant helping them prosper as they were entering civilian life.

I was proud to work with Senator Inouye and my colleague Senator Murray on the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. Because of the act, businesses that hire qualified veterans can get tax credits up to $9,600. Back in April of this year, Senator Inouye and I visited a company in Seattle, VECA, which hires primarily veterans, and I can tell you they were so happy to meet him. They were so excited to see one of our Nation's true heroes and to honor him by talking about the service they were trying to give back to our country.

From the battlefields of World War II to the Halls of Congress, Senator Inouye brought grace, charm, and an unbelievable sense of duty to our country. He truly was a giant of a statesman, not just in Hawaii but in the State of Washington.

A few years ago, Senator Inouye was visiting some underprivileged children in Hawaii to see the digital media center he helped support. One of the students he met said, ``I feel like I met one of the most important people in the world.''

I couldn't agree more. Senator Inouye's legacy and impact cannot be overstated. He was an old-school Senator who was always courteous, respectful to his colleagues no matter what the circumstances, and he will not be forgotten.

I join our Nation in praying for his wife Irene, his son Ken, and daughter-in-law Jessica, his stepdaughter Jennifer, and his granddaughter Maggie. I hope they understand how much we appreciate them sharing him with us and all he did.

His service to our country will not be forgotten, and it certainly will be impossible to match.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to say what an important day it is for the U.S. Coast Guard. Our communities benefit from the services provided by the men and women who have answered the call to serve. The reason I say that is because we have passed a bill that gives 43,000 Active-Duty Coast Guard members the support they need.

It is a worthy tribute to a force of men and women who in 2011 alone saved 3,800 lives across the United States, confiscated 166,000 pounds of cocaine, and secured over 472,000 vessels before they arrived at our ports. This will give the Coast Guard the funds it needs to upgrade equipment and purchase the right vessels for carrying out every mission.

This kind of work exemplifies the heroes such as CPO Terrell Horne of California. Officer Horne died in the line of duty last week while chasing down drug smugglers off the coast of California. Our thoughts are with his family, friends and the Coast Guard.

His actions and service remind us of the dangerous tasks the men and women of the Coast Guard do on a daily basis, and that is why it was so important that we passed this reauthorization bill.

We could not have done this reauthorization without the many hours Senator Begich put in to help get it across the finish line. He knows how important the Coast Guard is to the men and women in the Pacific Northwest and to my State, Washington.

The Coast Guard is part of our maritime culture in the Pacific Northwest, and this bill helps the Coast Guard watch over our people, our businesses, and protect our coastline.

I would like to expound on three provisions that were particularly helpful for us in the Northwest. One, this legislation helps to protect the Polar Sea, an icebreaker based in Seattle; two, it helps us clean up tsunami debris that is already hitting the west coast; and three, it analyzes the potential risk of tar sands supertankers, tankers and barges in our waters off Washington State.

In October of this year, I visited Vigor Shipyards in Seattle where our heavy-duty icebreaker fleet is currently serviced. These ships are a testament to American shipbuilding prowess and ingenuity, and, inspecting them up close, we can see they are the most critical tool for the United States in our economic security and national security in the Arctic. We see that building icebreakers means jobs to Washington State, and that is why in this final package, the importance of these ships--the Polar Sea in particular was prioritized. The Polar Sea was in danger of being scrapped before we passed this bill.

There is no denying that we need to build a new icebreaker fleet for our Arctic economic future, and for the Coast Guard and Navy Arctic missions. But, these specialized vessels will take up to 10 years to build. In the meantime, we want to make sure U.S. companies can continue to develop business in the Arctic and keep U.S. Arctic operations running. It is very fitting that the icebreakers that work fine now are not dismantled.

This legislation prevents the Polar Sea from being scrapped and helps us protect the resources we need to serve interests in the Arctic. This bill stipulates that we won't scrap our current icebreakers if it is more cost-effective to keep them, and it will make sure our icebreakers are seaworthy so the crews don't go out on faulty equipment. These ships won't go away unless it can be proven that it makes financial sense to replace them.

Last January, the world watched as the Healy icebreaker successfully cut through a path in the Arctic Sea to deliver fuel to Nome, AK. The Healy is primarily a research vessel but was forced to do the job because our two heavy-duty icebreakers were not currently in active status; they were being repaired.

This bill also ensures that the Polar icebreaking fleet will continue to be based in Seattle. Refurbishing a large icebreaker, such as the Polar Sea, can take roughly 5 years and employ 300

workers. For us, this means shipbuilding jobs, it means an impact in keeping smaller shipyards in Washington State busy, and it means keeping icebreakers that help save places such as Nome, AK, by cutting paths through the ice.

However, that is not the only thing in this legislation that I am proud we got a decision on. Our economy in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii has been threatened by hundreds of thousands of tons of debris washing ashore as a result of the tragic tsunami in Japan nearly 2 years ago.

That is why this legislation asks NOAA to take a closer look at tsunami debris and makes sure we are putting an accurate assessment in place to protect the west coast. If NOAA decides tsunami debris is a severe marine debris event, then they will need to present a specific coordination plan developed to meet that threat. And they will need to work with local governments, counties, and tribes to ensure there is a coordinated effort to protect our economy and environment from tsunami debris. In the Northwest we have already seen ships, docks, and various other forms of debris float ashore. Oftentimes, our local communities have had to pay more than their share of the burden and expense of cleaning up the tsunami debris.

