Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to follow my colleagues, Senators Thune and Nelson and to thank them for the FAA bill which we just passed and which is on its way to the President's desk. I so appreciated working with the chairman and ranking member and my colleague on the subcommittee, Senator Blunt, on this FAA reauthorization bill. As mentioned by the chairman, this is the first long-term reauthorization in decades, and it represents a 5-year investment in critical infrastructure that our airports need all throughout the United States. It represents for us in the Pacific Northwest hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in our airports that help us continue to grow our economic and regional economies. Everybody in the State of Washington knows that we are bursting at the seams when it comes to our airports and that we need more capacity--particularly at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, where we saw an increase of nearly 2 million passengers. It has been one of the fastest growing airports in the Nation for the last 5 years. This long-term infrastructure bill will provide hundreds of millions of dollars for airport investments in our State and will help us meet that growth and demand. This bill is also a major down payment on security and efficiency to help us handle that growth and the impact to our economy and to our transportation systems. That is one of the reasons this bill has provisions to bring more K-9 units to airports throughout the United States, including the State of Washington. The K-9 units have been vital to helping us cut nearly in half the time it takes to get passengers through the airport screening process, and I believe they are a tremendous deterrent, and they make sure that our airports are safe and secure from those who may want to do harm. The fact that we are improving the ability of these K-9 units to be supported by local airports is one of the great aspects of this bill as well. We also want to note that our airport infrastructure across the State includes a lot of contract towers; that is, airports that help us with regional transportation, private transportation, and a diverse range of operations. Yet these airports are often in the shadows of larger airports, whether that is Felts Field in Spokane or Walla Walla Airport. Making sure that these contract tower airports receive support and funding so they can continue to help our aviation sector and the flying public is a great aspect of this bill. Also, many of my colleagues have talked about the other improvements to safety and security. We are continuing to make a down payment on next-generation technology; that is, our air traffic control system. I can't say enough about how important it is for us to continue to move forward on the NextGen aviation system. It helps us fly more efficiently. It saves on fuel costs. It helps our system operate more efficiently. The bill's innovation also takes a next step forward on unmanned aerial vehicles. I again thank our colleagues--particularly Senator Thune and Senator Nelson--for their great work on this, and my colleague Senator Blunt. Making aviation investments is critical to continuing to grow an aviation economy in the United States. It is also just as critical to growing economies around the State because air transportation helps them attract and keep businesses in the area. While we have Sea-Tac bursting at the seams, we have other regional airports that are still trying to grow, and giving them this infrastructure investment will help in the future. I again thank our colleagues. I am glad we are moving forward on the first long-term aviation infrastructure investment in decades. Some of us here may remember the last bill, on which I think we had something like 23 extensions over many, many years before we finally got a bill. So this represents the first time in many decades that we now have a 5- year picture that we can look at and see the investment for aviation moving forward. I thank my colleagues and will continue to work with them on other aspects of aviation improvement for the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill. Before I do that, I would like to take a moment to recognize a graduate of Rogers High School in Puyallup, WA. SSG Ronald J. Shurer II, who received the Medal of Honor yesterday for his selfless heroism in Afghanistan. When he heard wounded members of his team were trapped on a hill, he didn't hesitate. In the face of heavy enemy fire, Staff Sergeant Shurer shielded three wounded teammates with his own body and helped them reach safety. I congratulate Staff Sergeant Shurer for his heroism and bravery and his sacrifice, and I would like to congratulate him and his family on his receiving this honor. We in Washington are very proud of Staff Sergeant Shurer.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to join the voices of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--in making sure this process that is going to continue to play out over the next several days is a fair one. I will say to people right now that I am not for Judge Kavanaugh. I don't believe that his decisions and his views are in the mainstream of judicial opinion in the United States of America. I believe that not just about a woman's right to choose. I believe that not just about his decision on net neutrality. I definitely believe that about his decision on executive branch power. My views are known. I would expound on them if I thought that is what we are here to debate today, and maybe that will happen in the future. But I am here this afternoon to ask my colleagues to think about this issue of sexual assault in a new way. It is not a new way that you have never thought of before, but a way that says it is time for us to slow down and have a nonpartisan investigation into the accusations that have been made by three women. The reason that is so important is that in the last several days there have been comments that she is mixed up or confused or can't remember. I will tell you this: I guarantee you that any woman in the United States of America who has been assaulted remembers that she was assaulted. She may not remember exactly what the person was wearing, and she may not remember every person who was there, but I guarantee you it is seared into her mind, into her heart, and into her soul that she has been assaulted. The question before us in the U.S. Senate is, Are we going to take seriously the process and not rush it to a conclusion and not join the ranks of other institutions that have swept allegations under the rug? We all know where the Catholic Church is today, with information and documentation of accusations where people decided that, no, those couldn't be true; no, we don't have to listen; no, we can do something about it. When I think about the fact that at least 332 victims were abused by one person in the gymnastics program at Michigan State and people said ``We don't have to pay attention to that,'' when I think about what happened at Penn State to young boys that people deny, that this couldn't be what is happening with Jerry Sandusky--it couldn't possibly be happening--I know that this is a cultural problem. I have heard statistics that cite that anywhere from 20 percent of women in the United States of America have faced sexual abuse to a website by the Centers for Disease Control that says it is one in three women. One in three women in the United States of America has faced sexual assault or abuse, and we don't think it is a crisis? I am pretty sure there are more women in the United States of America who have been the victims of sexual assault than of the opioid crisis, yet we call that a crisis. What are we doing to make sure we are not like other institutions that have not fully addressed this issue? We do not want to be the ones who rush through a process that demonstrates that the vote on the Supreme Court is more important than getting the truth. We need a nonpartisan investigation into the facts of these allegations against this Supreme Court nominee. When I think of the tragedy that faces Native American women, it breaks my heart. Over 50 percent of Native American women have faced sexual assault and abuse--50 percent. How is that not a crisis? So my colleagues, I know, do not think they are doing damage. They think they are sticking up for a nominee. They think they are sticking up for somebody that their team--their bench--pulled out of the ranks of their party or their backgrounds suggest that he should be the nominee. I understand their desire. But the desire today has to be that we do not make the same mistakes as other institutions, that we pay attention to these things and we take them seriously. I implore my colleagues to do so. Why? It is because every victim in the United States of America who thinks that you are not giving these accusations their due is reoffended in the belief that society does not take this crisis seriously. So I implore my colleagues: I know you think you are playing on a political scorecard to get something done for your party, but please make sure we have a thorough, nonpartisan investigation into these accusations so that we can tell victims of sexual assault in the United States of America that we treat these accusations seriously. We did our job. There is no rush, but for the actual facts that we can move forward on. I know we can have more conversations about this. I know we can, and we should. We should. We had these conversations during the debate on the Violence Against Women Act, and we made sure that Native American women are covered under that law--a tricky problem in the Federal law that made a gap even worse by not having the aid and support--and now, with Federal help and support with Indian trial courts, we have created a better system to bring those perpetrators of those crimes to justice. But we can, as an institution, also come to terms that this is a cultural problem in the United States of America, and we too must do our part. We must help. We must not keep reinjuring people by saying that we are not going to take the time to find the truth. So I implore my colleagues, please--and for those of you who have spoken out, like my colleague from Arizona: Thank you. Thank you for helping us get to the truth in this matter. Thank you for standing up for women, for men, for Indian Country, and those who have faced this abuse. Let's make sure that this institution moves in a serious but deliberate and cautious path and does not spend its time tomorrow prosecuting a woman but listening to the facts and information that she gives. