Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield for a question?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator from California--because there is another element she is alluding to--about how to resolve water issues. While my understanding is your committee is very involved in basically the Federal Government programs that help communities around our country deal with water infrastructure and clean water, the larger issues of how a community settles these disputes about water on Federal land has really been the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But my understanding is that this bill is also trying to weigh in on disputes as it relates to the larger Colorado basin. I know my colleague from Arizona is very concerned because his views weren't heard. I know this is a big fight as a result of the language that is in here on the southern part of our country, where there is also a water dispute, and various States are debating this. I remember when our former colleague Tom Daschle was here, and there was a whole big fight on a river issue that the Upper Midwest was concerned about. If my understanding is correct, basically what we are trying to do in this legislation is, instead of having the collaborative discussion among these various States to work together to resolve it, they are basically saying: No, no, no, we can just put an earmark rider in and instead make all the decisions for everybody and choose winners and losers. So it is not just a Pacific Northwest issue--of San Francisco, Oregon, and Washington--but also relates to challenges we have on the Colorado River and challenges in the southeast part of our country. Basically, it sets up a discussion in the future of why would you ever regionally get together to discuss anything if you could just jam it through in the legislation by, basically--as our colleague Elizabeth Warren said--putting a little cherry on top and getting people to say: Oh, this must really be good. Then the consequences of this are that the thorny, thorny issues of water collaboration aren't going to be about the current rules of the road or collaboration. It is going to be about earmarks and riders that Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Heritage Foundation, and all of these people object to as the worst of the worst of Congress.

Ms. CANTWELL. So in the dark of night--I think that is the part where the States are going to be told: You are just going to have to build a dam. That is it. We decided. Then everybody calls us and says: Wait a minute, wait a minute, I don't want to dam the river or I want that stream to produce fish or I want that to flow downstream for people further downstream, not right here. All of that has basically now been given over to someone else. I would also like to ask the Senator from California if she is aware of provisions of the bill, as people are referring to it, that jilt the taxpayers? I know there are a bunch of groups, Taxpayers for Common Sense and even the Heritage Foundation--all of these people are basically calling out the ridiculous spending aspect of this California provision. I wonder if the Senator from California is aware that this basically authorizes prepayment on construction obligations that basically are going to take millions of dollars out of the U.S. Treasury. Just by passing this legislation, we would be taking money out of the Treasury, resulting in basically $1.2 billion in receipts that we would have, but giving us a loss of $807 million. This is a provision in the bill that I think has had little discussion, and this sweetheart deal for people is going to rip off the taxpayers, in addition to all of this authorization that is in the legislation. Is my colleague from California aware of this provision?

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes, and Faye Dunaway. So Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway did a movie a long time ago about the water wars in California; am I correct?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the San Francisco Chronicle that says, ``Stop Feinstein's water-bill rider.'' This is a great article about how it isn't the jurisdiction of this committee and how it is a rider, which is one of the most objectionable parts for our colleagues because regular order wasn't followed and it sets a bad precedent.

Ms. CANTWELL. On that point, in the process for discussing these water agreements, the Senator from California is saying they don't belong in her committee, and they have been controversial over a long period of time, and the best way to do this is not through an earmark, which this is--the notion that the House of Representatives is jamming the U.S. Senate on a half-billion-dollar earmark is just amazing to me because of the water agreements that people have negotiated and that have passed through these committees and that have been agreed to. They are not letting those go, but they are letting this particular earmark go, and sending this over. But the normal process would be for these Federal agencies and communities to work together on a resolution, and then if resources were asked for, they would come through, I believe, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for authorization because we are the ones who deal with the Bureau of Reclamation and the public land issues. Is that the understanding of the Senator from California as well?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, to the Senator from California, I thank her for being here in this discussion today about a very important public policy issue. It is December and most people know that high jinks happen in December around here. People want to go home. People are doing last- minute deals. I don't know if the Senator from California knows, but the whole deregulation of Enron and the energy markets--that whole thing was a December midnight rider kind of activity. All of these things happen because they know that Members want to go home. They think it is the last deal and they can throw something in and everybody will go along with it and blame it on, oh, I didn't read the fine print. There are a couple of things in here that I just wanted to ask the Senator from California about. I am going to talk later. I wanted to get over here and ask her because she is a knowledgeable person on this. First, this rider that was placed in the WRDA bill--is that in the jurisdiction of your committee?