With over 165,000 jobs and nearly $11 billion in our coastal economy from fishing, to tourism, to various activities, we want to make sure that tsunami debris does not hurt our coastal economies. All we need to do is ask the mayor of Long Beach, who said, ``An uncoordinated or unmanaged response to this debris event is a blow that Long Beach and the Columbia-Pacific region cannot endure.'' This is about getting a plan in place for local communities to coordinate, to have opportunities to work together, and to remove debris as cost- effectively as possible.

Third, this legislation has important language protecting Washington waterways in very precious parts of the Pacific Northwest. Recently, Canada announced that over the next decade they would double the production of the Alberta tar sands oilfields. Today, fifteen billion gallons of oil is already shipped through Washington waters. A spill in a heavily populated area, around the San Juan Islands or in the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca could cause billions of dollars of damage and harm businesses throughout the region. The response cannot be, especially if the spill occurs in Canadian waters, don't worry, just call the Americans.

I am proud this legislation looks at the potential threat caused by supertankers and whether they are equipped to respond to a spill that could occur from corrosive tar sand oil. Thanks to this legislation, the Coast Guard will have to prepare a study that will analyze how much vessel traffic will increase in the region due to the proposed increase in tar sands oil production and transportation, whether the movement of tar sands oil would require navigating through our fragile waters, it would look at the oil spill response plans and response capability in the U.S. and Canada's shared waters, identify the tools needed to clean up this kind of an oil spill and estimate the cost and benefits to the American public of moving this oil through our waterways. And, this assessment has to be completed in 180 days.

I want to make sure our fishing fleets, our restaurants, our resort economy, and everything that is so important to us in the Northwest, is protected.

This legislation is good news for coastal communities, for jobs in Washington State and across our country, and I wish to thank both the chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee and full committee for making sure we have given the Coast Guard the resources it needs to protect our economy, keep our public safe, and protect our environment. We have much more work to do, but in a Congress that is down to its waning days, it is important that this legislation has seen action and is on its way to the President's desk.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I appreciate Senator Murkowski raising this issue, as I know it is of great importance to both our States, and I am happy to discuss the intent and effect of the provision to which she is referring. Senator Murray and I have worked closely with Senator Begich, with the Commerce Committee, and with our colleagues in the other body to develop this language for inclusion in the Coast Guard bill. Section 307 of H.R. 2838 does, as Senator Murkowski states, clarify longstanding restrictions that apply to certain vessels under the American Fisheries Act. The intent of this language is to maintain the status quo between two separate and distinct fisheries: one regulated under the American Fisheries Act and the other by Amendment 80 to the Bering Sea Fishery Management Plan. There has always been a careful balance struck between these two sectors, and we need to maintain that balance in order to protect the investments and job opportunities they provide. This language is in no way intended to upset that balance, but rather to insure that the status quo of separate and mutually exclusive sectors remains in place while affording the Amendment 80 fleet the opportunity to replace their older vessels with new ones and to encourage the economic investments that would follow.

Mr. BEGICH Madam President, as chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard, I concur with my colleagues that this is an important provision, and I want to reiterate that it is only designed to maintain and reinforce the separation between these two fisheries, and nothing more. As NOAA informed our offices via email this week: ``There is currently a regulatory prohibition on AFA vessels from being used as replacement vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet. The concerns addressed in the assistance address what would occur if that regulatory prohibition were to be removed. Subject to judicial interpretation, any change to the status quo would need to be made through the Council's and NOAA Fisheries' rulemaking process and is unlikely to occur in the near future.''

I thank my colleagues.

survival craft

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

Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my colleague from West Virginia. We thought the minority leader was coming to the floor to speak so we have gotten a little behind, but I appreciate his indulgence for me to recognize a very important Washingtonian.

Honoring Our Foreign Servants

However, before I start, I wish to take a moment to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of the horrific attack that happened in Libya, and that it is now time to remember all of the men and women who serve our country abroad at these embassies and to thank them for their service and hope for their protection.

Remembering George Hickman, Tuskegee Airman

Mr. President, on a chilly day in January of 2009, Americans watched with pride as Barack Obama stood before the Nation and took the Presidential oath of office. For some, that experience was another milestone in a long journey to ensure America lives up to the idea that this country was built for everyone. The election of an African-American President shattered a barrier that many thought would never happen.

The American struggle for civil rights has produced many seminal moments, including Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott, Martin Luther King at the march on Washington, and Jackie Robinson stepping to the plate for the first time. Before all of these events, however, there were the Tuskegee Airmen.

George Hickman, a Washington resident and a Tuskegee Airman, was truly part of America's ``greatest generation.'' They were a catalyst for an eventual desegregation of the entire U.S. military. On March 19, 1941, the 99th Pursuit Squadron was formed at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama.

When the United States was waging war against tyranny abroad, the members of what became known as the Tuskegee Airmen fought it; they fought the globe for us. Breaking barriers is never easy. At the time, the competence and patriotism of these African-Americans sometimes were openly questioned, but the Tuskegee Airmen didn't listen to those critics. They were fighting for what this country could be, not what it was.

In the first class of graduates there were only five, but before the war ended almost 1,000 pilots went through training at Tuskegee. Of those, 450 flew planes in the 99th Squadron and the 332nd Fighter Group in missions across Europe. They used the steely resolve they had shown in the face of racism to their advantage.

The 99th conducted bomber escort missions with stunning success. They flew 200 of 205 of these missions without a loss of a single bomber to the enemy aircraft.

The 332nd group achieved just as much. The Red Tail fighters came to be feared in the skies because of the feats like the one Lieutenant Pierson pulled off when he took out a German destroyer in the Harbor of Trieste, Italy, with just a 50-caliber machine gun.