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I just wanted to follow my colleague from Washington with comments about having a hearing in the Judiciary Committee as we proceed to next Monday. I think it is very important that all of our colleagues have all of the information. I also think it is important that an investigation be taken seriously and be underway at the same time. So I hope that my colleagues are not just thinking that we will have a hearing and move forward as quickly as possible but will treat this as the serious investigation that people in the State of Washington and around the country want to see. I so appreciate the fact that this is a very challenging time, but information must be received and a true investigation must also occur. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to thank my colleagues for working so hard on this very important legislation we are going to pass tonight to deal with the opioid crisis. From Port Angeles to Spokane, I guarantee my colleagues that I have heard about this problem, I have seen how our communities are struggling, and this is the very help that they have been asking for. They want new tools, they want better solutions, and they want us to join the fight against drug manufacturers who push these drugs out to communities when they should be following a process and reporting so that our law enforcement can cut down on the huge amounts of opioids streaming into our communities. This legislation does many things, and I am glad that it does. The STOP Act will help crack down on shipments of fentanyl into the United States via the U.S. mail, which is something that is very important that we do, and I thank my colleague from Ohio for that. It authorizes funding for a new grant program to help train law enforcement and protect them against the deadliest opioids, like fentanyl, because their exposure to it has been so unbelievable and it is a risk to them every day they are out there doing their job. This bill reauthorizes the drug courts program, which many people in the State of Washington have told me has been beneficial to how they deal with this crisis as it relates to the individuals in their States, helping nonviolent offenders recover and helping them move forward. It reauthorizes the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, which uses Federal resources to help local law enforcement crack down on illicit drug rings. We need to help law enforcement, which is dealing with this problem every single day, to have the tools to do this job. The fact that it reauthorizes the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program is just the kind of tool they need. This bill also makes permanent the ability for doctors to treat up to 275 patients with the kind of treatment that is necessary for them, which also helps us to get to people faster and to get them into a recovery situation faster. One thing I really want to draw attention to is this issue of hearing over and over about how opioid manufacturers have flooded our communities with a product when, in reality, current law says they are supposed to monitor and track the distribution of this drug. Well, in too many cases, those safeguards have not been followed. Throughout their process, they weren't reporting on suspicious orders of opioids that prevents them from ending up in the wrong hands, and in some instances, they ended up in the hands of a black market, which then continued to flood communities with the product. In one example, a physician in Everett, Washington, wrote more than 10,000 prescriptions of opioids. This number of prescriptions was 26 times higher than the average prescriber in Everett, Washington. So he wrote 26 times more opioid prescriptions than the average provider. However, the drug manufacturer failed to report this suspicious activity. When we authorized this drug, we said this process is what has to happen. Because of its highly addictive nature, it has to be tracked. Law enforcement has to keep track of and be advised of anything that looks like suspicious activity. This abnormally high number was a clear red flag that should have been reported. Instead, the opioid manufacturer turned a blind eye to the negligent distribution. In response to those abuses, people in my State and in many other States have been critical and have filed lawsuits because they have been so concerned about this issue. What is clear, though, is that we need to do something now to make sure that opioid manufacturers follow the law that is already on the books about the reporting of suspicious distribution or volumes of distributions that are suspicious. Today, this legislation takes a major step forward on that front by including penalties for negligent opioid distribution strong enough to serve as a deterrent to those manufacturers against the actions we have seen in the past. The bipartisan Opioid Crisis Response Act includes provisions from legislation that I and Senator Harris from California authored. Our provisions increase the civil and criminal penalties on companies that fail to take responsible measures to prevent their drugs from entering the black market. Our legislation increases the civil penalties by 10 times, from $10,000 to $100,000 per violation. That adds up very quickly in what we think have been transactions that have been very suspicious. In addition, the bill increases the maximum criminal penalty to $500,000 for companies that willfully disregard and/or knowingly fail to keep proper reporting on these distribution activities. Again, this is what we put into the law because of the highly addictive nature of these drugs. We said that they have to be monitored and their distribution has to be monitored because prior to today the slap on the wrist was not enough of a deterrent, and most of those requirements were ignored. Today, we are putting a much more stringent requirement in the law to say that they will get serious fines if they don't follow the law. This is such an important issue that a bipartisan group of 39 U.S. state attorneys general sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of this effort. Our own attorney general, Bob Ferguson, helped in promoting that effort, and I want to thank him. The state attorneys general said: Diversion of prescription opioids has devastated communities in our states. The consequences for turning a blind eye to suspicious opioid orders cannot merely be a cost of doing business. We urge you to support . . . the CARES Act to ensure that penalties effectively hold manufacturers accountable and help stem diversion. So I agree with those state attorneys general, and I am so glad this is included in this legislation. Creating a more serious attitude toward the illegal distribution of this product and its falling into the hands of black markets is so serious. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the importance of teaching computer science and coding in our education system. Throughout the United States and especially in my home State of Washington, our internet economy is booming. Nationwide it represents 7 percent of our GDP, which makes up 13 percent of Washington State's economy. In Washington State, over 13,000 internet companies provide more than a quarter of a million jobs. Every student in America should be taught the tools they need to enter our 21st century economy. Every student in the United States should have the opportunity to learn about the internet, and algorithms, and apps. This is a skills gap we have to close, and that is why I joined with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Cassidy, to introduce the High School CODES Act earlier this year. Senator Cassidy and I have long considered and spoken about the importance of allowing students to have the ability fulfill a math, science, or language requirement with a coding class. That is why Senator Cassidy and I were pleased to include language in the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act that the President signed into law yesterday. The language in the bill would allow Federal funds to support ``efforts to expand, develop, and implement programs to increase the students' opportunity for rigorous courses'' in coding and computer science and ``support statewide efforts to create access to implementation of coding and computer science.'' Additionally, Senator Cassidy and I were pleased to get an amendment included in the appropriations bill that highlights the importance of a dedicated funding stream for coding courses in K-12 education. During the Carl D. Perkins markup negotiations both the majority and minority agreed to include strong report language that captures the intent of our original bill, S. 3122, the High School CODES Act. Additionally, we are pleased that Senator Alexander agreed to send a letter to Education Secretary DeVos expressing the same. I ask Senator Cassidy, is it your understanding that the purpose of our legislation is to incentivize States to allow coding classes be used in lieu of advanced math, science, or foreign language requirements?