Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Congressional Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, on November 15, 2021, I was unable to be present for the rollcall vote No. 466 on the Motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 401, the nomination of Graham Steele to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. However, had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture. I supported Mr. Steele's nomination based on his strong track record as a respected expert on financial policy and consumer protection and his years of service in senior level positions here in the Senate.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I know my colleague--well, I assume my colleague is sincere about his interest in doing something about our issues of port congestion and supply chain issues, but I disagree with his approach here today. I have, personally, worked very hard on increasing the amount of investment in port infrastructure that was in the bill--just signed by the President on Monday--that helps to increase port capacity around the United States. Why? Because we have seen, even in a pandemic, an increase in trade and port activities. So, yes, we have to invest in our infrastructure. I take disagreement with my colleague's characterization that the President hasn't done anything because the President has helped at L.A.-Long Beach in reducing the congestion, and he has put in place a better COVID response process. My colleagues need to understand that longshoremen died in the COVID pandemic while delivering goods and products to us in the United States of America. They died. So getting a better response in vaccination for people working on our docks is incredibly important. So the President has done something. He has got a better COVID response; he has basically helped at reducing congestion; and he has got a plan to invest in our ports all over the United States of America. I know my colleague wishes that it would be so simple, but these shipping companies are reporting more than $200 billion in profit--$200 billion in profit even during the pandemic. So they are not lacking for money. And, if they wanted to go to those ports, they would go to those ports. We heard from one of the big shipping associations that going anywhere, just to say that you want to go there when there are logistical and cost reasons that don't likely bear out, eventually, the customer really just wants to go where the customer wants to go. That is why it is so important to invest in our ports. That is why we led the charge for a $2.25 billion investment. Why? Because 95 percent of consumers live outside of the United States. And if we want to be involved in the trade economy, we should invest in our infrastructure to get product to and from our citizens, to other citizens of the world, the 95 percent who live outside of the United States. So I don't think giving shippers--who are having a recordbreaking profit year--more money is going to make them go to other ports. So I do hope that we continue to look at ways to catch up from the fact that production in many areas of our economy were off. There is no bigger example than the 8-percent reduction in oil from OPEC in 2020. Talk about something we need to address, my colleagues and I sent a letter to President Trump about high oil prices in 2018, and we recommended these various things that the President should do: leverage a relationship with the Saudi Crown Prince to urge them to increase capacity in world oil supplies, make sure the energy Secretary is communicating that with Vienna and OPEC nations, initiate world- trade disputes regarding countries' anti-competitive practices, work with our European allies and China and make sure that they are working on this issue. We just had a hearing this morning asking the FTC, if they do see any kind of manipulation or moving of supply, please investigate it; and, in this case, we said, Abandon the Trump administration's rollback of fuel economy standards. Because guess what Americans want when there are high oil prices? They want fuel-efficient cars. That also is what we just legislated, and that is why we need to keep working on this issue, because as long as we are in a world oil market, and as long as we are under these pressures of OPEC, we are never going to win the day. The best way to win the day is to get an economy that is less dependent on those prices being impacted by OPEC. Now, I may shock some people here this afternoon, but I am for getting rid of the Trump 301 tariffs. These have cost us enormously in the Pacific Northwest--higher seafood costs, higher equipment costs, higher cost on agriculture products, higher costs on aerospace. So we have had the two dilemmas of a COVID pandemic taking a workforce out of production, literally. I don't know if my colleague supported the aid to the airline industry or not, but basically COVID hit, it ended up costing over 15,000 jobs in the aerospace sector in my State--gone, gone, gone. So not here today. If you imagine, if that happened with the airline production--why? Because what airline was going to buy a new plane? It wasn't going to happen. People are saying now they don't think it is going to happen until 2023 or 2024, even though there are some announcements happening now. In general, people don't think that the airline sector is going to recover to where it was before for several years. So just imagine if every other sector did the same thing, that reduced their workforce in response to COVID, and now we are seeing the impacts of that. So what do we do? Let's be smart about each of these cost areas and figure out what we can do to reduce those costs. Giving $125 million to basically the shipping companies