Equally important were the Tuskegee pilots who broke barriers at home. They may not have participated in combat, but they proved they were instrumental in powering the American military that eventually won the war. Amidst jeers and insults, the Tuskegee Airmen quietly went about their job with grace. Through grit and determination they barreled through dead ends and blocked doors and shined a light for others to follow.

President Obama acknowledged as much when he said: ``My career in public service was made possible by the path heroes like the Tuskegee Airmen trail-blazed.''

These important Tuskegee Airmen were pioneers, and among them was George Hickman from Seattle, proud and smiling as always, as we can see in this photograph.

So I rise today to honor the life of this American hero and loyal Washingtonian. George Hickman passed away on August 19 at the age of 88. We owe George Hickman a great deal because beneath that big smile lay a quiet determination and courageous spirit that helped him make America a better place for all.

George grew up in St. Louis, MO. He loved building model planes which he bought for 10 cents at Woolworth's, and he dreamed of becoming a pilot. At age 18 he pursued that dream.

When he graduated from high school in 1943, George trained with the Army's all African-American 99th Pursuit Squadron in Tuskegee, AL. He was a Tuskegee Airman and one of our Nation's first African-American pilots.

George's passion for aviation continued after his service was up, and as a mechanic with the Tuskegee Airmen he developed skills that allowed him to succeed in and graduate from college. Eventually George brought his expertise to Boeing when he moved to Seattle in 1955. Over a 29- year history he rose through the ranks at Boeing, but that is not where this story ends.

George was also an uplifting spirit, and he had the most radiant smile. We can see that from this picture. That smile was there for his community, his family, and everyone who met him. George became a well- known figure at Seattle sporting events for the University of Washington Huskies and the Seattle Seahawks. In fact, people called him ``our lucky charm.''

For more than 40 years, he served as a press attendant and usher at UW sporting events. George never missed a game, including Rose Bowls, and he was there to give moral support to everyone. He even went to the basketball and volleyball games and gave high fives to everyone on the court.

As the University of Washington basketball coach Lorenzo Romar put it: ``He is a guy that is selfless. He is always trying to lift someone else up.''

I also wondered, seeing this picture of George many times before today, if it was the steely reserve of being an airman that grounded him for what he considered to be really important in life; that is, lifting up other people. That is exactly what George did. The University of Washington community lifted up George too. They helped collect enough money so he could travel to Washington, DC, to be part of President Obama's inauguration, along with 188 other Tuskegee Airmen. Some estimates are that more than half of those Tuskegee Airmen who attended the inauguration are no longer with us.

With George's passing, certainly there is one more angel in heaven with a very big smile on his face, but here on Earth we have one fewer American hero from the Tuskegee Airmen days to tell his story. So, today, I encourage all Americans to learn about the story of the Tuskegee Airmen. For those in the Pacific Northwest, I encourage people to visit the Museum of Flight in Seattle and the Northwest African American Museum because they both have exhibits on display that showcase this epic story. It is a great opportunity to reflect on the people who inspired our Nation's founding ideals and who ended up changing the course of American history.

George Hickman may no longer be with us, but he will always be remembered for that very big smile, especially by those he touched in his life. His spirit will live on. It is almost as if he is saying in that picture: You can get it done. We can get it done.

His legacy lives on through his children Regena, Sheri, Vincent, and Shauniel, as well as his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We will all carry on this legacy with the U.S. military and the trailblazing Tuskegee Airmen. George's spirit will also carry on back home at Husky Stadium and at Hec Edmundson Pavilion. Many people, including the Seattle City Council, those at the university, and the Seahawks have all honored him in their special ways.

So on behalf of a grateful nation, it is my pleasure to submit a resolution to honor the life of an American hero, a great Washingtonian, George Hickman. As his wife Doris summed it up: ``George loved his family and enjoyed life to the fullest.''

George Hickman was a true American hero and an inspiration for all of us. I hope we agree to this resolution.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Northwest Kidney Centers on its 50th Anniversary. Northwest Kidney Centers was established as the first out-of-hospital dialysis program in the world, opening its doors in Seattle, WA, on January 8, 1962.

Just 2 years after the development of the Teflon shunt at the University of Washington, community leaders in Seattle came together to raise money and find a space to establish a center to deliver dialysis treatments outside of a hospital, which led to the creation of the community-based Northwest Kidney Centers.

Chronic kidney disease is now an epidemic, affecting one in seven American adults. Northwest Kidney Centers is working to reverse this trend, focusing on community education and prevention. Each year, Northwest Kidney Centers allocates funding toward public health education about kidney disease and organ donation, participating in outreach events and reaching more than 12,000 people with kidney information. It also developed a ``Living Well with CKD'' program which offers classes on treatment options and good nutrition. This program reaches nearly 1,000 pre-dialysis patients and family members each year, at no cost to the participants.

I take great pride in the fact that Seattle is the birthplace of chronic dialysis treatments and that Northwest Kidney Centers continues to take the lead on developments in the field. Northwest Kidney Centers hosted clinical trials to develop the anti-anemia drug Epogen, and set up the Northwest Organ Procurement Agency. In 2008, Northwest Kidney Centers spearheaded the creation of the Kidney Research Institute, a collaboration with the University of Washington Medical School which has become a scientific leader focusing on ways to prevent, detect, treat, and eventually cure kidney disease.

I applaud Northwest Kidney Centers for its contributions to the State of Washington and the kidney disease and dialysis field as a whole. As the organization celebrates its 50th Anniversary, I extend my congratulations to the entire Northwest Kidney Centers community-- patients, physicians, employees, supporters and volunteers--and thank them for their dedication and commitment to improving the lives of kidney patients in my State.