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the importance of teaching computer science and coding in our education system. Throughout the United States and especially in my home State of Washington, our internet economy is booming. Nationwide, it represents 7 percent of our GDP and makes up 13 percent of Washington's economy. In Washington, more than 13,000 internet companies provide more than a quarter of a million jobs. We want to keep this American success story going, but to do that, we need to make sure these startups have the workforce of tomorrow that they need. That is why it is so important for children throughout the United States to be able to learn to code in school. Every student in America should be taught the tools they need to enter our 21st-century economy. I laugh and say all the time that I took typing and Latin as my prerequisite requirements in college. I am not saying that typing and Latin didn't help me today, but I question whether we are teaching the same skills today that we need for the 21st-century economy. Every student in the United States should have the opportunity to learn about the internet, algorithms, and applications. In Washington, we are making progress in this area because 31 percent of our high schools offer coding classes, but more still needs to be done. According to a great organization, code.org, 90 percent of parents in the United States want their children to study or understand computer science; however, only 40 percent of their children are taught anything about computer programming. Computer jobs are the No. 1 source of new jobs in the country. Currently, there are more than 500,000 computer job openings in the United States. This is a skills gap we have to close if we want to continue to develop these new products and services. That is why I worked with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Cassidy, to introduce the High School CODES Act earlier this year. Our legislation creates a new Federal grant program to help high schools throughout the country establish or expand coding education programs for their students. Ninety percent of parents want their children to study computer science, so we should be providing them more opportunities. Children in cities, suburbs and rural communities all should have access to these computer science programs. As I mentioned, in my State, the demand for computer science and coding programs is clear. Right now, Washington has more than 16,000 good-paying job openings in computer science. Still, only 31 percent of our State schools offered computer science courses for the high school level between 2016 and 2017. What is standing in our way? Well, in many cases, it is the cost of developing a computer science curriculum and getting a program up and running in the high school. That is exactly the problem our legislation tries to solve by giving local communities the resources they need to develop and implement good computer science curriculums that make the most sense for those communities. As I said, not everybody will necessarily go into computer science. I took typing and Latin, which gave me a fundamental understanding of both of those things. What is wrong with everybody having a fundamental understanding of the language of the 21st-century computer programming? I was excited, with Senator Cassidy, when we were able to include language in the reauthorization of the Perkins vocational and technical educational bill, which the President signed today, to move us closer to that goal. The language in the bill that was signed by the President would allow the use of Federal funds to support efforts to expand, develop, or implement programs to increase opportunities for students to take rigorous courses in coding and computer science and support statewide efforts to create access to and implementation of coding and computer science. This is a great example of what we can do when working together in a bipartisan manner. It is the first important step to make sure that every student understands some level of what our economy is going to be built on in the future. We will have plenty of work to do. As I said, not everyone will go into computer science, but having a basic understanding of how just about everything in your home and your workplace is going to work, and even your car and other applications that you have, will be a good bridge to this economy. We are going to continue to work together and find ways that computer science and coding can be taught in our classrooms. At the Federal level, we don't have a lot of control over that curriculum at the local level, but we can incentivize, as we are doing today, schools across the United States, with a little Federal support, to make sure that coding and computer science are key parts of a high school education. I want to thank my colleague Senator Cassidy for working on this important issue with me and helping to get it included in this Perkins legislation. I thank all my colleagues for voting for it and the President for signing it. The economy of the future can leave people behind but not if we help prepare them for the future, and part of preparing them for the future is just a basic understanding of how programming and computer science work. I hope many schools across the United States will take up this opportunity. I hope it will lead to many new applications, new job creations, and greater awareness of what STEM education is all about. Having people trained in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math is key to our country's future. I am so glad the President is signing this legislation today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to join the debate this morning on the farm bill and to make sure we get the farm bill passed. It is so important to the State of Washington and to our country. I know many of my colleagues have been down here talking about agriculture, but in the State of Washington, it is responsible for about 164,000 jobs. And while we produce about $10-plus billion of economic activity, about $180 billion of economic activity goes through our ports every year. So if you are growing an agricultural product in the United States, there is a good chance you are shipping that product through Washington ports, going to Asia and a variety of places. The agriculture and food industry is a huge part of our U.S. economy as well, and provides 11 percent of total U.S. employment. So to say this bill is an important economic tool is an understatement. We know that in the United States of America, a trade surplus in agriculture has existed for 50 years. So when we are talking about making investments and opening new markets and protecting agriculture from the trade war that we are seeing, it is very important that this bill helps recognize the hard work that the farmers in the United States of America have done in growing our economy. We must make sure they continue to have those economic opportunities in the future. Since U.S. exports gained access to markets like South Korea more than a decade ago, Washington farmers in my State have seen increases in exports of up to 80 percent for potatoes and 200 percent for cherries. Agriculture exports support more than a million jobs around the United States, so it's important to maintain our agriculture trade surplus. I am proud to say that, working with our colleagues, the chairman of the committee, Senator Roberts, and the ranking member, Senator Stabenow, we have worked to make sure that we are making improvements and increasing MAP, the Market Access Program. This critical program provides technical assistance and more flexibility for the Secretary of Agriculture to help our farmers increase access to new markets. This is so important at a time when we are seeing so much chaos in the marketplace. We want to make sure we continue to have an aggressive attitude toward opening markets--not closing them. From 1977 to 2014, it is estimated that our market access programs produced an average return on investment of $28 for every dollar that was invested--that is, when you are opening a market to sell U.S. products abroad. That is a huge investment for us to export our product into those countries. I know that some of our colleagues have been working across the aisle to help make sure that MAP funding is more secure and that we invest more. I am working with my colleague, Senator Crapo from Idaho, to make sure that provisions are in this bill that give the Secretary more flexibility to help us on things like our fruit products and potato products from the Pacific Northwest. I appreciate his help making sure this bill represents at least some of us who want to increase those opportunities for the future. Washington State is the third largest exporter of food and agricultural products in the United States. Our agricultural sector accounts for 13 percent of our economy annually, and we are proud to grow about 300 different types of products. There are nearly 40,000 farms, and, as I said, 164,000 Washingtonians are employed in that sector. We continue to work to make sure that the type of research that is represented in this bill--the R&D that is done in great institutions in our State, such as Washington State University, provide good information