of the world that basically have made record profits--one company said that was the biggest profit last year that they have made in 117 years. OK. So they don't need more money to just go from LA, Long Beach to Miami. But I want the Senator of Florida to know I actually believe in his port economy. I don't know what is going to happen to the port economies of the world. I don't know if we are going to switch dynamics. We have supported freight investment because freight can't wait. If you don't have good freight movement, you are going to lose to some other country. So we supported that. In fact, I see my colleague from Maryland here. The director for the Port of Baltimore came and became the director of the Port of Seattle. And I said: Do you think if we invest in freight, moving freight, somehow we might lose to the west coast and other places? He said: The business is just going to continue to grow, and everybody will lose if we don't increase more efficiencies. That is the objective: increase more efficiencies at every port. I know the Presiding Officer from the Great Lakes wants to do the same thing, increase the capacity and efficiency of the Great Lakes. Let's get an icebreaker. Let's invest in port infrastructure. We led the charge. Why? Because I know that the Presiding Officer today knows that the competitiveness of your State in Wisconsin depends on manufacturers getting those products made and outside your State and on to a world market. That is what is going to help us with our economy and reducing price, is to get production up and to get product moving efficiently. So if my colleague--and I sincerely offer this--wants to help me, because I guarantee you not everybody on my side is going to call for this, but I am definitely calling for a repeal of the 301 Trump tariffs. I didn't approve them when he did it the first time because these kind of punitive tariffs just basically exacerbated the problem with retaliatory tariffs, and those retaliatory tariffs are costing us right now. I know that Secretary Yellen is looking at this, I know that USTR is looking at this, and I would just encourage the President to look at this. And I would encourage the President to do everything he can to work with our nation countries to put pressure on OPEC, just as we did before, to try to address this issue on price. But let's work not on reducing the cost to shipping companies that don't need anything because they have seen record profits; let us instead invest in our ports and our ports economy. So, Madam President, I object.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the Local Journalism Sustainability Act. And before the majority leader leaves, I want to thank him for his leadership on such an important piece of legislation. From the very beginning, he understood the fact that diversity in resources is about competition and is a key part of our democracy, and we wouldn't be at the precipice of getting support for local journalism without his help. So I thank him for that. We originally introduced legislation here in the Senate that Senators Wyden, Kelly, Schatz, Markey, Murray, Klobuchar, my colleague Senator Schumer, Manchin, Cortez Masto, Sinema, Baldwin, Lujan, Leahy, and Blumenthal all supported. This is important legislation. We hope our House colleagues will take this up this afternoon or tomorrow, as it is included in the Build Back Better program, to make sure that we have the free press that is essential to our democracy and that we have true competition. Local news is a trusted source of news. Working to high journalistic standards, local newspapers and broadcasters play a critical role in holding our elected officials accountable, shining a spotlight on important news, and challenging the issues of our community to come to light. As one friend of mine said, local news is like hanging a lantern on a problem so that the light shines through. That is exactly why we want to make sure that we continue to support having this diversity of voices, especially while we see in the online world unfair and uncompetitive practices that we know will be discussed by our colleagues, looked at by the Department of Justice, and certainly legislation proposed about. But in the meantime, we want to keep this diversity of voices working. We know that since 2005, newspapers have lost more than 40,000 newsroom employees--about 60 percent of their workforce. Most States have lost more than 50 percent of their newsroom workforce. We cannot let regional and community news organizations continue to die as we navigate very challenging information-age business issues. That is why this legislation is so important. Local journalism is highly trusted in communities around the country. According to a 2019 study from Gallup and Knight Foundation, Americans trust local news over national news by a 2-to-1 margin to ``report the news without bias.'' Local journalism has developed that trust based on transparency, accuracy, ethical reporting, and shining a light on important issues, including crime and corruption, and holding public officials accountable. Local news reporting takes national news stories and translates them into their community news, and America's newspapers and online journalists and radio and television broadcasters are at the heart of this media landscape. During the pandemic, broadcasters continued to provide essential information to audiences, reporting the news and helping us keep connected on such an important issue. The Local Journalism Sustainability Act is essential to maintaining that trust, that diversity of voices, and that local perspective. The tax incentives in this bill will help local newspapers and digital-only news journalists and broadcast newsrooms remain financially