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to address the 21st Century Cures Act legislation, which the Senate passed yesterday with my support. I voted for this bill and support many of its provisions. However, I also have some serious concerns regarding the manner in which the bill is funded. I would like to congratulate two of my Senate colleagues for their remarkable commitment to this bill: the senior Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, and the senior Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, who worked long hours in good faith to forge a bipartisan compromise on both sides of the Capitol. Washington State is a laboratory for health care innovation. From Spokane to Seattle, my State has a culture of collaboration and inventiveness in which the entire health care community--including researchers, providers, insurers, employers, policymakers, and others-- come together to find better ways of preventing, managing, and treating disease. This collaboration makes my State unique and on the cutting edge of developing innovative health care delivery. That is why Washington is the original home of the Basic Health Plan, a State-run option that gives working people without employer-sponsored health care the negotiating leverage to get a better deal on health insurance. It is why the Boeing Company has partnered directly with health care providers like the Everett Clinic to reduce sick days and improve the health of its workers. It is why community leaders in Yakima and Spokane have banded together to break ground on new medical schools to fill unmet primary care needs in their regions. And it is why so many lifesaving medical discoveries and treatments, including immuno-oncology, dialysis, and the mapping of the brain have their roots in our State. Many of these discoveries started with NIH- supported basic research at public research universities like the University of Washington and Washington State University. The 21st Century Cures legislation gives a big boost to Washington's health care innovators. First, the bill's investment in President Obama's Precision Medicine Initiative will help get the right treatment into the hands of patients, building on the longtime work of renowned researchers like Dr. Leroy Hood and the Institute for Systems Biology. Tools like big data and sophisticated blood analysis can predict effective therapies based on a patient's unique biology, reducing ineffective prescriptions, and lowering health costs over time. Second, the bill's funding commitment to Vice President Biden's Cancer Moonshot will advance groundbreaking research at organizations like the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. By directing the body's own immune system to attack cancer cells, new cancer treatments can save lives for patients who may not respond to traditional interventions. Third, the bill's support for President Obama's Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies, BRAIN, Initiative will continue the leadership of organizations like the Allen Institute for Brain Science in unlocking the mysteries of the brain. Neuroscience is one of the final frontiers of medicine, and future revelations in this field hold immense promise to better treat conditions affecting the brain, such as Alzheimer's and traumatic brain injury. In addition to my strong support for research into future medical miracles, many of my constituents need treatment for acute and chronic conditions now. That is why I am encouraged that the 21st Century Cures legislation takes positive steps to combat the dual crises of mental health care and opioid addiction. The legislation includes a $1 billion funding commitment to combat the opioid and heroin epidemic. In recent years Washington has experienced a doubling in heroin-related deaths, according to data from the Washington State Department of Health. Earlier this year, PBS's ``Frontline'' profiled the courageous stories of some of my constituents who are battling addiction, as well as new public responses that municipalities like the city of Seattle are deploying to address this public health crisis. The reality in too many Washington communities is that needed addiction services are simply out of reach for those in the throes of acute withdrawal, relapse, or in need of ongoing recovery supports. The Cures legislation helps by authorizing much-needed State grants for treatment services, prescription drug monitoring, prevention, and health professional training programs, which will bolster efforts by public health departments like the Spokane Regional Health District to meet urgent community needs. This funding is far from sufficient, given that 90 percent of people who need addiction treatment in the United States do not receive it, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA. However, given that Senate Democrats have been calling for real money for the opioid epidemic throughout this Congress, the funding in Cures is indeed welcome. The 21st Century Cures legislation also contains positive new policies that aim to improve access to mental health care, including efforts to better integrate mental health and physical health as well as strengthen rules to ensure health insurance companies cover mental and physical health equally. Unfortunately, many of these policies are not funded and require future appropriations. Washington communities continue to confront a severe mental health treatment shortage at all levels of the care continuum, including community clinics and psychiatric units. A 2015 report by Mental Health America, a national advocacy group, ranked Washington State 48th in the Nation when it comes to mental health treatment, due to a high prevalence of mental illness and poor access to care. In the face of overwhelming emergency room admissions and a State legal ruling on psychiatric ``boarding,'' community partnerships like the Alliance for South Sound Health in Pierce County have stepped up to build more treatment capacity. And Governor Jay Inslee and the State of Washington have announced ambitious goals to integrate mental health with chemical dependency and physical health. I will continue to fight for real money for mental health, including policies to ease the Medicaid Institutions for Mental Diseases, IMD, exclusion, an archaic barrier to needed inpatient care for people in crisis, as well as policies to improve mental health delivery. I am also pleased that the 21st Century Cures legislation includes a provision I sponsored, S. 2261, the Rural ACO Provider Equity Act, to drive coordinated health care in medically underserved areas, as well as