I call up amendment No. 2370.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Murray, and others, to include in the school lunch program a pilot program dealing with dry beans, peas, lentils, and chickpeas.

My amendment works to improve the nutritional value of school meals across America at a very economical price. With the level of obesity of children between 2 and 19, it is very important we have this program included.

I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from North Dakota.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the Export-Import Bank legislation now before us. This debate this morning is about jobs, it is about manufacturing jobs, and it is about U.S. manufacturing jobs. That is because this bank is one of the most powerful tools we have for manufacturing jobs in America.

This is a debate about whether the Members in this Chamber believe access to financing is a key tool for U.S. companies to compete on an international basis when they are trying to get U.S. manufactured products sold overseas. In fiscal year 2011 alone, the bank supported nearly 290,000 export-created jobs in America. Those are the jobs that are going to be threatened if the Senate does not act.

This authority expires on May 31. That is right, 16 days from now. And between now and then, the House is in session for only 5 days, so we can't afford to take this to the brink one more time with amendments passed by the Senate that are gutting amendments. These five amendments that will be considered would basically lapse the bank's authority and this would put into the debate more uncertainty about our economy.

We need to act now to renew the bank's charter, and businesses can't wait. They need the planning and certainty to hire more people. Failing to act will stifle U.S. economic opportunity. That is why nearly two dozen Governors, Democrats and Republicans alike, have urged the bank's extension, and so has the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Small Business Association.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a

chart reflecting the jobs supported in each State by Ex-Im financing so that Members, if they wish to, can come and look at both the revenue that was generated and the jobs that were supported.

Mr. President, the default rate on the bank is consistently less than 2 percent lower than most commercial lending. I am sure we will hear a lot about that during the debate today. But since 2005, the Export-Import Bank has returned $3.7 billion to the U.S. Treasury, above and beyond the cost of operation. So, yes, my colleagues, this is actually something that is making money for the Federal Government. Not only is it helping U.S. manufacturers sell their products overseas--financing in a way I think is equivalent to what the Small Business Administration does; helping to provide a certain level of financing that makes deals come through--I think it is why we find banks are supportive.

The money comes back into U.S. taxpayers' pockets and it supports our winning in a global situation by getting our products sold. It has been incredibly helpful to our economy, with zero cost to the taxpayers, and, in fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded a 4-year reauthorization of the bank would reduce the deficit by up to $900 million over 5 years. So the bank works for businesses and it works for U.S. taxpayers.

There is a compromise that is before us. I know it may not be the compromise that I or the Senator from South Carolina--who I see is on the floor--would have written into the legislation, but nonetheless it is a compromise and it is time to act. The reason I say that is because so many States also are counting on the Export-Import Bank, just as Washington State is.

Pennsylvania, for example, has over $1.4 billion in exports and 9,800 jobs related to the Export-Import Bank; Massachusetts, with $566 million. This is from the annual report of the Ex-Im Bank in 2011. So they had $566 million of economic revenue generated in Massachusetts and over 4,000 jobs. Why? Because we helped Massachusetts exporters get access to capital so they could sell their products overseas and win in the international marketplace. Texas, another example, with $4.9 billion in exports, and 35,274 jobs.

These are jobs America needs. This is a global economy in which America needs to be able to compete, and getting access to capital so that products can be sold is a critically important issue.

Florida, another great example of the support of the Ex-Im Bank, had $1.1 billion in exports and over 7,643 jobs. So that State has been another big winner; the State of North Carolina, $456 million in exports and 3,309 jobs; and Ohio, another example of manufacturers and businesses, with $398 million in exports and 2,888 jobs.

While there are many people who would like to say this program should be discontinued--and I am sure some of my colleagues are not in favor of it because there are many programs they wish to get rid of--I would say this is a program that is good for the U.S. taxpayers. The Ex-Im Bank has generated $3.7 billion for U.S. taxpayers since 2005.

Again, what is this debate about? The underlying amendments my colleagues are offering are trying to gut the Ex-Im Bank. They simply don't like it, and they want to get rid of it or say it is not a viable tool. I guess because one in four jobs in Washington State is based on trade, I know how critically important it is. Whether we are talking about agricultural products or selling airplanes or selling music stands, as one company we saw, or selling grain silos, companies need to be able to compete in the international marketplace and they need to be able to get sales for their products. This has been a very viable and important tool for them.

Some of my colleagues have previously raised concerns about the bank's transparency and oversight, and these concerns have been heard and addressed in this legislation. I wish to talk about the five ways this new compromise bill addresses those concerns.

There is more oversight. Under the amended bill, we would have a quarterly report on its default rate, and the first of these reports would be due September of this year. The bank has historically maintained a low default rate of less than 2 percent, but under this provision, if the default rate reaches 2 percent or higher, the bank will have to develop a plan to fix the problem and report to Congress within 1 month. If the default rate stays above 2 percent for more than 6 months, they will be subject to a review of an independent auditor.

These are very viable and important additions to the legislation. Not only would the auditor be there to help fix what was going on, he would have the oversight for anything that was involved with the bank they needed to report on. So there is less risk.

The second change to the underlying bill is the Government Accountability Office must study and report back to the bank safeguards that prevent it from taking loans that are too risky. Again, since the bank has had a historically low default rate, we are happy to add this language, but it is another layer of protection on something that is performing and performing well. But as I say, we are happy to add that to the legislation.

More public input. The bank will have to open a public comment period for transactions greater than $100 million and it will have to notify Congress about these transactions so there is more transparency on what some consider the bigger financial loans in which the bank is involved.