viable to retain and hire local-based journalists to cover local news stories. This bill helps incentivize newspapers and broadcasters, including those owned by larger entities, to invest in reporting local news to their relevant communities. Local and regional minority-owned businesses and outlets also benefit from this provision, which is one of the reasons why the association representing the Black press, the National Newspaper Publishers Association, and the National Association of Hispanic Publications also support this legislation. America's democracy really does depend on ensuring that we have access to information and that we have informed decisions. Doing so also means that we have true competition and information and news that can be verified. So I am pleased that the House has incorporated this important provision into the Build Back Better reconciliation program. I hope that when this comes to the Senate, our colleagues will join in supporting this, in helping local newspapers, radio and television stations, and digital journalists continue to help us get the news. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the affordable housing crisis in the USA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record. It is from 44 different mayors representing 20 different States and the District of Columbia, talking about those housing priorities that we need to see in legislation that we will be voting on, including, No. 1, strengthening and expanding the low-income housing tax credit.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor because many of my colleagues--29 have joined a bill that myself and Senator Young sponsored, and, I think, 132 Members in the House of Representatives joined, all saying we need to incent more affordable housing. Why do we need to incent more affordable housing? If you don't incent it with the tax credit, people won't build it, particularly in a place like Seattle, where you can build other things and get a whole lot more money. We need a workforce and we need the workforce to be in Seattle. We don't need them to be four counties away and drive in every day and clog our roads with added traffic that didn't need to be there. We need to build people close to their homes and need the flexibility of the affordable housing tax credit, which has been, in my mind, very helpful in being very specific in every community. You can build affordable housing just for returning veterans. You can build affordable housing for workforce needs. You can build affordable housing just to house previously homeless people. You can build affordable housing to take students who are still going to school and don't have a place to live, making them have affordable opportunities. The affordable housing tax credit is the primary tool with which we build housing. Let me say, 90 percent of the affordable housing that gets built in the USA gets built with the tax credit. That is right. Ninety percent of the affordable housing that gets built in the United States with the tax credit is built with--90 percent of affordable housing gets built with the tax credit. That means even if we have other programs in the legislation that we have been talking about between the House and the Senate--like the home grant program or vouchers or things of that nature--if you don't use this aspect of the program, you are not going to be able to build that housing, so it has been incredibly popular. That is why we have to increase the amount of capital we are going to put towards the tax incentive. The reason why we have to do that is that the United States has a supply shortage. You can ask: Why did we get to this supply shortage? If you ask me, it was really accentuated in the downturn of 2008, when so many more individuals fell out of the job market, creating more demand for affordable housing at that price point. We also, at that point, had a lot of returning veterans, and we had really some very big changes in the diversification of our economy. We had a lot of mental health that had been deinstitutionalized and pushed in a different direction. And we had changes in policy as we saw the challenges of an aging population, really, living a lot longer than people anticipated and they are also needing housing. We had all these issues combined to this dramatic effect of 6.8 million affordable housing shortage in the United States of America. That is the amount of units that we actually have to build. I wish I could say these problems go away if you just don't--if you say: Well, if they don't build the housing, it will just take care of itself. No, it doesn't take care of itself. If these people end up being homeless, it costs 30 percent more to deal with them in our hospitals and in jails. In various places, the people who are truly homeless and living on the streets are extra costs. We actually had hospitals support building affordable housing just so people wouldn't be in their emergency room every day. That is how much it was worth to hospitals to have affordable housing. So the crisis, as we know in America, is that there are now 10.5 million Americans who pay more than 50 percent of their income in rent. That means they are rent-burdened. This number has just continued to go up in the charts for years in growth and, basically, continued to exacerbate the problem. Why? Because people will tell you, you can't spend 50 percent of your income in rent. These dynamics are what is plaguing us in the United States; and it is a problem that, until we increase the affordable housing tax credit, you are not going to get the relief that you think you can get out of this situation. Our legislation--myself and Senator Young's legislation--would have increased the tax credit by 50 percent over a 