legislation I have cosponsored to preserve access to vital outpatient therapeutic services at small rural hospitals. Medical facilities in these remote communities--such as Forks, Brewster, and Newport--need our support to keep essential health services accessible in the face of doctor and clinical staff shortages. I thank the senior Senator from South Dakota for his partnership and support on these important issues. While I supported the Cures legislation, the package incorporates troubling budget offsets that are concerning. First, the Cures legislation finances itself in part by selling millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The use of this budget offset steadily weakens the energy security of the United States and again uses the reserve as a piggy bank to pay for nonenergy priorities. In its November 29, 2016, Statement of Administration Policy on the Cures legislation, the White House Office of Management and Budget concurred, noting this offset ``. . . continues a bad precedent of selling off longer term energy security assets to satisfy near term budget scoring needs.'' Second, the Cures legislation pays for its investments in part by cutting disease prevention funding. While I appreciate current legislative realities, this policy approach is not sustainable especially in light of dwindling public health resources throughout my State. Third, the final version of the Cures legislation omits a widely supported and bipartisan child welfare reform bill, the Family First Preventive Services Act, which I have been proud to cosponsor with my colleague Senator Ron Wyden. Washington State is currently using a Federal waiver, which I helped secure, to do a better job of keeping families together and reducing unnecessary foster care placements. This approach is better for kids and families, and it can save States money. The Senate's failure, up to this point, to pass this bill is a lost opportunity for children in Washington and throughout the Nation. Last, I note that the funding authorized by the Cures legislation must be appropriated by future Congresses. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to fund these important health care priorities. I view the funding and policies in the Cures legislation as a step forward that continues to support Washington's health care innovation and pave the way for future medical breakthroughs. The mental health and opioid response provisions in the legislation are welcome in addressing these crises, but are far from sufficient. Moving forward, I will work to ensure that appropriators make good on the funding commitments in Cures, and I will fight to open up greater access to health care for Washingtonians.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as my two colleagues from Indiana leave--again, congratulations on their bicentennial. There are many great Hoosiers who have made their way to the State of Washington. One was a most beloved Mariner broadcaster named Dave Niehaus, who was from Evansville, IN. He was a great, great part of our sports history. Certainly, I should mention Dave Calabro, who was a Hoosier and another great announcer for our basketball team. We also have the great Bill Ruckelshaus, former EPA Director under President Nixon. He works on salmon issues and does other great things. Congratulations to those Hoosier Senators today. Energy Legislation Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague Senator Murkowski of Alaska to talk about all the great work that was put into developing the Energy Policy Modernization Act. The Presiding Officer knows well how much work we put into that legislation. We are here today after many markups, many amendments, and what was an unbelievable Senate vote of 85 to 12, to urge our House colleagues to consider the conference report on this legislation before adjourning for the year. There are so many important provisions in this legislation that should be enacted. We reached an agreement to mark the National Park Service's 100th birthday by making an investment in our national parks. In response to requests from 47 Senators, the bill protects hundreds of thousands of acres of land. We were also able to reach agreements on important issues such as water resources, providing and securing funding for fighting forest fires, and making sure that communities that are at risk of wildfires get the attention they so deserve. Having lost seven individuals fighting wildfires over the last decade and a half, I can say, from the State of Washington's perspective, it is essential that we provide the communities the resources they need to fight fires. We also included a sportsmen's bill that will help hunters and fishers. We were also able to reach agreement on numerous energy provisions. For instance, the legislation bolsters our energy security against cyber attacks. We improve the Department of Energy's capabilities to protect the grid. We are not just talking about hardening some of our physical infrastructure such as hydro power projects, but actually the work that it takes to make the grid more resilient from hacking. We also reached agreement on provisions to develop the workforce that will be needed to fill the 1.5 million new energy workers that the Quadrennial Energy Review estimates will be needed by 2030. We were also able to reach agreement encouraging investments in hydro power projects, geothermal energy, nuclear power and other emissions-free resources. Finally, this conference agreement also would promote innovation in many areas of science that are so important to us. What is so frustrating is that we followed regular order in putting together an Energy bill. We held numerous hearings followed by a 3-day committee markup. On the Senate floor, we considered in excess of 300 amendments. We then worked all summer long and all fall with our House colleagues to reach a conference agreement. It is so disappointing to now have our House colleagues refuse to consider these important provisions. There were many hard-fought issues upon which we eventually agreed. We all had to come to the table and take into consideration all interests. Whether you are talking sportsmen and open access to hunting, which my colleague from Alaska so championed, or whether you are talking about how to get water agreements that involve fishermen, tribes, farmers, and a variety of river interests--we were able to accomplish that. Or whether you are talking about fixing the fire funding budget issue that has been debated back and forth among our House and