for us. And our agricultural extension programs need to be funded to make sure that conservation continues to be an opportunity for our farmers. Our farmers must have resources to diversify their crops. All of these things are important in moving a farm bill through the Senate and on to the President's desk eventually. I am very concerned that my colleagues in the House of Representatives want to cut or limit the SNAP program. This has been an essential tool as part of ag for a long time and should continue. The notion that we are going to hold up an ag bill at a critical time, when concerns about tariffs are impacting our farmers, is wrong. What we need to do is move forward on giving the assurances to our farmers that we want them to have the research and development, we want them to have the tools of conservation, and that we certainly want them to have the Market Access Program so they can continue to reach markets all around the globe. Our ag economy is so important to us in the Pacific Northwest. This bill is helping us make a downpayment on it and giving us a little flexibility. I am going to take the Secretary of Agriculture at his word today. I heard him on television saying he is going to mitigate any kind of damage being done to farmers based on tariffs. I am going to hold him to his word. Believe me, as we move this legislation through the process, I am going to make sure that every tool is available for the great products that we grow in Washington State. I want them to reach market destinations. I don't want them to be retaliated against in a trade war. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to honor Washington State's finest, Spokane native and Washington State University Cougar Steve Gleason. I know my Senate colleagues will be here later this afternoon to do the same. My colleagues from Louisiana and Washington have introduced legislation to award Steve the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest honor. I look forward to seeing this legislation pass later today by unanimous consent. Many Washingtonians remember Steve as a standout student athlete whose dedication in the classroom earned him repeated academic honors and whose dominance on the football field and baseball diamond set records and dazzled fans. Everybody back home is pulling for Steve. Instead of Steve going to the Seahawks, he signed with the New Orleans Saints. He quickly became a fan favorite for his work ethic and the joy he brought to the game. In his first game back under the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina, he blocked a punt that was returned for a touchdown. It is a play I know Saints' fans around the country still remember fondly. It is not Steve's athletic feats at Washington State University or in the Superdome that make him worth recognition, it is his perseverance, determination, his unbreakable spirit in the face of ALS, and his dogged advocacy for people who have been impacted by this disease. That is why Steve is such an inspiration to the people of Spokane, throughout the State of Washington, and across the United States. Through his public advocacy and collaboration with Congress, Steve helped pass the Steve Gleason Act, which ensures that people with ALS and other degenerative diseases can access speech-generating devices, whether at home or in a health facility. His leadership with the Gleason Initiative Foundation brought together the largest ALS research project in the world, and his work has helped us improve the lives of countless individuals who have been impacted by this disease. We could not be more proud of him, and that is why we are here today, to make sure this legislation gives that appropriate recognition. Steve Gleason said: ``Our potential is not contained in our physical bodies, but rather in our mind and in our spirit.'' I so appreciate all he has done to help fight this disease. He has been such a leader in communicating the needs of those with ALS and showing the progress we all can make. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I wish to thank my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, for including provisions from my legislation, the Comprehensive Addiction Reform, Education, and Safety, CARES, Act of 2018, S. 2440, in her bill the Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act of 2018, S. 2838. Specifically, the provisions contained in my legislation provides for a tenfold increase on civil penalties from $10,000 to $100,000 and doubles criminal penalties from $250,000 to $500,000 on opioid manufacturers that fail to report suspicious orders of opioids and fail to maintain intern controls against diversion of their drugs. Senator Feinstein's bill was considered in and reported out of the Judiciary Committee just before the Memorial Day recess. Sadly, the opioid and heroin epidemic continues to ravage communities in my home State of Washington and throughout the United States. Between 1999 and 2016, over 10,000 Washingtonians suffered fatal overdoses from opioids and heroin. Over the past 4 months, I have held seven roundtables and events in every corner of my State to hear about how the epidemic is affecting Washington State communities from law enforcement, education, and health perspectives. I have heard heartbreaking stories from individuals recovering from addiction and have been moved by their courage. One consistent thread I have heard throughout my State is that opioid manufacturers need to be held accountable for their role in helping to instigate this ongoing crisis. Drug manufacturers of controlled substances, like highly addictive opioids, are required under Federal law to keep track and report any suspicious orders or red flags on the distribution of these drugs. However, opioid manufacturers, through their failure to report suspicious orders of prescription opioids and failure to maintain their own controls against diversion, helped create an illicit market for prescription opioids that flooded our communities with highly addictive substances. My home State of Washington and many other States, cities, and counties have filed lawsuits against opioid manufacturers for their failure to follow the law and the devastating impact those decisions have had on their communities. However, it should not take lawsuits to get opioid manufacturers to follow the law and be held accountable for their role in this crisis. Instead, we need to make sure opioid manufacturers follow the law by making the penalties strong enough to serve as an effective deterrent. For these reasons, on February 15, 2018, I introduced the Comprehensive Addiction Reform, Education, and Safety, CARES, Act of 2018, S. 2440, with my colleague Senator Harris of California to do just that. This legislation increases civil and criminal penalties on companies that fail to reasonably curtail their drugs from entering the illicit drug market. Our legislation increases civil penalties from $10,000 to $100,000 per violation for negligence in reporting suspicious transaction activity. In addition, the bill increases the maximum criminal penalty from $250,000 to $500,000 for companies that willfully disregard and/or knowingly fail to keep proper reporting systems or fail to report suspicious activity. Again, I am pleased that Senator Feinstein included these provisions as part of her legislation, the Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act of 2018, S. 2838. Demonstrating the importance of this issue, a group of bipartisan 39 State and Territories attorneys general sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 2018, in support of my legislation, the CARES Act, S. 2440, that holds opioid manufacturers accountable for negligent distribution practices by increasing civil and criminal penalties. The attorneys general wrote: ``Diversion of prescription opioids has devastated communities in our states. The consequences for turning a blind eye to suspicious opioid orders cannot merely be a cost of doing business. We urge you to support CARA 2.0 and the CARES Act to ensure that penalties effectively hold manufacturers accountable and help stem diversion.'' Additionally, I introduced the CARA 2.0 legislation on February 27, 2018, with Senators Portman, Capito, Cassidy, Hassan, Klobuchar, Sullivan, and Whitehouse. This legislation, while providing authorizations for treatment and naloxone programs, also includes my provision to increase penalties on opioid manufacturers that do not follow the law. This same provision is what Senator Feinstein has included in her legislation, the Using Data to prevent Opioid Diversion Act of 2018, S. 2838. We must hold opioid manufacturers accountable in our fight to end this scourge. I hope that the Senate will pass this legislation so it can be signed into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii, and our sympathy is with the State of Hawaii as they respond to this volcanic eruption. I noticed on the news this morning that they were referencing it could be as bad as Mount St. Helens. Trust me, that had a devastating impact on our State. I hope that all Federal agencies are helping in whatever ways they can with Hawaii's natural disaster. I also thank her for talking about the importance of net neutrality. I, too, have come to the floor to defend the open internet. It is a pro-consumer, pro-innovation rule that we have to build on because it is worth 7 percent of our GDP and 6.9 million jobs. That is what the internet economy is. The net neutrality rules that we are fighting for today have four bright-line rules that help businesses, help consumers, and help our internet economy to grow. They are these: No. 1, don't block content; No. 2, don't throttle content--that is, don't slow it down--and No. 3, don't create paid prioritization, which is like in the Burger King ad saying: If you want the next Whopper available, pay $15. I think they did a pretty good job of showing what would happen if you had every business operating that way. No. 4 is transparency, to make sure that you know exactly what you are getting charged for. The Obama-era Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that basically protected consumers and businesses on those four things. Why did they do that? Because there were some who were trying to eke their way into making more money off of consumers and businesses on what is basic service. Title II was the regulatory framework that the Obama-era FCC used to make sure that consumers were protected. They were the strongest tools available, and they helped to make sure that there was not monopolistic behavior that would harm businesses. The rule that was established by the then-Federal Communications Commission was an open internet with the FCC being the cop on the beat. That is to say, if you have these rules, you also have to have someone who is going to enforce them, someone who is going to look at the monopolistic behaviors of cable companies or providers and say: That is unfair to consumers and businesses. But under the Trump-era FCC, all of those rules were thrown out. That is why we are here today. I and my colleagues are saying that we want to go back to the protections of the internet that are called ``net neutrality'' to make sure that the FCC--instead of a passive entity that just OKs every charge that cable companies want to do--says: These are rules about not slowing down content, not engaging in monopolistic behavior. These things are wrong, and we are going to be the policeman on the beat. The FCC can protect consumers and innovators, and they can make sure that internet traffic does not violate an open internet. But, as I said, the Trump-era FCC is trying to throw out these strong rules, and cable companies are already--already--starting to raise prices for higher speed. In Vancouver, WA, Comcast recently announced that higher speed tiers would be available but only to consumers who purchase expensive paid TV-internet bundles. That is why we are here. Because while it sounds like: Why do we want to give cable companies the opportunity to throttle, block, or create paid prioritization, we also have to realize that today the internet economy is so much bigger than it has ever been; that it is a job creator and an innovator. In my State, it is 13 percent of our economy, and thousands of jobs that continue to grow every day as new applications for the internet are created. It is so important that businesses, which are even using these apps to help run their businesses more efficiently, continue to get access to those tools. But what about an internet in which a cable provider decided to artificially slow down that website and thereby create a disincentive for the very things that are helping to make our businesses more efficient? So we want to make sure that the FCC does its original job. What is that? Well, they are there to promote development and adaptation of communication networks in the public interest. They are serving consumers, and that is the center of their mission. The center of their mission should not be serving cable companies. That is why courts have said to the FCC: If you want to have the authority to protect an open internet, you have to do that under title II. Basically, the court explained that if enforcing open internet principles and being a watchdog against abuses is important to the FCC's mission of promoting the deployment and adoption of communications in the public interest, then, those powers have to flow from title II of the Communications Act. So that is why the Obama-era FCC adopted those rules. Today we know that the internet is a basic necessity. It provides access that helps our healthcare delivery system work, our education system work, our banking system work, shopping, and all sorts of things that make it a necessary tool in life today. When a service is that essential and critical to individuals and communities and their economic success, we need to make sure that consumers have protections and to make sure that it is not abused. In the United States, just three providers of internet access have about 70 percent of consumers. In any market with only a few players, it is essential that we protect businesses and consumers, and that is exactly what title II does. It helps to protect us from a cable company gouging and its close cousin--paid prioritization. Title II makes sure that the barriers to entry are not erected so that entrepreneurs or startups that want to bring new products to market aren't artificially slowed down and a larger competitor that can pay more for it can continue the access. Just recently, we had an event with Redfin, a company that is changing the real estate market in the Pacific Northwest by helping to drive down the cost to consumers for real estate purchases. They made it very clear that Redfin was able to develop today because it had an open internet and its consumers and business partners could connect to it. But in a world where they were just starting out new and they had to pay for prioritization to get good broadband service, they may not have been as successful. These rules--title II--give expert agencies the tools to look behind the curtain and make sure that cable companies are providing the services that do not violate an open internet. There is a reason that cable companies don't want to follow these rules. It is because they want to make more money. I get it. They want to make more money. But I would say that with 40 percent of Americans having no choice in whom they buy internet services from, we have to be much more vigilant. These companies have several vertically integrated companies at the top, and they are seeking to amass more and more content. That could give them the tools, again, to block content, to slow it down, or to x out a competitor if they so choose. I do not want to see the FCC sitting on the sidelines and not policing this kind of environment. I know that AT&T is now trying to merge with Time Warner. These large companies want to continue to amass content and to drive the marketplace. The American Consumer Satisfaction Index tracks consumer satisfaction, and these big companies are at an all-time low. Do consumers think they are going to do the right thing on their own? Do they think cable companies will do that? The cable industry ranks at the very bottom of 43 industries in consumer satisfaction. In fact, it has been in the dead-last position for 5 years. So does the public think they are doing the right things when it comes to them or their businesses? I think that survey says it all. They have great concern. One of the reasons cable companies give for why they don't want to follow net neutrality rules is because they say it will hurt their investment in networks. Well, I guess I would ask the question: Did the Obama-era FCC rules slow down investment? No, they didn't. The big cable companies continued to make investments in their networks. In the year immediately following the FCC rule that went into place, the entire industry showed that the total capital expenditures increased by more than $550 million above the previous year's investment. For example, in a 2017 earnings report, Comcast, the Nation's largest broadband provider, noted that its capital expenditures increased 7.5 percent to $9 billion and that it continued to make deployment in platforms like X1 and wireless gateways. Likewise, AT&T spent $22 billion on capital investments, up $20 billion from the previous year. In fact, 2016 represents the industry's highest single-year jump in broadband network investment since 1999. So the notion that they are somehow going to slow down on investment is just not true. The historic growth came after companies had a full year to digest the impacts of title II and net neutrality rules being put in place by the Obama-era FCC. So where are we today? Well, these companies continue to make money, and they want a free pass on continuing to make more. That is why our goal is not the profits of big cable companies. Our goal is to make sure that the internet economy continues to grow and the juggernaut of job creation and innovation continues to expand. We want the internet ecosystem that has doubled as a percentage of GDP from 2007 to 2017 to continue to grow. As I said, in my State it is about 13 percent of our State's economy, and I spend practically every day in the Senate hearing about another innovation from someone in my State. It might be the farm economy and more efficient ways to produce products or get products to market or manage their livestock. It might be in telemedicine and helping someone from one side of the State to the other to get access to care. It might be as basic as connecting people to their families and loved ones, but it is the internet that we know today that is so integral to our lives. I hope the commonsense legislation in front of us--the CRA--which would restore those Obama-era FCC net neutrality rules, passes. I hope our colleagues will understand that getting exorbitant internet fees from cable providers is not the direction the American people want to go. American entrepreneurs, innovators, and consumers cannot afford to take that hit. What they want to see is an open internet--one that continues to allow so much more of the internet economy to flourish. Let's make sure that we say to the FCC: We don't want you folding or sitting on your hands. We want you to police the internet, and we want you to have the rules to do it. That is why we must pass the CRA today. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us, because there is just too much at stake in our innovation economy. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Markey, Wyden, and Hassan, on the floor to add my name to a resolution to overturn the FCC's decision, which is ill-advised and very wrong as it relates to growing an innovation economy. The internet is one of our most important national economic drivers. In 2017, our internet economy produced more than $1 trillion in output and created nearly 200,000 new jobs. In my State, Washington, it has provided a platform for new innovation across many platforms and applications. As a result, 13 percent of our economy is based on innovation and technology. This economic activity supports 250,000 jobs. To say that the FCC's stymieing of the internet is acceptable is fighting words for the State of Washington. From increasing access to healthcare, such as telemedicine, to making sure we find more affordable healthcare, to reforestation after natural disasters--the internet is providing great tools and solutions for all of these things. Last week, several companies from my State joined me in expressing opposition to the FCC and calling on Congress to pass this congressional resolution sponsored by my colleague Senator Markey and all of the Democrats. These companies know this resolution is important. Redfin, an internet company based in Seattle, is trying to address new ways of doing real estate business. It is a full-service real estate online tool that has helped save $400 million in how we process home sales. Another company, Deja vu Security, spoke about how, if you really want to be great on attacking cyber intrusion, you need to know when it happens, not after the fact or after a 20-minute delay because you are not paying the highest rates. Seattle-based DroneSeed uses drone technology to help reforest lands after natural disasters. All of those companies joined me in saying that they wanted to see the FCC's actions overturned and that they wanted this resolution to pass. Why? Because they know this is a big part of our economy. Tech innovators got to where they are by having an open internet and a level playing field. This really is about cable versus the internet. It is about big cable companies that want to charge more to consumers and businesses versus startups and individuals who want access to these new applications. Just three big cable companies control access to the internet for 70 percent of Americans, and over the past decade, the prices that Americans pay these kinds of companies have risen almost twice as fast as inflation. What the FCC is doing is giving cable companies the ability to raise your rates even more. That is what this debate is all about. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will at least take a chance and look at this and understand that by giving all of that power to three big cable companies, they are going to charge more for internet access; that charging more or slowing down service for people who won't pay will have an undue impact on consumers and the economy. That is why we are out here fighting, because so much of the internet economy is based on an open internet, so much of a rural economy that is helping us grow jobs in rural parts of the United States or even just our ag economy that depends so much on current internet information as decisions are made. Are our farmers going to be charged more because they aren't willing to pay the cable rate that you wanted? I join my colleagues in saying let's pass this congressional resolution that basically says there has to be a free and open internet. Let's get back to the innovation and the creation of more jobs, not artificially slowing down the internet and giving a big win to cable companies. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to Rev. Dr. Samuel B. McKinney, a civil rights icon from the Pacific Northwest. In August of 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired the Nation from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial here in Washington, DC, boldly proclaiming: ``Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.'' Meanwhile, in the basement of Mount Zion Baptist Church in Seattle, WA, Dr. Samuel McKinney was already taking up that cause. He stood before his fellow religious leaders--pastors, rabbis, and priests--and asked them to join him in the struggle for equality and justice for all. For more than 40 years, he never gave up the fight, advocating for economic and social justice in Seattle, WA, and throughout our Nation. Refusing to yield to deep-seated prejudice and threats of violence, he became known as a visionary civil rights leader, a pillar of Seattle civic life, and a moral consciousness of our community. Tomorrow, many Washingtonians will come together to celebrate Dr. McKinney's life--to remember his wisdom, his advocacy, his deep and unshakeable belief in justice, his steadfast commitment to his community and his church, his service to our Nation in the U.S. Air Force, and his devotion as a husband, father, and friend. He was a third-generation Baptist minister. He took up the struggle for justice at an early age. He was inspired by the athletic prowess of Jesse Owens and Joe Louis and by civil rights leaders of our generation. No influence was more profound than the sermons of his own father. The Rev. Dr. Wade McKinney never shrank from an opportunity to use his pulpit to fight back against racism and segregation, and decades later, from his own pulpit at Mount Zion Baptist Church in Seattle, Dr. Samuel McKinney continued his father's efforts. He repeatedly fought back against injustice in every form, leading civil rights marches in the sixties, protesting school segregation in the seventies, and demonstrating against apartheid in the eighties. He led boycotts against companies that refused to hire Black workers and developed and promoted workforce training programs for people who were struggling to find employment. He protested unfair education policies and started an accredited preschool and kindergarten program that helped establish the first Black-owned bank in Seattle. He served as an original member of the Seattle Human Rights Commission, helping to pass our city's first Fair Housing Act. Through his leadership, Dr. McKinney also brought to the national stage the only visit of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Seattle in 1961, featured in this historic photo. Dr. McKinney also participated in the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march in 1965. In 1980, he was arrested for speaking against apartheid at the South African consulate in Seattle. At 86 years old, Dr. McKinney was still fighting back against injustice, speaking at the prayer vigil in Seattle for Trayvon Martin. Dr. McKinney's legacy lives on through his courageous actions, his visionary leadership, and his quest for justice. But perhaps most of all, his legacy lives on through the extraordinary community that he built at Mount Zion Baptist Church. It was at Mount Zion that he mentored fellow ministers and imparted inspirational guidance. It was where he baptized newborns, presided over weddings, helped families bury their loved ones, and maintained his steadfast commitment to his parishioners. At Mount Zion, he raised his two daughters--Dr. Lora-Ellen McKinney and Rhoda McKinney-Jones--along with his wife. They made sacrifices for the community. She, too, was a savvy businesswoman and a strong supporter of education and the arts. Under Dr. McKinney's leadership, Mount Zion flourished and tripled its membership. His church and its community stand as a true testament to Dr. McKinney's life and what it meant in Seattle. Today, it shows the enduring faith that drove him in all that he did. Dr. McKinney made the fight for justice and equality his lifelong mission. Another picture shows him with Jesse Jackson, who I believe also came to Seattle at Dr. McKinney's request. Dr. McKinney fought for justice in Seattle and helped to impact our Nation. His leadership and dedication to the community will be sorely missed. As I said, tomorrow, many Washingtonians will be there to commemorate his life, along with his daughters and many of his parishioners--people from Mount Zion. As we honor and remember Dr. McKinney's lifetime of advocacy, I am reminded of a fitting quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.'' In good times and through difficult ones, Reverend McKinney stood on the side of justice, and for that, all of us in the Pacific Northwest are grateful. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to the nomination of Kyle Duncan for the U.S. Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit. I find his nomination troubling, but I find many of President Trump's nominees for judges troubling because they want to restrict established rights or roll back privacy issues, whether it is Roe v. Wade or LGBT rights. In many cases, Mr. Duncan has tried to take away these very important reproductive rights for women. From 2012 to 2014, he was the lead counsel on the Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius Supreme Court case. That flawed decision allows closely held corporations to deny FDA-approved contraceptive coverage to women employees if the company owners object to the contraception based on religious beliefs. More than half of the working-age women in Washington State get their healthcare coverage through their employer. They pay for their coverage through hard-earned wages and compensation. Their employer should not be able to just cherry-pick what benefits they get because the owners have a self-professed religious objection. Mr. Duncan also tried to go after State laws protecting birth control access. Thanks in part to Washington State pharmacist Jennifer Erickson, Washington State has a law on the books requiring all pharmacies to stock and deliver all lawfully prescribed drugs, including contraception, but Mr. Duncan worked to take that hard-fought access away. In 2016, he filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to the Washington State pharmacy law in order to strike it down. He also worked to deny access to constitutional rights to terminate pregnancies. In the Whole Women's Health case, Mr. Duncan filed a brief defending an unconstitutional Texas law that restricted access to safe and legal abortions at qualified health providers. Ultimately, in the Whole Women's Health case, the Supreme Court rightly struck down this very deceptive Texas law, finding it had nothing to do with medical necessity and placed an undue burden on women. In the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges, Mr. Duncan authored an amicus brief which argued against same-sex marriage, and he has represented North Carolina in their defense of the ``bathroom bill,'' which discriminated against transgender individuals. We need to expand the rights of the LGBT community, not nominate a judge who believes we should roll back these laws that are so important to the individuals in my State. Mr. Duncan also defended North Carolina's restrictive voting laws which limited early voting, prevented same-day registration, and placed limitations on where people could vote. The appeals court found that these restrictions violated the Voting Rights Act because they were disproportionately affecting African Americans. We do not need to see a judge on our bench who is trying to limit people's participation in our democracy as we are trying to protect their access to voting. It is no secret the Trump administration has been chipping away at women's healthcare and constitutional rights by using every tool at their disposal. I am especially troubled that the President is intent on nominating judges, such as this one, who do not respect the settled law of Roe v. Wade. The administration is making every attempt to roll back these important privacy laws. Kyle Duncan, the nominee we are considering, has spent decades doing the same. That is the reason I oppose his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I hope they will follow in making sure we protect these important rights. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to speak tonight because I did not support the Coast Guard bill as it came out of committee. We wanted to see changes to it, and the legislation that was brought up and the final language on Monday night gave our colleagues very little time to consider it. Washington State is very proud of the rich maritime heritage the Coast Guard provides, and our fishermen, Tribes, shipbuilders, sea trade, and thriving coastal tourism all count on us to work together for our maritime economy. Thousands of Pacific Northwest fishermen call Washington State home, with over 35,000 Washington State jobs supported by Alaska fisheries. The ports of Tacoma and Seattle are combined to be the fourth largest container gateway in the United States. The Coast Guard plays a pivotal role in national security, in fishing, in overseeing and, in many ways, keeping our waterways safe. That is why we would love to see a Coast Guard bill which moves forward without the controversial pieces of language that are included. I know many of my colleagues have thought this is a way to get our colleagues from the Midwest, and other places, to just swallow wholesale huge changes that could cost our economy billions of dollars--such as the zebra mussel, which alone would cost $6.4 billion a year, and an ecosystem full of rampant and sometimes toxic algae growth, which would and destroy recreation. This is from a letter regarding the Coast Guard Authorization Act. I would like to see us move forward tonight on the things we can agree on--Why? Because I know these things are important as well--and continue to work on a resolution for some of the thornier issues that still remain. I would like to see us move forward. I would like to see a recapitalization of the Coast Guard icebreaker and Polar Star. The Polar Star is homeported in Seattle and is operational only for our heavy icebreaker capabilities. This bill also includes language to improve the Coast Guard oversight of ships that pose an oilspill risk, which is a constant threat to us in Puget Sound and throughout the West, given the large amount of oil traffic that comes through Puget Sound out our strait. The bill also includes language to strengthen paid family leave policies at the Coast Guard. We just had the commandant nominee before the Commerce Committee. One of the reasons I questioned him on the paid family leave strategies and moving forward is that I want to give him every tool to continue to keep the workforce of women that they have in the Coast Guard. His commitment to me is that they would love to see this strengthened paid family leave policy in the underlying Coast Guard bill. Why not give that to them tonight? Our Coast Guard families should not be forced to choose between serving their country and supporting their families, and this bill would be a good step forward. Lastly, this bill includes bipartisan language that would help us protect shipyard jobs by making sure we fix the problem related to Dakota Creek and also making sure our permanent fishing vessel exemptions would be allowed in this legislation. I know we face challenges on continued definitions of best technology. But that is better than having a definition that exists in the underlying bill, which I think we should separate the good policy from, that would really make no indication or an economic analysis that would leave us with the Great Lakes, and many areas, without the kind of clean water that will allow us to continue to do good science and good fishery policy in that area of the United States. I hope we can move forward on the policies that my colleagues know we can get agreement on. I just heard the debate between the majority leader and Senator Schumer, so I understand there is an objection to moving the Coast Guard bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I see my colleague from the Midwest is on the floor, and I am sure he has something to say about this. But I would just say to the chairman of the Commerce Committee: You are right. Years and years of discussion about ballast water has been a challenge. The question tonight is whether we are going to hold up other legislation just to get that language or to push through a proposal that really doesn't give security for our waters not to be polluted or to be greatly impacted or to threaten the sea life and the opportunities for a vibrant waterway in many parts of the country. All I am trying to do, as I have always tried to do, is be constructive in the process--both in the Commerce Committee with this issue and for the very issues that affect the Coast Guard and the Pacific Northwest. I know this will not be the last time we hear about the fishing vessel issue. I am sure we will hear about it many times because it has been on the calendar. So we will continue this discussion, but I thank him for at least coming here tonight to discuss these issues. There are other issues that are being held up as hostage in this legislation, and they shouldn't be held hostage. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, who I know considers the efforts of the Commerce Committee as great, hard work, and I appreciate his hard work. As I mentioned, I did not support the bill as it came out of committee. I know there are things we are trying to work on to keep this process moving. But I would say to my colleague, the small vessel discharge bill has been something that has been part of an exemption process related to this for a long time. It has been considered many times over. Our fishermen need the certainty of this.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be Deputy Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. The Senators standing up this afternoon to fight this nomination are not just opposing Mr. Wheeler. We are trying to shine a light on the fact that this administration has one of the worst environmental records in history. And you don't have to take my word for it because this unprecedented assault on our Nation's bedrock environmental laws has drawn strong criticism from former Democrat and Republican Environmental Protection Agency Administrators. The American public overwhelmingly supports the laws and regulations that protect our air and water. And my constituents don't buy the false trade-off between protecting the environment and jobs. To them they come hand in hand. The facts on the ground have proven that these are red herring arguments. There are so many examples of how this administration's disdain for science has led them to try to undo decades of progress on the environment. I want to focus on three issues that are particularly damaging and serve as an indication of why Mr. Wheeler's nomination and record are so troubling. First is the example of Mr. Wheeler lobbying on behalf of fossil fuel interests. My concern is that Mr. Wheeler would have a prominent role in reviewing the air pollution rules that govern coal plants, rules that he got paid millions of dollars to help attack. A number of press reports have exposed how one of Mr. Wheeler's biggest lobbying clients, Murray Energy, was a driving force behind Secretary Perry's ill-considered resilience proposal. That proposal ignored the Energy Department's own staff report and was an attempt to try to say that coal was the only reliable source of energy for the electricity grid, which would have forced citizens to pay more on their utility bills. They said that is a wrong conclusion. And it was a transparent attempt to try to prop up one of the administration's favorite energy sources, which really would have made everything more expensive for consumers and certainly would have changed the focus of what we need to do to decarbonize our energy system. But the biggest problem here was how the proposal would have hit consumers, as I said, with billions of dollars in added costs. Bailing out old coal plants wasn't just bad policy; it was a breathtaking raid on consumer pocketbooks. The regional grid manager found that the Secretary's proposal would nearly double the cost of wholesale energy in the Nation's largest electricity market. Fortunately, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously rejected this proposal. But if Mr. Wheeler comes to EPA as the No. 2, what other misguided proposals like this are they going to propose or try to fight, even though the science within the own agencies says they are wrongheaded? How much time will we have to waste exposing these bad ideas? We should instead be making investments in policy and infrastructure that will help us be more competitive in the future. I am also troubled by the administration's backward view on how the United States can achieve so-called energy dominance by focusing more on coal. In my assessment, the days of this strategy are numbered. Selling away our cheap natural gas to foreign buyers. Or eking a little more life out of our grandfathered coal plants. Or drilling, as the administration has proposed, in every part of the United States and off our shores, is not the way to be competitive for the future. I am concerned that Mr. Wheeler holds and will support these backward views. When he was criticizing the Paris Climate Agreement, he called it a ``sweetheart deal'' for China because it gave them a manufacturing edge, but he really got it backwards. That is because China itself has been investing in renewable energy. By 2040, it will have invested over $6 trillion in clean energy technologies, according to the International Energy Agency. China also adopted a 5-year solar energy plan calling for 105 gigawatts of solar capacity by 2020. They have proposed an aggressive stance moving forward, and I want to make sure that U.S. companies who have great technology get a fair crack at making investments there and particularly in the area of energy efficiency, which is already accounting for about a $2.2 trillion investment in 2016. So we know that we can move forward on a cleaner energy economy, and we want to know that we have the leadership that are going to support this critical transition. I am perhaps most troubled that, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Wheeler refused to acknowledge the indisputable reality that humans are the cause of dangerous accumulation of greenhouse gases. The fact that greenhouse gases are going to warm our planet and cause acidity in our oceans is something my State knows well. In Washington, climate change has serious consequences for human health and our economy. Climate change has resulted in extreme weather patterns, putting lives and property in danger. It has impacted water quality, and it has caused other impacts to our salmon and shellfish industries, big parts of our seafood economy. Climate change has created drought conditions, has jeopardized our farm economy, and it is even changing the chemistry of Puget Sound. Mr. President, responding to climate change is more than just an environmental issue. It is an economic imperative. Senator Collins and I requested from the Government Accountability Office an analysis about the full costs of climate change. That is because, after seeing how it impacted us with fires, how it impacted our shellfish industry, how it impacted so much of our coastline, we wanted to know how much climate is costing taxpayers. Well, the GAO report said it will cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion in the next 10 to 15 years. So I know that Mr. Wheeler thinks this may not be part of his day job, but rolling back strong environmental laws that help us move forward will put us further and further behind and cost us billions of dollars more than we need to be paying. We need to uphold these critical environmental standards and laws that protect our clean air and clean water so that we can make progress, so that we can diversify our economy, and so that we can make the right investments. I believe Mr. Wheeler is the wrong choice for this position. I think he is the wrong person to help us meet those standards. We need a Deputy Administrator who isn't there trying to just jam coal down the throats of American consumers and businesses, but rather advocating for the next generation of Americans, who will need to be able to compete and compete in a cost-effective way. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on Andrew Wheeler to be the Deputy Administrator at EPA. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about H.R. 4851, legislation that just recently passed the Senate in the last hour or so. Hopefully it is on its way to final reconciliation with the House and hopefully will become law later today. Before I talk about that, I want to take a second to recognize some provisions that are in the omnibus that we also are going to be voting on in the next few hours, two provisions that are very important to the Pacific Northwest--one, finally a fix on fire borrowing, which is so important to the entire Northwest but particularly in the State of Washington, which has seen the great impact of forest fires in the last several years. This will end the fire borrowing that we have seen that has prevented us from doing the kind of fuel reduction that we would like to see to protect our communities, and it will help us better manage with stewardship contracts and release the funds that should be going to recreation management within our forests. This fire funding fix has been long in the making. I thank my colleagues, Senators Wyden, Risch, and Crapo, for their hard work, and I thank Bryan Petit from my office, who has worked tirelessly on this as well. We are starting a new day in how we treat our forests and hopefully one that will reduce the risks to many communities. I thank our colleagues for working so diligently on including a provision on affordable housing. This is the first affordable housing increase in a decade. I want to thank specifically Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell and Senator Hatch, my cosponsor on this legislation, for helping us get this done. This is not everything we would like to see in affordable housing, but certainly it is starting to point in the right direction. I also thank Anna Taylor, Artie Mandel, Lara Muldoon, and Jay Khosla for working so diligently on trying to make the housing crisis something that we have to deal with here in the U.S. Senate. For us in the Pacific Northwest, the homelessness crisis, our returning veterans, our aging population, and workforce housing have become the No. 1 issue. For Seattle and the whole Northwest, starting to put more resources on the table to build affordable housing is the right direction, and we need it desperately now, and this legislation will help us. Kennedy-King National Commemorative Site Bill Now, Mr. President, I come with my colleague Senator Young--and I know Senator Donnelly wishes he could join us--to talk about the legislation that Representative Andre Carson has sent to the Senate and we just recently passed back to the House. This bill designates the Landmark for Peace Memorial, which is located in the Martin Luther King Jr. Park in Indianapolis, and it designates it as the Kennedy-King National Commemorative Site. This legislation provides that this commemorative site shall be part of the African American Civil Rights Network that Congress established last December, and it will be only the second commemorative site in our beloved National Park System. The other designation went to Charleston, AR, the location of the first public school in the South to be fully integrated. This national commemorative site, which will remain as part of a city park, is not going to be part of the National Park System, although I am happy to discuss that with my colleagues moving forward. The National Park Service is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements to help provide for education and interpretation of this site. The Young-Donnelly amendment removes language in the bill authorizing the Park Service to conduct a special resource study and assess its potential for inclusion in the National Park System. I know my colleague Senator Young is here on the floor, and I thank him for his leadership. I hope that some day he and I can continue, with Senator Donnelly, to expand on this and revisit this issue. The original legislation passed unanimously out of the House of Representatives, and I know Senator Young worked hard to clear the one objection, but I don't think that one objection should delay us from furthering our interest in this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of Robert F. Kennedy's speech in Indianapolis on April 4, 1968, the 50th anniversary coming up next week.