10-year period of time. That would have helped us build a million more units of affordable housing and try to address this problem in the near term. I hope our colleagues will--as we work through both the proposals that have been part of our infrastructure bill and the reconciliation act--will look and see that we need to include the low-income housing tax credit as part of that proposal. If we don't have the affordable housing tax credit as part of that proposal, we are not going to have the robust solutions that we need. While I understand there are very geographic differences across the United States--the East Coast may have some particular aspects that will be very benefited, and the West Coast has other aspects that would benefit--we all can benefit from the low-income housing tax program. That is what is so unique about it. Every State has used it with great flexibility. Every State has used it to solve their problems, and the incentives have helped us stimulate the economy. It is literally worth billions of dollars of economic activity, and that is why we also should be making this investment. Many times when our country has faced a downturn in the sixties or seventies or eighties, you would hear a shout-out for housing. People would say: Let's build housing. Well, you haven't heard that shout-out in the last decade or so. You literally haven't for a bunch of different reasons. No one has been trumpeting: We need more housing. I tell you, Mr. President, we need more affordable housing for those individuals. And I have met so many in my State whose lives have been changed--literally changed. A woman basically got out of an abusive relationship and moved in with her father in Walla Walla, but knew it wasn't sustainable. She lived in Billingham. Basically, the affordable housing program in Walla Walla got her and her son into a home. She started school. She got a job, changed her life. I have seen it recently in Spokane. Take a couple who basically had become homeless. They separated. They had children that couldn't all live together. They brought them back together under one roof. And in this particular housing project, the promise was made by the partners that everybody in that particular housing would get access not only to help them get a high school education, but a college education as well. That is what you can do with these projects. You can tailor-make them with community partners to address the needs of your specific community. So this tax credit is bipartisan. It worked successfully. I would say it is one of the most successful programs that we had in the United States for getting affordable housing. Let's not leave it off the table. Let's put it in this legislation and make sure it gets to the goal line of the President's desk and is signed into law. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the nomination of Tana Lin to serve as judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. If confirmed, Lin would be the first Asian American appointed as a Federal judge in the State of Washington. Western Washington has one of the largest Asian-American populations in the country, so it is very important that we have her voice on the Federal bench to show the diversity of our country. As an Asian-American woman, the barriers Ms. Lin faced have inspired her to fight for equal justice access to promote diversity within the legal field, and she has had a passion for public service for a long time. She started her legal career as a public defender and served as a mentor to economically disadvantaged youth and mothers interested in pursuing law for many years. So she is extremely well qualified and supported by many, including the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and many others; and I urge my colleagues to support her.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to support the nomination of Lauren King to serve as judge for the U.S. District Court of Western Washington. I am pleased to have recommended her to President Biden. As a citizen of the Muscogee Nation, Ms. King will be the first Native American Federal judge from my home State and only the sixth- ever Native judge in our country's history. She is extremely well qualified and has an abundance of Tribal court experience, something that is very important in my State. We are home to 29 federally recognized Tribes, and it is long overdue that our Federal court system includes those who have deep understanding and appreciation of Tribal trust responsibilities and Federal Indian law. Ms. King has extensive litigation experience and is a recognized leader in Tribal law. She has been a pro tem appellate judge for the Northwest Intertribal Court System since 2013. She has also served as a commissioner on the Washington State Gambling Commission and chairs her law firm's Native American Law Practice Group. A graduate from the University of Washington and the University of Virginia School of Law, she has also taught Federal Indian law at Seattle University. She has earned the support of the National Congress of American Indians, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and other leading Native organizations. I know she will make an excellent addition to our court in the Western District of Washington, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important provision I authored in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Section 40336 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, H.R. 3684, includes several provisions relating to the Act of June 29, 1940, 54 Stat. 703, chapter 460; 16 U.S.C. 835d et seq., that facilitated the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam. The portion of the Columbia River that flows through the Colville and Spokane