Senate colleagues for almost 7 or 8 years now, we were able to reach agreement on all of these things. It is very irresponsible for our House colleagues to drop the ball by failing to consider these solutions and taking yes for an answer. What is even more outrageous is that now the House wants to take a provision subject to the Energy and Natural Resource's jurisdiction-- the California water issue--and airdrop it into the WRDA bill, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. As much as our House colleagues like to boast about their mythical no-earmark rule, the California water deal that is now being decried in newspapers in California as the ``midnight rider,'' was airdropped in as an earmark in the WRDA bill and sent over to the Senate. This is an issue that should be considered by the Energy Committee. I say to my colleagues that, if you want energy policy considered in the future and you want it to be a product of the regular order process in the Senate that creates consensus, you need to say to our House colleagues that are refusing to move forward on a conference report that this situation is problematic. The process that we are supposed to follow includes the Senate and House resolving differences as part of a conference committee. Instead, if we pass the WRDA bill, we will be rewarding those that wish to sidetrack regular order and drop into bills other items that have not been worked out and basically don't adhere to the rules of the Senate or even the House's own rules against earmarks they hypocritically claim to follow. It is a very cynical view of the world to allow the House to add Energy and Natural Resources Committee jurisdictional legislation into another committee's bill and violates the House's own rules and basically overruns the collaborative process we used for the Energy Policy and Modernization Act. The House has, instead, turned to backroom deal making. I join my colleague, Senator Murkowski, tonight to describe the great and hard work that was done in our conference. I think she and I believe in it. I think we believe in the Senate the way it is supposed to work. We believe in the hard work that it took to reach compromise on so many issues, and I think we want to make sure that our colleagues know that getting to yes was just inches away. It is very unfortunate that the House, instead of doing its homework, pursued a very cynical approach to the legislative arena--something I thought we jettisoned a decade ago--airdropping things in the dark of night. I mistakenly thought the House leadership was being earnest about making sure that the legislative process is transparent. I hope our colleagues will understand these are important policy issues and take the remaining days--if we happen to be here an extra few days this weekend or even into next week--and encourage the House leadership to get our energy and natural resources bill enacted and bank what is good public policy in the best interests of the United States. I thank my colleague from Alaska for her leadership on the Energy Committee, her hard work and dedication, her willingness to work across the aisle, and a willingness to be very tough on these important thorny public policy issues--and not to back away from that--and to find solutions for everybody in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today marks the 75th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It was during that fateful event that more than 2,400 American lives were lost and another 1,100 were wounded. While that day took a tragic toll, heroes were made of those who rushed to action. I wish to honor the life and memory of one such Pearl Harbor hero who went on to serve his country for an additional 20 years after that day. That man is Harold John Shimer, who passed away on October 30, 2016, at the age of 97 in Anacortes, WA. Mr. Shimer was born on February 12, 1919, in Wurstboro, NY, the son of Harold and Irma Shimer. He attended schools in Wurstboro and Middleton, NY, and enjoyed working with his father on their 640-acre dairy farm. After graduating high school, Mr. Shimer joined the U.S. Navy. Mr. Shimer had begun his naval career as a storekeeper third class aboard the newly commissioned USS Helena, where the ship's first assignment was as neutrality patrol in South America, protecting Uruguay and Argentina prior to the United States' entrance into World War II. Mr. Shimer had the very unique and rare account of watching the famous German Graf Spee warship and its captain, which had sunk nine merchant ships, scuttle itself after being pursued by English warships. The USS Helena was assigned to the Pacific, where it was at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. It was hit by a Japanese torpedo and lost 23 men. Mr. Shimer and the other surviving crewmembers immediately fired back against the attackers. He passed ammunition for the new guns that had just been installed that summer. He recalled, ``In a superhuman effort we emptied the ammunition locker in less than two hours.'' Mr. Shimer and his team were credited with saving the USS Pennsylvania, the flagship of the fleet in a drydock just forward of the Helena. Following repairs, the Helena went on to win fame for sinking a number of Japanese ships before being sunk herself by a submarine in 1943. Mr. Shimer returned to the States before being reassigned to establish a submarine depot in Fremantle, Australia, and was promoted to chief warrant officer. In 1947, he was assigned to the Bureau of Naval Personnel in Washington, DC, then to Japan Naval Supply Depot, Yokosuka, Japan, and finally Naval Depot, Seattle, WA. Mr. Shimer had served aboard the USS Philippine Sea, USS Mount McKinley, and USS Constellation. He retired from Naval Station Seattle in June 1961, after 22 years of patriotic service to his country. Mr. Shimer's great pleasure was golfing with all his friends in the Similk Men's Golf Club, and he was an active member of Pearl Harbor Survivors, life member of VFW and American Legion, and member of the Anacortes Elks Lodge. Mr. Shimer is survived by his wife, Carolyn; daughters Patricia Armstrong, Terrie Hughes, and step-daughter Brenda Eissenstat; grandchildren Toni Gill and Clayton Hughes and step-grandsons Ethan and Daniel Eissenstat; great-grandchildren Mitchell, Jamie, and Katelin Gill and Hayley and Brynn Hughes; step-sister Gale Angelostro; sister- in-law Blanche Shimer; and numerous nieces and nephews. Please join me in extending our warmest gratitude to Mr. Shimer and his family for the years of dedicated service to his country and for being an upstanding and active member of the Anacortes community. His stories, which were described as no less than ``amazing'', will be missed, but they will also live on in the memories of family and friends that knew him well.