Fourth, we have added more accountability. There is an annual report where the bank has to justify the need of every transaction--every transaction. That way the public will know if the bank has acted because a private lender would not have or if it acted in response to foreign export credit agencies.

And then fifth, the Treasury must engage nations in discussions about the need for export financing worldwide. I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would hope the President would end all export financing and leave that discussion at the World Trade Organization. But I would ask my colleagues, what is the difference between this and the Small Business Administration that provides an opportunity, a bridging of capital between small businesses and the opportunities to join with private financing to make deals happen.

As I said earlier, I live in a State where we know how beneficial export markets are to our products--whether we are speaking of cherries or apples or

airplanes or a variety of new technologies--and these products are winning the day in the international marketplace. They are also creating jobs. So for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wish to end this program or say it ought to be ended on an international basis, we are happy to hear what the world community wants to debate and discuss on this basis, but I would ask why, in the moment of crisis in our financial institutions, when one of the supposedly most risk-averse institutions can't figure out why it lost $2 billion, would we want small businesses across America to pay the price for the fact they can't get financing of their products sold in an international marketplace? We have to wake up and understand this is about helping small businesses and helping them win the day for products that are created in the United States--created in the United States and sold abroad.

This compromise legislation that is offered today is the best path forward. These amendments are an attempt to gut the underlying bill and to stop the authorization of the bank and have it curtailed. As I said, we only have about 5 legislative days, given the House's schedule, to get this done. Some of my colleagues want to tell all those businesses I mentioned in all those States--Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and others--that we don't know anymore whether this program exists and so let's actually stop the funding and lose jobs.

I know there are people in my State--such as Lawrence Stone from SCAFCO or Bill Perdue from Sonico--who gave me the message the American people want us to focus on creating jobs and supporting businesses. They want a program like this to continue and they want the jobs it creates for their communities.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from South Carolina coming down to talk about his important tool for U.S. manufacturers and why it is important in his State and why we need to get on to the business of passing this House legislation that was a compromise that involved many people and, as my colleague from South Carolina stated, a very robust vote out of the House of Representatives.

I also wish to say a few words about my colleague's amendment, Senator Corker. I will trust what my colleague from South Carolina says, that the amendment may be seen as a reform of the system, well intended, but I can tell you, it will have very adverse effects.

The Corker amendment basically is calling for a 10-percent capital ratio requirement. It is not based on any fact or reason. The bank has had a default rate of less than 2 percent--1.5 percent. So raising the reserve ratio would have a very adverse effect on the bank itself, and it would quadruple the reserves and basically cause problems with the bank and how it is leveraged.

If this is an issue about reform, there are many reforms in the underlying bill. To the provision that would say you would have to verify, if you are an individual business, that you can't get financing, I have read the Senator's amendment. I am not sure how you would prove that. It is not clear from the legislation. Does that mean you would have to survey every time the ex-im program was implemented for a business?

Let's say SCAFCO in Spokane, WA, which is a grain silo producer that is selling silos in many different parts of the world--every time they wanted to get financing for one of those silos, what would they do? Would they petition five banks in a region? Would they petition 100 banks in a region? I want people to understand what that competition is like.

Let's pretend that SCAFCO, as I said, which makes large grain elevators and is selling products all over the world and is one of the world leaders, and we have an Ex-Im Bank requirement that says they have to prove there is no financing available, and they are selling a lot of product in South America, in Africa, in Asia. Now somebody else says, You know what. I can get financing for the product out of Russia or I can get financing for the product out of China and I don't have that same requirement, so I am not going to buy from you, I am going to buy from them.

That is what you are doing. You are basically hamstringing American competitors in an international marketplace by not allowing them the financing tools. Of course the bank has to show they can't get financing, but this new provision puts an undue burden on these individuals--because of the language and how vague it is, how are they ever going to prove that there isn't someone there?

Instead of hamstringing American businesses, why not allow those American businesses to continue under this legislation that, as my colleague from South Carolina said, has been around for decades and been very effective? And we are including more transparency.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the Corker amendment because of its requirements on capital ratio that they do not need and, second, on an ability to prohibit the financing based on a clause that I don't even know how it can be met. My colleagues from States that are using this program will understand that it will be very hard for our businesses to continue to compete with such a requirement.

I know my colleague Senator Lee was here earlier. The Lee amendment basically would out-and-out defund the Export-Import financing program. I get that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe we should not have this program. I think it has been a very important tool for U.S. companies to win in their sales of U.S. products overseas and, as I said, creates thousands of jobs. I do not think the amendment of Senator Lee, which would basically abolish the bank as of September 30, 2013, is a good way to go.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to address the Vitter amendment, No. 2103. In speaking in opposition to that amendment, as I said, like all these amendments that are up for us to vote on today, I believe they are detrimental not only to the Export-Import financing program but to the compromise that has been worked out by Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives in the legislation that is being supported by the chamber of commerce, U.S. manufacturers, a bipartisan list of Governors, and many businesses across America.

The reason the Vitter amendment is a horrible idea, actually, is that the amendment would basically cut off or curtail American companies in their ability to compete on energy projects on a worldwide basis; that is, it would eliminate the bank's current 10 percent goal for renewable energy projects. This is a longstanding requirement that has been incorporated into the Senate Foreign Operations bill. Why someone would oppose it here I am not sure.

As somebody who knows a lot about energy and works on energy all the time, I can tell you that one of the goals we have as a country should be for the United States to win in the energy debate. Look at what a tremendous market opportunity new energy solutions are for our economy, for the worldwide economy. It is somewhere from $4 trillion to $6 trillion. A lot of people like to talk about the Internet and the great things on the Internet. By comparison, it was somewhere between $2 and $4 trillion. This is an economic opportunity way beyond that.

When you look at what China is doing, they need to invest $3.7 trillion by 2030 in order to build 1,300 gigawatts of new electricity- generating capacity. The Chinese Government alone needs to spend $3.7 trillion on energy. My colleague from Louisiana wants to say: Let's hamstring U.S. companies--those that might have a solution to some of China's energy needs--from getting the appropriate financing so they can be successful in this program. To me, it is wrongheaded in the fact that we want to be selling to China, as I said, just because in the Northwest we already know what China is as a market. We sell them software, we sell them airplanes, we sell them coffee--we sell

them lots of things. We understand they are a market. To curtail the solutions U.S. companies are working on, whether it is battery technology or smart grid technology or solutions for a whole range of products--you could even say nuclear power solutions or other clean energy source solutions--all of these things would be curtailed under the Vitter amendment.

We do not want to go backward. Not only does the United States want to be a leader in energy solutions in the United States, the United States should have the goal of being an energy winner in the international marketplace, growing jobs through selling solutions that we think can be quite successful in and around the developing world and in China.

I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to make sure we get this bank. As I said regarding the Export-Import financing program, we have about 5 legislative days to give the predictability and certainty American businesses would like to see in making sure U.S. manufacturers win in a global marketplace.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the next 10 minutes.

I have enjoyed listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about Senator Toomey's amendment and all about subsidies. Well, it is hard to argue about subsidies when we are talking about the Ex-Im Bank generating $3.7 billion for U.S. taxpayers since 2005.

So if this is a subsidy, we need a lot more of it because you are winning in producing jobs and you are actually producing money for the Treasury. This is a very important tool for us to win in a global economy. I think my colleague from South Carolina who spoke earlier said it best when he talked about the manufacturing jobs that are now in that State and what an important tool it is.

I am not one of those who basically says: Oh, we should do it because other countries do it. I am saying, you should recognize that is going on, but that the United States needs to understand there is a global marketplace for its products. If you believe in U.S. manufacturers, as I do--and I have seen them in my State--they are winning the day in producing products and services that can beat the competition in international marketplaces. They can.

I have seen grain silos, I have seen music stands, and, yes, I have seen airplanes. So the question is, are we going to let U.S. products that can beat the competition in an international marketplace lose because the purchaser of those products is looking for financing mechanisms that will help them secure financing and purchase of those products? That is the question.

Does the United States want to do those kinds of activities? I say we should be even more aggressive. Why? Because the global development of many countries that are now buying U.S. products is going to continue to grow. In my State, in southwest Washington, in Vancouver, I saw the second largest grain elevator in the entire world--the second largest grain elevator. I said: Why do we have the second largest grain elevator in the entire world right here at the Port of Vancouver? They said to me: Because as the Asian middle class rises, they want to eat beef. And if they want to eat beef, they have to have grain.

What is wrong with the United States selling grain to Asian markets because they want our product--or all these other products we have been talking about today? These are examples of products in the United States where we are actually building a product that many countries and many end customers want. We should celebrate that, and we should realize, as the growing middle class around the globe increases, there is even more opportunity for the United States to sell products and win the day in the marketplace. So I do not know what they are talking about when they say ``subsidies,'' because this has been good for the U.S. taxpayers, and it has been good for our economy.

Specifically to the Toomey amendment, this amendment would require unnecessary conditions for helping the bank in the future. Basically, it would put a hold on the financing of the Export-Import Bank until we negotiated on an international basis to terminate this kind of financing.

As I said, for many States, they have had great benefits. In Pennsylvania, they have had the economic benefit--this is in just 2011--of $1.4 billion in exports and over 9,000 jobs. So here is something that has actually created jobs, created money for the U.S. economy--basically money back to U.S. taxpayers that we have used to help pay down the deficit. So how is it that is bad for us? In the meantime, that manufacturer in Pennsylvania is winning and getting his product out on an international basis and, hopefully, expanding his business to many different countries.

We had numbers on some of the other examples of companies that have been helped in various States. These are products and services like many in my State. We have visited a grain silo producer in Spokane, WA, that is winning in selling its product. We visited a music stands company, Manhasset Music Stands. You would think somebody might be able to compete with them and beat them in the international marketplace, but, in fact, they are winning the day in the international marketplace, and the Export-Import Bank helps them in doing so.

There are many examples of how this particular program is a win for taxpayers, is a win for manufacturers, and is a win for the U.S. economy. These amendments that are all trying to gut the Export-Import Bank would send this back to the House, when we need to be sending it to the President's desk, giving certainty and predictability to our economy, giving certainty and predictability to a program that has existed for decades, for which often there has been a voice vote-- instead of holding it up, actually making sure manufacturers have the opportunity and know where the financing is.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we yield back all time.

Mr. President, this amendment is simply another attempt to gut the Export-Import Bank financing that U.S. manufacturers use to increase the sales of their products around the globe.

The amendment would prohibit U.S. exporters from using the financing for any country that owns U.S. debt. So basically we are saying we are going to prohibit U.S. manufacturers, who make good products, from hoping to sell those to places such as China and others just because of the amount of U.S. debt.

This is about job creation in America for a program that actually generates money to our Treasury and helps us pay down the deficit. We should be helping all U.S. manufacturers sell all around the globe and create jobs at home.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Paul amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment would force the Ex-Im Bank financing to increase its reserves by nearly 400 percent to maintain that 10-percent ratio. Basically we already have a board that audits third-party accountants, OMB, and a bank inspector general reviewing this. This amendment basically would take away from money that actually goes to the Treasury.

This Ex-Im Bank has generated $3.7 billion for taxpayers since 2005. My colleague would rather have that put aside as opposed to helping us pay down the deficit. It has a reserve ratio that has worked for decades, worked successfully, and I like the fact that it helps us pay down the deficit.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Corker amendment.

Madam President, I think this is a nonsensical provision. It says the bank can only make loans--can make more loans if there is an international agreement to terminate the bank.

I know in Pennsylvania, Wallquest finished 2010 with export sales over $17 million, a 61-percent increase because it obtained Ex-Im financing. During the first 2 years, its workforce grew from 80 to 150. Now I know that may not be a big story, but it is the story of the Ex- Im Bank.

So capping it and saying we are not going to give any more money for more loans until we negotiate an end to the bank, I think, is the wrong way to go. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Toomey amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Reform: What It Could Mean for Tribes and Territories.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The High Cost of High Prices for HIV/AIDS Drugs and the Prize Fund Alternative'' on May 15, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2012, at 2:15 p.m. in room SD 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled: ``Missed by the Recovery: Solving the Long-Term Unemployment Crisis for Older Workers.''

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the motion to proceed to the passage of the Export-Import Bank, legislation that has come over from the House and passed the House with a vote of 330 to 93, a pretty resounding vote in favor of moving forward on the Export- Import Bank, which is a major tool to financing manufacturing in the United States when they have products to be sold around the globe.

We hear the President talk all the time about the fact that we need to increase our exports. This is a very important tool that has existed for decades in helping businesses across our country produce product and get sales into overseas markets, so the fact this legislation passed the House again with an overwhelmingly positive vote--and, I should point out to my colleagues here in the Senate, without amendment. It was not amended on the floor. That is, my colleagues on the House side, both Republicans and Democrats, worked out such a positive proposal that it went to the House floor without amendment.

Now we have the chance to bring it up here and pass this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do so very quickly because this legislation and this authorization for the Export-Import Bank is expiring at the end of this month.

So, yes, here we are again at the eleventh hour. Instead of giving predictability and certainty to a very important program, we are down to the last minutes about whether it is going to continue to operate in the normal way that it does. I am here to ask my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to move forward, do as your House colleagues did, agree to the legislation, and let's get it out of here so people know in and across America that this program will continue.

I toured Washington State, which has many companies that benefit from the Export-Import Bank. One of them was a company in Spokane, WA, SCAFCO, which happens to be one of the largest makers of grain silos in the world and they export these grain silos. They are used in the United States, but they are used all over the world. I saw 200 workers there who know firsthand how important it is to get this legislation adopted and moved forward, because it means sales of those grain silos all around the world. They have used this financing mechanism to expand overseas sales to 11 new countries and to make sure they were continuing to compete on an international basis.

If you look over the last 5 years, this bank has supported over $64 billion of sales and exports in Washington State. Yes, some of those jobs are related to aviation, but 83,000 related jobs in Washington State are small businesses, companies such as Sonoco in Moses Lake which is a machine shop, and they do repair parts for aircraft for 40 different clients spread across the globe.

We were at another company in Yakima, a music company. If anybody has heard of Manhasset Music Stands, it is an unbelievable story of a success of a company that has sales of over $1 million to various countries around the globe; and people definitely like the fact that Made in America means quality and that they have been able to access all of these markets.

We saw a company in the Everett area, Esterline, which has built airplane parts and employs over 600 people, and has used this agreement. Basically, they build the overhead cockpit part of airplanes and they sell those to a variety of businesses all around the globe.

Without the financing of the Ex-Im Bank, these companies lose out on an international basis to the financing mechanisms that other countries have, whether that is Canada, Europe, or other places. This program is very successful and, I might add, adds billions of dollars back to the U.S. Government. This is not a program that costs us money. This is a program that basically generates revenue back to the Federal Government.

I want to say to my colleagues, there were several things that were added in the House bill--a GAO report on evaluating the banks and capital market conditions, making sure they do an annual report on due diligence and the purpose of the loan, additional requirements by Treasury, making sure we continue to oversee the Ex-Im Bank; so lots of language in making sure there is transparency in the Ex-Im Bank financing mechanism.

This is a good resolution. I applaud my colleagues in the House, Representatives Hoyer, Cantor, and Boehner, who all worked on this agreement, and I hope my colleagues move quickly on it.

There is one thing we know right now. We need to do everything we can to help our economy and to help jobs. The Ex-Im Bank has been a proven job creator in the United States, helping U.S. companies compete internationally. It has helped us pay down the deficit in the past. Now all we need to do is give it the certainty that it will continue to operate as of May 31 this year. So let's get on with this business of making sure we are focusing on the economy, and make sure, for the Ex- Im Bank, we proceed to this measure and pass it as soon as possible.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's actions on trying to move us forward on a very important jobs bill. The Export-Import Bank is a way to fund manufacturers in the United States so their products can be sold around the globe. It is kind of similar to a Small Business Administration finance program for exports.

We know the President has said we need to increase exports. This is a program that has been in place for decades, never controversial at this degree. Now all of a sudden we are, weeks before the authorization expires, sitting here arguing over whether we can move forward on this bill.

I have great respect for the Senate. But there are some times when the Senate does not get to work out a deal, and we are presented with something that has been worked out by the House of Representatives. We can go back to what the majority leader said, how we got in this spot; that is, objecting to every motion to proceed, objecting to every motion to proceed. Pretty soon all the work stacks up. We try to move legislation and every motion is objected to. So the consequence is we run out of time and we run out of a way to get to a compromise.

In this case, guess what happened. The House came up with a compromise. The House, even to the degree that some of the amendments that some of my colleagues wanted to offer, got implemented into the House compromise bill that now passed the House of Representatives with, whatever, 300-plus votes to 93.

With my colleagues, basically, continuing to just try to derail the normal process, we have had to take now a House bill that I think encompasses many of the things people wanted to

see either in reforms or ways to make the bank more transparent or ways to make sure we are focusing on things that are going to help U.S. manufacturers win the day in a very competitive market.

So I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, yes; Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor worked out a compromise. So now we can again take more time here and analyze it and see whether you agree with that. I certainly like when the Senate works out agreements, and oftentimes we have asked our House colleagues to vote on them. But we now have the student loan bill that needs to be done, this Export-Import Bank that needs to be done, and many other important economic agenda items we should get to for this country.

I hope when the cloture motion comes forward, my colleagues will realize the only thing people are trying to do now--they can vote no on the program if they don't like it because they are primarily amendments to defund the bank. These are not perfecting amendments to a compromise that has been worked out. They want to express their opposition. They will have a chance to do that.

I hope for the sake of thousands of jobs in the United States, for the sake of U.S. competitiveness in a global market, where these companies are competing with other companies around the globe, my colleagues will realize this is a compromise piece of legislation. Let's get it done next week and onto the President's desk so we can go about winning more jobs in a very competitive global economy. That is what we need to do. Holding out 1 more, 2 more, or 3 more days, or another week just to get an amendment saying you hate the Ex-Im Bank, that is not the way to get things done for America.

I hope my colleagues will support moving ahead so we can get this onto the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her leadership on this issue and for her great service on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I know she, as a former prosecutor, has provided a great deal of leadership on many issues, but having her voice on this Senate Judiciary Committee has been very important for our country.

I come to the floor to stand with my colleagues who are here, the women of the Senate, to say we are standing up for women across America. We want the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Today we wish to tell victims of domestic violence that they are not alone. We have to make sure we are giving to local governments and to law enforcement the tools they need to protect victims of domestic violence.

Today we are here with a clear message to victims of domestic violence which is that we will stand with them. We haven't forgotten, and we are not going to let this bill be bogged down in political fighting. We are going to make sure we continue to move ahead. We already have the support of 61 Senators, 47 State attorneys general, and countless law enforcement individuals who are working across the Nation to make sure these victims have an advocate. However, we know there is still opposition that remains, so I want to make sure we address those concerns today.

For those who oppose the bill, I ask them to look at my State of Washington and the threat of domestic violence. In Washington State, law enforcement receives 30,000 domestic violence calls a year, on average, and on any given day in 2011, domestic violence programs served 1,884 people in Washington State. That is why the Violence Against Women Act is so important. In Washington, it really does save lives.

People such as Carissa, one of my constituents, who was in an abusive relationship, was allowed to flee with her then 3-year-old daughter in 1998. She joined me in Seattle recently to highlight the fact that the programs, shelter, and the assistance in starting a new life helped her escape that life of abuse.

I wish to quote Carissa: ``I am standing here alive today because VAWA works.'' Looking into Carissa's eyes, we know this is not about statistics, and it is not about politics. It is about providing a lifeline to women who want to have a different life.

VAWA also helps crack down on violence against mail order brides. It is a story that we all know too well in the Pacific Northwest. Anastasia King and Susana Blackwell were mail order brides who came to Washington State to start a new life with men they believed loved them. Their lives were brutally cut short when their husbands murdered them. This happened after they had been subject to repeated domestic abuse. That is why, in 2005, I sponsored the International American Broker Regulation Act which became part of the Violence Against Women Act. It empowered more and more fiances to learn if their spouses had a history of violent crime, and it now has become part of the reauthorization that is this bill. It includes enhancements that require marriage broker agencies to provide foreign-born fiances with a record of any domestic violence their potential spouses might have engaged in. That way we can stop the abuse before it begins.

Opponents who say the Violence Against Women Act would create immigration fraud and give funds to those who don't need it should consider the story of Anastasia King and Susana Blackwell. Anastasia's and Susana's lives could have been saved had these provisions and protections been in place. We should not deny immigrant women or trafficking victims resources they need to prevent abuse nor should we create barriers for them to get the safety they need. That is why we need to pass the Violence Against Woman Act.

We also need to make it clear that Native American women will receive protection. Deborah Parker of the Tulalip Tribes came to the Capitol this week to explain why this is so important. Deborah is a tireless champion

for the victims of domestic abuse, and she was here to tell her brave story. She spoke eloquently as to why women need to make sure their perpetrators will be charged.

Consider that 39 percent of American Indian women will endure domestic violence in their lifetimes. Compare that with figures that estimate that 24 percent of all women in the United States will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. So we need a Violence Against Women Act that will crack down on the domestic violence in tribal communities. This bill gives the tools so we can make sure we go after those offenders.

Some have warned this will trample on the rights of individuals to have due process and full protection. That is not the case. What we are doing is making sure there will be an investigation on reservations of the suspected abuse. I think it is time we address this epidemic that is happening in Indian Country before it escalates more. That is why we need to make sure every woman in America has the rights under the Violence Against Women Act to be protected.

We have a long way to go to root out domestic abuse and violence. But without these tools, such as VAWA, we are not going to achieve our goals. It is time we pass this legislation for people such as Deborah, for people such as Carissa, and to remember the lives of people such as Susana Blackwell and Anastasia King.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.