Indian Reservations formerly supported abundant anadromous salmon fisheries that were significant culturally and nutritionally to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Upon completion of the Grand Coulee Dam in 1942, these fisheries were destroyed, and the Columbia River upstream of the Grand Coulee Dam was inundated by its reservoir waters. In 1945, these reservoir waters were designated Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake and today are commonly referred to as Lake Roosevelt. The 1940 Act instructed the Secretary of the Interior to ``set aside approximately one-quarter of the entire reservoir area for the paramount use of the Indians of the Spokane and Colville Reservations for hunting, fishing, and boating purposes, which rights shall be subject only to such reasonable regulations as the Secretary may prescribe for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife . . . .'' 16 U.S.C. 835d (emphasis added). Congress authorized the Secretary in the 1940 Act ``to perform any and all acts and to prescribe such regulations as [it] may deem appropriate'' to protect these paramount use rights. 16 U.S.C. 835h. The portions of Lake Roosevelt ultimately set aside for the paramount use of the Colville and Spokane Tribes pursuant to the 1940 Act are within the Colville and Spokane Reservations and are called the ``Reservation Zone'' of Lake Roosevelt. In a 1945 Opinion, Interior Solicitor Warner Gardner interpreted the 1940 Act and confirmed that the 1940 Act provided the Tribes ``special rights'' to hunt, fish and boat within the Reservation Zones. 59 I.D. 147 (Dec. 29, 1945). Solicitor Gardner also found that the Secretary has broad discretion to determine how to protect the Tribes' paramount rights, including the power to ``give the Indians exclusive rights of hunting, fishing, and boating'' in the Tribes' respective Reservation Zones.'' In 1990, Interior entered an agreement with the Colville and Spokane Tribes establishing the framework for cooperative management of Lake Roosevelt between the Tribes, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The agreement, commonly referred to as the ``S-Party Agreement,'' provides for the Colville and Spokane Tribes to ``manage, plan and regulate all activities, development and uses that take place'' within the Tribes' applicable portion of the Reservation Zones. The 5-Party Agreement also directs that the Bureau of Indian Affairs ``shall assist the tribes in carrying out the tribes' management of the Reservation Zone, and undertake such other activities as are authorized by law in support of the tribes.'' At the Tribes' request, the Department of the Interior and its agency stakeholders previously initiated a process to consider potential solutions, including various possible Federal administrative actions to protect the Colville and Spokane Tribes' paramount rights. This process involved government-to-government meetings and communications with both Tribes and with the State of Washington. The Department of the Interior considered several options, including rulemaking. A summary of the parties' efforts in this regard were memorialized in a January 19, 2017, letter from Interior Solicitor Tompkins to the State of Washington and the Colville and Spokane Tribes. The references to the Tribes' paramount use rights in section 40336 are intended to reaffirm the 1940 act's recognition of those rights and to recognize that the Secretary of the Interior has both a federal trust responsibility and broad discretion to protect the Tribes' paramount use rights. Thank you.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, Senator Scott's bill would prohibit the Department of Transportation, Amtrak, Transportation Security Administration, or other Agencies from requiring passengers in interstate transportation to show proof of COVID-19 in order to travel. I appreciate my colleagues--all of whom I serve with on the Commerce Committee. I know that they know well--we have had a lot of discussions about the impacts of COVID-19 on our transportation sector. They know very well that we had to spend a lot of resources keeping our transportation sector moving. Why? Because we have to move goods and services and products. During COVID-19, we had to move essential workers, and we had to move product. There is no doubt our transportation system needs to have keen oversight as it relates to moving in even a pandemic. That is what we did. I am proud of the work that we did. But it is not lost on anybody that COVID-19, the deadliest pandemic in U.S. history--as of September 28, there have already been 700,000 COVID-19-related deaths in the United States and over 43 million infections. In my State, 7,586 deaths and 652,000 cases. So the point is here, we have been fighting this pandemic with all of these tools and no one has ever suggested the one--that Senator Scott nor my colleagues from the Commerce Committee are saying what the President might do. That is not what he has suggested. In fact, I was very involved in an area of transportation where we wanted to get cruise ships back in service to Alaska at a critical moment--both for Alaska and a critical moment during the pandemic. Not everybody was ready to have that happen; not everybody was ready to move. And yet it meant so much to Alaska that we all worked together. And in some instances, those cruise ships said: We are going to require the vaccine. So the point is here, we are not trying to mandate this. Now, if the President and the industry feel that it is important to have a workforce so that that workforce continues to serve us and conserve the growing response to the pandemic--which I mean responding to the aftermath of the pandemic--that is why we spent money. That is