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues who have already spoken on this issue, but maybe to give a little bit more of a historical context. I know my colleagues from a variety of States throughout the United States have presented a different viewpoint and have a viewpoint because of their own economic interests in their State, but the larger question here is what is in the economic interests of the United States? All of the land submerged between the territory and seas beyond our shores and the oil and gas resources they contain belong to the Nation as a whole and to the people of the United States. More than 60 years ago, a few of these coastal States tried to claim the submerged lands and their resources, but the Supreme Court rejected that, rejected the coastal States' claims, and held that submerged lands and their resources did belong to the Nation--the whole Nation. Their response was: ``National interests, national responsibilities, national concerns are involved.'' In spite of the Supreme Court's decision, Congress voted to give away the submerged lands beneath our territories and seas to the adjacent States in 1953. That Submerged Lands Act was dubbed the ``Oil Give-Away Law'' by its opponents. The law gave the coastal States the submerged lands to a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast land. For these historical reasons, Florida, Texas, and others were included. But in the ``Oil Give-Away Law,'' they also gave coastal States the right to develop oil and natural gas resources beneath the submerged lands and retain all of the royalties for themselves; thus, this big discussion about whether we are going to give Federal resources away to these States and put a hole in our Federal deficit to the tune of $7 billion. In giving away to the coastal States the first 3 nautical miles of the Continental Shelf, Congress made it clear at that time that it was retaining for the Nation as a whole the Outer Continental Shelf, the rest of the Continental Shelf. So the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, enacted just 3 months after the lease giveaway, gave the Federal Government exclusive ownership and control over the minerals and wealth of the Outer Continental Shelf. We are here because States not satisfied with the generous gifts-- Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas--persuaded Congress to give them even more revenue in 2006--37.5 percent of the Federal Government royalties. Again, some of my colleagues may have supported this--but also added to our Federal deficit and blew a big hole into what were Federal revenues at that time. Senator Cassidy's bill would compound this huge loss to the Federal Treasury. It begins by raising the $500 million annual cap on the payment of Federal royalties to the Gulf States from $500 million to $835 million from 2027 through 2036 and then, in addition, $705 million from 2037 to 2055. But this bill doesn't stop just there, it extends the payment of royalties to five more coastal States--Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia--and gives 37.5 percent of the Federal revenues from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf to the coast of Alaska, and it gives 37.5 percent of Federal revenue from the Outer Continental Shelf to the Atlantic coast: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. I get that my colleagues would like this money grab out of the Federal Treasury. I am sure many of our colleagues would write Federal legislation that would also give their States revenue. But all of these amounts, in addition to the State royalties by the coastal States for oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, are in contrast, I believe, to our national interest. This may be a great deal for the nine States and the Senators who represent them, but it is a terrible deal for the Nation as a whole and the other 41 States that will not have the revenue. What will they do about the raid to the Federal budget of over $7 billion that will be absent from the Federal Treasury? Are my colleagues going to raise taxes on the other side to supplant that revenue, that $7 billion loss? Again, those revenues belong to the Nation as a whole, to our citizens, not just the nine coastal States. President Truman said when he voted on an earlier version of the oil giveaway bill: The vast quantities of oil and gas in the submerged ocean lands belong to the people of all States. They represent a priceless national heritage. This national wealth, like other lands owned by the United States, is held in trust for every citizen of the United States. It should be used for the welfare and security of the Nation as a whole. I ask my colleagues, please do not blow a $7 billion hole in the Federal Treasury and give it to a few States, when these lands and resources belong to all of us. If we want to help our coastal States in some other economic way or some way, let's discuss that, but blowing a hole of $7 billion in the Federal budget and then trying to make it up later on the backs of the rest of our constituents is an unfair deal for the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposition. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the FAA reauthorization we are going to be voting on, and I thank Senator Moran for being here and talking about aviation in general and aviation manufacturing. He comes from a strong aviation manufacturing State, so I certainly support many of the things he said. I certainly support making sure we continue to streamline our process, and it is one of the things left out of this legislation. So we need to do more on that effort. I certainly don't want people demonizing any aspect of aviation because they are all aviation jobs. People don't realize how many aviation jobs we have in the United States and the fact that we are still the top when it comes to aviation manufacturing jobs. So it shouldn't be a sector we relent on. We have a lot of work to do. I would add to that list, though, the passage of the Export-Import Bank Board members so the Export-Import Bank can be functioning so we can actually approve aviation sales when we get them done, and this is for smaller aircraft or larger aircraft. It doesn't matter. If we build the best product, we ought to be able to sell the best product around the globe. And we are still stuck on getting that nominee out of committee because of someone holding it up, and the fact that they are holding it up means we will go many more months before completing airplane sales. I want to talk about some other provisions we are passing today. I am so proud to have worked with the chairman of the committee, whom I just saw pass here on the floor--I am sure he is going to speak in a moment--and the ranking member on very important aspects of aviation security. First, we are doubling the number of terrorist-deterrent teams at U.S. airports and ground transportation. As we can see, these TSA teams are people who are very involved in making sure we handle security at our airports. This is a very important aspect of this legislation because, as we saw with the tragic events in Brussels and Istanbul, terrorists can attack us not just on airplanes or inside the security perimeter but outside security as well. So I think this legislation, thanks to Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, is giving us the workforce we need to enhance the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, strengthen perimeter security, expand training, respond to active shooter attacks, and make sure the outer limits of our airports are secure. I am proud that many of these provisions we passed out of the Commerce Committee are contained in this legislation and that it is doubling the number of these TSA VIPR teams that conduct controls and make sure our passengers are secure. These teams consist of a combination of law enforcement, inspectors, explosive specialists, and, as I mentioned, bomb-sniffing dogs. What is so important about those dogs is that they are one of our best deterrents, picking up explosive material and tracking down people, and that is what we need to have at our airports. I again thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for putting this in. Combining these law enforcement and bomb-detecting canine capabilities provides another layer of security at our airports. We have seen how the use of dogs helps us expedite our security lanes at SeaTac--now the busiest airport in the country as far as increase in volume--and we need to have more of these dogs outside on the perimeter as well. This will give us a visible deterrent and help us in protecting the much needed continuation of air transportation travel. I also want to mention a couple of other things that are in this legislation--the checkpoint of the future and making sure we are streamlining our security checkpoints. We have been proud to work with the Pacific Northwest Lab in Richland, WA, where critical work is underway in detection technologies. And this legislation contains the extension of an important aviation safety item. There are 136 airports across the country that have automated weather equipment, but they need weather observers to make these around-the-clock observations. So at Spokane International Airport, this is a vital tool, and I was so glad to work with Senator Moran and others in keeping this on. Finally, we address in this extension a critical upcoming shortage of air traffic controllers by making improvements to the FAA's hiring process and creating a path forward for graduates like those at the Green River Community College in Washington State. I thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for these inclusions in their work. We obviously have much more work to do to maintain our aviation infrastructure, and I look forward to getting those done in the very near future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Alaska, the chair of the Senate Energy Committee, to urge my colleagues today to move forward on going to conference on the Energy bill. My colleagues will remember we passed a bill 85 to 12, I think it was, and included a great deal of provisions on--my colleague just said--modernizing the electricity grid, building next-generation investments in energy, smart buildings, advanced composite materials, energy storage and improving cyber security, critical infrastructure, and the energy workforce for tomorrow. This was a very worked-over process, both in committee and on the Senate floor, and it was a very collaborative effort among our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It did take some discussion with our House colleagues because the package they passed was a very different product. I will say, it was a very less worked product on a bipartisan basis and certainly a product that had a lot of veto threats in it. Our House colleagues have made some comments about that legislation that have made it helpful for us to move forward. We met with our colleagues, the Natural Resources and Energy Committee chairs, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Upton. They basically said: Look, they didn't want to waste time on things that would be vetoed by the President of the United States, so we took that as a good sign that they were willing to sit down and talk about legislation that could move forward in a positive fashion. Senator Murkowski's staff, my staff, and we together have rolled up our sleeves and tried to look at ways in which we could talk about how we move forward from here so that all of our colleagues could have confidence that we are going to work on something that would be a final product that really would get to the President's desk. I thank my colleague from Alaska for her indulgence in that process. I know she had conversations with Senator Reid about no poison pills and wasn't going to sign off on those kinds of activities. We are here to say to our colleagues: Let's continue the good bipartisan effort that existed in the Senate bill and work with our colleagues in the House to resolve these issues. As my colleagues know, there are many thorny issues that still need to be addressed. Even though the Senate worked out many of its issues, there are still several thorny issues that are in the House bill, such as water, fire, and a variety of other issues which will take some dialogue and give us an opportunity to talk. If we can reach a conclusion, great, but if we can't, I think we have all decided that moving forward on the basis of an energy policy we can agree to is a very important concept for all of us. As my colleague from Alaska said, it is time to move forward on an energy policy, and I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this motion. Let us continue to work to protect these key provisions and move forward so we can get a bill to the President's desk. Cloture Motion

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to not vote for cloture on this measure and to give the Senate a chance to work its will. Many people know this legislation is being brought over from the House. I appreciate the good relationship I have with my colleague from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I would love the opportunity to have their input into this legislation, as many of my colleagues would, with just a simple amendment process. That is being denied here today if we, basically, invoke cloture. Everybody has admitted this is a flawed bill. There is not one person who has done a presentation on this that hasn't admitted it is a flawed product from the House of Representatives. So why not take a little time today and improve that bill? Why not let the Senate work its will, as we do on so many issues--because we have the time? As I think my colleague from New Jersey will prove, we are definitely going to be here for a few days doing nothing. So, why not, instead of sitting here doing nothing, take the chance to improve a bill that, by all accounts, is flawed? Also, there is so much discussion that somehow July 1 is a magic date. Well, actually, July 11 is the next scheduled legal hearing on this, and that is plenty of time for the Senate to weigh in on a few ways to improve this legislation and to make sure we are not suspending the constitution of Puerto Rico in the process. There are many questionable issues about the structure of this bill. I certainly prefer a structure that is clean and simple, understood by my colleagues, and is going to lead to success by all of us. Why do I say that? Because the continued wrangling over the debt in Puerto Rico by a process that will be challenged on its constitutionality means that Puerto Rico will continue to be bled, the United States Government will continue to be bled, and we will not get a resolution of this issue. The appointments clause requires that these officers, who are being appointed under the authority of Federal law, be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But, if this bill is enacted, we will have board members who have significant authority over Federal law and they are not appointed by the President and they are not confirmed by the Senate. So it is going to be challenged constitutionally. Why is this important? Because there are hedge funds out there that took Argentina's debt and it took almost a decade to get a resolution because they could win in court. We want a process here in legislation in which all of the debt is part of a discussion, and in which people can offer solutions as to how to get out of this situation by giving bankruptcy to Puerto Rico. Also, there are questions about this board and who they are? Besides the fact that they are likely to be challenged in court as unconstitutional, I brought up the point last night that they can actually receive gifts. Gifts from whom? What gifts? What can the board receive? Is it cars? Is it equipment? Is it airplanes? What is it they can receive? So we are here now to say: Let's take the time, instead, to make sure we are going through this process and improving the bill in the Senate. I think this is something my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can appreciate. What is hard to appreciate is that this small group of people are being given some very large powers. This group of people--just a simple majority of four of them-- appointed by the two leaders of the Senate and the House, can approve the fiscal plan for Puerto Rico, approve the budget for Puerto Rico, set aside an act of law by the Puerto Rican Legislature, and disapprove or approve and expedite permitting of projects. So, this is a lot of power. If you don't think someone is going to challenge the constitutionality of this, I guarantee you they are going to challenge it. In the meantime, we will have legal wrangling and a continued process. I urge my colleagues to vote 'No' on this legislation. Give the Senate a chance to work its will and make sure we are protecting the U.S. taxpayers on the amount of debt we will be seeing with this legislation if we don't move forward in an orderly fashion.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, on this debate we are about to pursue, I ask unanimous consent that 9 minutes be given to the opponents and 8 minutes to the supporters of this legislation. I would like to take 5 minutes now, reserving 5 minutes for Senator Menendez, and give my colleague from Illinois 8 minutes to control for people who are supportive of this legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL. In the unanimous consent request I locked in 5 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator from North Dakota a question, if I could. I see she has been out here with an actual display. It is quite amazing that we have to go to this level to bring up an issue about jobs in our economy, but I admire the dedication of the Senator from North Dakota in saying how important it is because we are about to go home for another summer recess here in a few weeks and everybody thought last year we were passing legislation that was going to secure America's place in a global economy by making sure that products we make can be sold in overseas markets. The secret is, though, that there are now 30 transactions worth more than $20 billion that aren't getting done simply because one Senator refuses to let a nominee out of the committee. So one Senator is holding up the sale of a product of which Senator Heitkamp has a replica on her desk. They are holding up the sale of airplanes, and they are holding up the sale of other products all because they don't want to have a functioning board. We are here to ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help us break this logjam so we can sell export products. I was curious to ask the Senator from North Dakota because she was mentioning how these transactions are happening now; that is, people are deciding to move. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York Times article entitled ``A Single Senator Stymies the Export-Import Bank.'' It says that about 2 weeks ago, GE was making an announcement that they were going to expand manufacturing in France rather than in South Carolina, how they were investing in the Czech Republic instead of in Texas, and that jobs in South Carolina, Maine, and New York were also getting transferred to other countries.

Ms. CANTWELL. The whole point of the export credit agency is to give U.S. manufacturers the credit. My point is that these products are agriculture based. If the Senator from North Dakota could explain, these aren't agricultural manufacturing products, but she is saying that there are also large- scale U.S. manufacturing products out of agriculture that also are not getting credit financing?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator from North Dakota just one more question, because I want to make sure she continues to make her point and I know we have a colleague waiting. Aren't we here right now today to ask our colleagues that when we come back after July 4 and we have 2 weeks, we dedicate ourselves to this? It is not every day that the Senate can be involved in an activity that creates so much economic value--$20 billion in job creation--but we can get this done. So we are here asking our colleagues to step up and help us resolve this issue in whatever way possible. If someone doesn't want to let a nominee out of committee because they made a promise to somebody, that is fine. Let's put language somewhere in a product that is moving. We can look at the FAA bill. We can look at anything. But to go home for the recess, all the way through the month of August--leaving those farmers without economic closure to a deal that has been inked, to a sale that has been made, to jobs that are being created--because you won't let somebody have an operating majority on a board seems like a very drastic step. Is that why the Senator from North Dakota is here, to ask our colleagues to step up to the plate and help us resolve this before the July recess?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, do I have time reserved in the consent agreement?

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield whatever time for our discussion to continue of that 10 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I see my colleague from New Jersey has been on the floor for several hours talking about the very important issue that frankly deserves a lot more discussion in the U.S. Senate. It is an issue of great importance to this territory of the United States, and it certainly is an important issue to the people of the United States of America, whether they understand that or not, because the success of Puerto Rico, financially, is also tied to how well the United States, as a partner of this territory, continues to be successful as well. Everybody thinks of the situation with Greece and the European Union. Well, they should also be thinking about the situation in Puerto Rico and its relationship to the United States of America because, if it doesn't go well for Puerto Rico, I guarantee it is not going to go well for the United States of America. My colleague has been on the floor now for hours talking about the structure of what would be a fair way to enter into a reorganization of the debt. I thank him for coming to the floor and doing this. I think it was probably 7-plus months ago that we had one of the first hearings on this issue and tried to get people to focus their attention on the crisis. What kind of authority does the territory have today and what kind of structure should we honor as they confront this financial crisis? So I just want to put up a couple of charts. I am going to ask that we turn it a little differently so that when I ask a question, my colleague can actually see the chart. I will try to position myself here on the floor so he might be able to join in this question. I know there are many charts here about the situation, and I want to make sure that I am saying this the right way because part of the issue with the debt crisis is my understanding that 45 percent of Puerto Rico is in poverty, including 58 percent of the children; that there is a 12-percent unemployment rate, which is nearly double that of our highest State; and that the sales tax is 11.5 percent. People are saying: ``Well, stop government spending.'' They are doing that. That part is being achieved. But the per capita income is almost half of the poorest State in the United States. So I think many people don't have any idea--when they look at this debt issue, they think, OK, this is where we are going to get money. This is a very difficult issue. Part of the discussion we are going to have next--and that is what I hope my colleagues understand--that whatever happens tomorrow, this issue is not going away. The financial stability of Puerto Rico is going to be a question mark for a long time, and we are going to have to figure out how a territory that has 45 percent of the population living in poverty and these rates of unemployment--how we are going to put them back on the right path? This is the fundamental question. How do we get back on the right path? In the Senate, there are probably 100 opinions about whether you do the earned-income tax credit, go back to tax breaks for manufacturers, whatever the ideas are, but we are not even at that stage. We are just at the financial crisis stage. The fundamental question is, How do you get out of the financial crisis when the economy of the country is in this hard of a spot? So I ask my colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, if he is aware of these numbers and these statistics.