why we are trying to take off. That is why we are trying to return a workforce. That is why we are returning kids to school. That is why we are trying to get our hospitals staffed. That is why we are doing things. That is the only thing the President said, is that those people should get a vaccine. He has not said, if you want to get on an airplane, you have to get vaccinated--maybe if you are flying overseas and have to work with another country. My colleague from Florida knows all too well because he and I are working together to try to get temperature checks in a very broad way established at airports through the U.S. We have agreed that is a smart thing to do. It has been done on an international basis for a long time and it prevents people from getting on a plane who are sick. The President has not said this. To now put a bill through that might have prohibited the cruise ship industry reestablishing service up to Alaska because now, all of a sudden, you are going to have all of these things is not the way I want to go. I like what we have been able to achieve. It has taken hard work and working together. It does not take us passing this bill by Senator Scott. I object, and I hope my colleagues understand that we are willing to work on anything related to the transportation sector so it can keep our U.S. economy moving.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to support the nomination of David Estudillo to serve as district court judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Murray in supporting Judge Estudillo, who was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis, and I certainly appreciate the support of both the chairman and the ranking member on this nomination. Mr. Estudillo is the son of Mexican immigrants who came to the Yakima Valley as part of the Bracero Program in the 1960s. Growing up, he learned and embraced both the culture of his parents and that of the United States. Judge Estudillo is a great example of the successes and contributions many immigrant families make to our great Nation. Judge Estudillo earned an associate of arts degree from Columbia Basin Community College and his bachelor of arts degree and juris doctorate from the University of Washington. After graduating from law school, Judge Estudillo practiced general and civil litigation and immigration law in Moses Lake and Seattle and tried cases in both Seattle and Tacoma immigration courts. He is well experienced in many issues of the law. He was appointed to the Grant County Superior Court in 2015 and was the only Latino judge in any Eastern Washington State court. Judge Estudillo received bipartisan support, with endorsements from both Democratic and Republican local officials and support from all nine of Washington State Supreme Court justices. He has earned the respect and the support of his community. To quote a letter that was sent to the Judiciary Committee from Mayor David Curnel of Moses Lake, WA, he said Judge Estudillo ``is a respected member of our community. He is involved in our community. He is committed to our community. This is what I understand about Judge Estudillo and why I can recommend him highly for a Federal judge position.'' In short, Judge Estudillo is a well-qualified jurist, and he has dedicated his entire legal career to practicing and supporting his community. I am pleased to have recommended him along with my colleague Senator Murray to the President. I know his strong character and respect for the rule of law, a sense of justice, fairness, humility, empathy, and capacity for compassion and understanding would be a benefit to the court and all the parties concerned. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Estudillo's nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CANTWELL

Mrs. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 14, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 14, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 14, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 14, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 14, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, many States in the United States need infrastructure investment, but I would put the State of Washington high on the list of States that desperately need infrastructure investment. We have been blessed with a growing economy and a big trade economy based on the Pacific rim and the actions of the Pacific rim. So we need to keep moving products. We need to keep moving services, and we need infrastructure investment to do so. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the work done by the Commerce Committee and those who worked on the Infrastructure Investment Act, specifically: Kara Fischer, Michael Davisson, Joanie Lofgren, Zeb Schorr, Ronce Almond, Alex Simpson, G.G. Slais, Nicole Teutschel, Jennifer Quan, Matthew Bobbink, Jami Burgess, David Martin, Amit Ronen, Stacy Baird, Devon Helfrich, Patrick Eckroth, Naseem Mehyar, Hannah Albert, Eric Vryheid, Elle Wibisino, John Branscome, Shawn Bone, Brian McDermott, Mary Claire York, Jared Bomberg, Shannon Smith, John Beezer, Noam Kanter, Jordan Blue, Tiffany George, Lucy Koch, Hunter Hudspeth Blackburn, Kelly Ryan, Dave Stewart, Melissa Porter, and David Strickland. These are some of the individuals who were involved in putting together the commerce piece of this underlying bill. About 20 percent of the underlying bill was the focus of the Commerce Committee and its jurisdiction. I want to thank Ranking Member Wicker and his staff for the hard work to pull off what was the bipartisan bill that came to the Senate floor as part of this package. Our legislation, I think, is a historic investment to rebuild our transportation infrastructure, including investments in things like megaprojects, basically helping to eliminate our problems at grade crossings, improve our freight network, improve our environment by removing culverts, and helping Amtrak better serve the United States of America. All these were important investments, but we should look at the firsts. First, we are authorizing for the first time megaprojects. Megaprojects often take up so much of our budget in our States and federally they never get funded, but that doesn't mean they aren't critical to the United States. In the Northeast Corridor, we certainly have megaprojects. In the Pacific Northwest, we have megaprojects that would be critical, like the Columbia River Crossing between Vancouver and Portland, or the Highway 2 trestle in Everett. These projects deserve the attention of the Nation and, with this first-time authorization, will get so. The bill also puts a historic investment in freight and in Amtrak. As I mentioned, the economy of a global nature is demanding that we be able to move competitively our products. But if we don't continue to invest in freight, we are not going to get that job done. So this provides $66 billion to improve our passenger rail and freight system, the single largest investment that we have had in our Amtrak system that was funded 50 years ago. The Commerce Committee's bill lays the foundation for this funding, which I believe will do three things. It will mean more investment to fix the problems in the Northeast Corridor; more specifically, it will give us the ability to have more sequencing of trains throughout the United States of America; and it will provide for new service in city pairs that, I hope, will help economies all across the United States with more investments. I know, specifically, the Senator from Montana, Senator Tester, is very adamant about our Amtrak funding and the services that Montana demands. I want to thank him for his help on this. I want to thank Senator Duckworth for her hard work in making sure that Amtrak complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is so important for us to do, and her language, making sure that we also have someone from the disabilities community on the Amtrak board, is the kind of thing that should be followed in other examples in this legislation. I also want to say, for the first time, we are addressing specifically at-grade crossings. This is the instance where there is congestion in freight, in my State, multiple times the increase in freight traffic. Again, you know, a lot of Midwest product moving to Asia has increased a demand in safety and transportation. Somebody quoted one of our reports that it took freight 3 days to get through just the city of Chicago because of the amount of congestion. Our job here is to make sure that our product, made and grown in the United States of America, gets quickly to its destinations or we will be outcompeted by other nations that have an infrastructure system that can beat us to those marketplaces. So this provides, for the first time, a focused program on improving at-grade crossings to continue to make the investments that need to be made to keep our freight moving and our public safe. It also, for the first time, authorizes transportation improvements to repair culverts. Culverts and other transportation infrastructure have done damage to our environment. They have done damage to fish; they have basically blocked spawning grounds. They have caused other infrastructure challenges to species all along our coastal States. This program will help to improve that situation by repairing some of the fish passage that has been blocked for so many years. This is so important for us in the Pacific Northwest, but it is also important throughout the South and for our many, many coastal communities. So this transportation legislation that went through the Commerce Committee, as I said, also, you know, makes other investments. This floor bill also makes other investments for bridge repair, for transit systems, for climate resiliency, and specifically for our airports. You probably haven't heard too much about that out here on the floor, but in the Commerce Committee, I can tell you that aviation, transportation, and competitive--I know that the Presiding Officer knows this very well; that in Las Vegas or in Reno that infrastructure like our airports is essential to our economy continuing to grow. SeaTac is probably one of the fastest growing airports in the United States right now, and under this legislation, we will also see an important improvement for our airports so they can continue to grow and so we can continue to make investments. I also want to, as I mentioned, thank Senator Wicker in the title for vehicle safety. These are important provisions that he and I and others on the committee--Senator Blumenthal for his work on safety legislation that related to both the Northeast Corridor and to individuals in transportation, including, with Senator Wicker, the lifesaving technology, like an automatic emergency braking system, preventing child heat stroke deaths, and impaired driving faculties. So I again thank all of the members of the Commerce Committee for their hard work in getting this legislation as part of this package. I think we can see that we have some firsts here: first investing in megaprojects; first in cleaning up our environmental problems with culverts; getting our freight product through our most congested corridors with improved at-grade crossing; and making the major investment so that Amtrak can continue to expand. So I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move through the legislative process and continue to make improvements in our transportation infrastructure. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader