Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I would also say to my colleague that I think the mystery here is some people think that what will happen is it will just get worse in Puerto Rico, and that is true if we don't make the right decisions. This is a time where we need to come together. We all need to come together and come up with a solution that we believe in. A solution that we know has legal certainty because we are going to have thornier questions to answer. I ask my colleague from New Jersey if he is aware that Puerto Ricans don't have to stay in Puerto Rico? They don't have to stay there. In fact, they have come to the United States, and we have seen over the last several years that 300,000 Puerto Ricans have come to the United States of America. That is how many have come. Somebody estimated for me that last year 80,000 came. So, if they have 45 percent poverty rate and 12 percent unemployment and now you are going to put the people and the government of Puerto Rico at the mercy of four people they don't even know and they don't even get a say in the process, I guarantee you people are going to leave. So that 300,000 people has cost us an additional $4.1 billion in the United States of America. Basically, every Puerto Rican who moves to the mainland costs us about $2,500, and we believe that, over the last several years, it has been about $175 million per year. OK. So the reason I am asking this is because I am trying to understand whether our colleagues understand this. The Senator and I have spent a little more time on this. The Senator represents a large Puerto Rican population, and the Senator has done great service for our foreign affairs and foreign policy. Does the Senator know whether people understand this issue and the consequences, that they will come to the United States? They will be here, and we have open arms. But there is a different process here, and it is almost as if there is an incentive. I would throw in the Medicaid numbers here as well and ask my colleague through the Presiding Officer: In Puerto Rico, the per capita Medicaid spending is about $1,800, but here in the United States, that same Puerto Rican--to cover his Medicaid costs--would be over $5,200. So, if someone is in Puerto Rico and they realize the situation is going to get worse, they don't think there is a successful economic plan, and they can come to the United States--these numbers are going to be exacerbated by more and more Puerto Ricans coming here, the cost for us will be getting higher, to say nothing of some of the other challenges. So, personally, I would want Puerto Rico to have the best successful opportunity to restore a robust economy, and it is going to require tough decisions. We need to have everybody in the pool when it comes to those decisions, and we have to have a fair process that will stand up in court. I ask my colleague from New Jersey, who is on the Finance Committee, if he thinks people understand the significance of Medicaid? How much Medicaid money we are going to be asked for?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would also ask my colleague this. I have read some articles in the press on this subject, and I know in Florida there are so many Puerto Ricans and many in New Jersey as well. But I read this quote from the Miami Herald, that said: ``Some bottom- feeders bought Puerto Rican debt at cheap prices and don't want a restructuring that might allow repayment at less than the full face value of the bonds--allowing them to make a huge killing at the expense of Puerto Rico's beleaguered population.'' To me, that is what this debate is about. What I am saying is that we need to have a process that is fair and open. A bankruptcy process that people can understand, and that the people who are appointed have that done in a way that meets constitutional challenges and that don't mire us in debate for the next 2 years while the Puerto Rico economy continues to flounder. I don't know if my colleague has read press accounts such as this, but I feel that a lot of people don't know the details about this debt, the size of it, or the background or what people are offering or the process that Puerto Rico has been through. They have tried to reorganize this debt. They haven't been successful because people think that, as long as they have the opportunity, they will not settle. That is why people go through the bankruptcy process. That is why we afford people in the United States of America these same opportunities. But, by not affording Puerto Rico the bankruptcy process, it is going to hurt the people of Puerto Rico and then, in consequence, it is going to hurt the people of the United States, including the U.S. taxpayers, because we will not have gotten this right, and we will not be able to help Puerto Rico get on the right track. I don't know if my colleague has seen comments like this in other places?

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.

Ms. CANTWELL. Through the Chair, I would say to my colleague that I have heard your concerns on the floor, and I look at these problems. I know some colleagues say: I don't want bankruptcy. We want a process here. We don't want a bailout. Well, by having a flawed bill that ends up in a legal process that declares it unconstitutional means that you are going to end up with a bailout, because we are going to be on the hook. What would be better is that we had all the debt in a reorganizing structure and had a fair process through a bankruptcy court for these issues to be decided. Like you, I have a concern--on point No. 10 of this chart--about this appointee process because I think it is going to be challenged. People are even admitting that the Department of Justice says it is going to be challenged. We don't want this process held up for 2 more years, 4 more years because somebody doesn't think the board has the authority to operate. Why not pass a bill where we are sure that they have the authority to operate? Why not do it the right way so we know the language is legal? I think it is unbelievable that we would say to the people of Puerto Rico--where 45 percent of the population is in poverty--oh, and by the way, as to this control board, which is going to control everything you guys do, we are going to make you pay $370 million of that cost. Oh, but they could have gifts. I know people were in a hurry. They wanted to get a deal. They wanted to be respectful, but there are a lot of holes in this bill that deserve a debate and deserve an amendment process. I ask my colleague if he is familiar with the fact that a $370 million cost would also be imposed on the people of Puerto Rico for something which they never had a say in. It is not as if they can even submit what they think the plan could be. They could, but the board doesn't have to consider it. They don't have to do anything. It is clearly given to this board of individuals. Those four people can come up with a debt process, they can come up with the requirements, and they can come up with a whole scheme.

Ms. CANTWELL. I wonder, because a lot of this debate has been so focused on the people of Puerto Rico, whom I fully want to support, and I wish this body would engage in a full, robust debate, with amendments and a markup. But, there are costs to the U.S. taxpayers. Mr. President, I want to know if my colleague understands that U.S. taxpayers basically can be on the hook for as much as $24 billion over the next 10 years? The United States is already contributing as much as $6.6 billion for their budget as it relates to the Medicaid costs. And if, again, you don't have a functioning economy, if you have even more people in poverty because now you have said you are going to put the brunt of the $72 billion on the backs of the Puerto Rican government and infrastructure, then you are driving more people into poverty. Our costs are going to be real. This is about getting it right with legal certainty so we can move forward because this issue is not going away. They are not all of a sudden going to become healthy when this bill passes. My sense is that what has been passed by the House leads will lead to much legal uncertainty and lawsuits are going to ensue. All my colleagues know that when people disagree, the next thing they do is go to court. What we would rather have is legal certainty so that we can get a resolution of this through the regular bankruptcy process. If we don't do this right, there are billions of dollars that the U.S. economy can be on the hook for because the worse we make it for Puerto Rico, the more money will be involved for the U.S. Government. So while this proposal is not about giving them more money now, it is certainly about what is a fair settlement on this debt. If you ask me, that shouldn't be decided or discussed here in the Halls of the U.S. Senate or Congress just because a bunch of hedge funds have enough money to hire lobbyists to show up here. It should be decided through a bankruptcy court, through a normal bankruptcy process, just like it is done in any other place. I wonder if my colleague thinks our colleagues understand these issues that will cost the U.S. economy? Has the Senator heard any numbers similar to this?

Ms. CANTWELL. As I bring up--this is a provision I am just getting familiar with, and I am obviously very concerned about it. Through the Chair, I would say that I am very concerned about the fact that now we are going to turn over all this authority to people who can accept gifts. I don't know what that means and who is going to oversee that because they are going to be appointed in a process that I believe will probably be challenged as unconstitutional, which will also take the bill to a whole other level of legal uncertainty. But I wanted to go over this and ask about this point. It is my understanding that they are about $72 billion in debt. For fiscal year 2016, the debt payments will be about $4.1 billion. So making a full payment would require about 25 percent of their annual income. My understanding is that a significant part of this debt is the GO bonds and that various bonds have been issued. The question becomes, if your annual revenue is $17 billion a year, how are you going to reorganize this huge debt when your population is already at a 45-percent poverty rate? So I think all of us, in a normal situation, would say: Let the bankruptcy court figure that out. That is what I would do. I would say let the bankruptcy court figure that out because bankruptcy laws in the United States of America are fairer and they decide these issues. They decide what is fair treatment under the law. I certainly would prefer that. I don't prefer a board of people who can get gifts and make all these decisions because I want legal certainty and I want it now, and I would rather be more prescriptive in the law. Do you know of any way the people of Puerto Rico could pay the $72 billion in debt by themselves? I am trying to understand what we are asking of the rest of the people who have been investors and if people think we are going to do this on the backs of the Puerto Ricans given the fiscal crisis they are already in.

Ms. CANTWELL. Through the Chair, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for being on the floor. When I think about the pressure being applied in the halls here, where one individual said, ``you can see the pressure running through the halls of the Capitol''--we don't see Puerto Ricans running through the halls of the Capitol. What we see are people who have been struggling with this issue and trying to get the best deal possible. But the best thing we could do for them is give them bankruptcy authority and a clear path that allows them to restructure their debt. That is all we have to do. Then everybody is in on restructuring the $72 billion of debt. They can then move on, and next January, we can have a realistic conversation in the Senate. Nothing precludes us from having it. What are we going to do about the 45 percent poverty rate? We will not have added another 10 percent to that. We will not have added to the unemployment rate, which is now higher than the 12 percent. We will still have very, very tough and thorny questions to deal with, but we can have a path for the $72 billion of debt to be successfully restructured with a plan that protects the interests of the U.S. taxpayers. I certainly want to help the people of Puerto Rico, but I also know the views here are going to be varied on what that economic strategy is for Puerto Rico. Everybody is going to have an idea. But there should be 100 percent agreement that all the debt is on the table and that they should be given full bankruptcy authority to get a restructuring plan. If our colleagues in the House think this is bankruptcy, well, then, they shouldn't be afraid of discussing a bill with us from the Senate that is bankruptcy. I don't understand the hesitation to get this right because getting it wrong will cost taxpayers here in the United States as well. We want a successful program. We don't want constitutional challenges. We don't want this held up. We want a plan to move forward. The challenges are tough enough as it is. So I ask my colleague if he understands what the hurry is in passing this legislation without even allowing amendments or allowing floor debate.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am wondering if my colleague from New Jersey is aware of this point, which I find most interesting and am trying to understand. He has been talking about this control board and all the power they are going to have. Do you understand that in this House bill, the members of that control board won't be paid, but the measure allows them to accept, use, and dispose of gifts, requests, devices of services or property, both real and personal, for the purposes of aiding and facilitating their work? So they literally can accept gifts, but what kind of gifts?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his tremendous leadership out here tonight and all through the day. I think for Senators, if you have never led a filibuster, up until that point, you probably don't know for sure that you are ready for this task, but a moment occurs in which you know you must act, steel is inserted into your spine, and you come out here and you give it your all. Before asking a question, I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut and his colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, for showing such steel in making sure America hears our response to the events that have happened not just this past weekend but for so many weekends and so many days and so many incidents. I say to our colleagues that we deserve to have a vote on these two issues. I know my colleague is impressed that there are other colleagues out here, but we so admire your courage, in the face of such tragedy in your State, to not forget the effort that needs to happen in the United States of America, to let the American people know that policies they would like to see debated and discussed are getting bottled up. That is what tonight is all about. It is all about saying don't bottle up these issues and, yes, if you want to test the fortitude of a human being to see how long they can stand on their feet, we will find out the answer to that. But the real question is: ``Are you going to let us vote on important public safety issues that the American public wants us to do something about?'' That is what is so ironic about the fact that we can't have these votes. The American people want us to have these votes and are fully supportive. I thank my colleague who was just here who was a prosecutor herself, so she knows what this is all about. She knows on a day-to-day basis what it is about. So this issue of voting on whether an individual on the terrorist watch list can purchase firearms--we say to people: If you are on the terrorist watch list, we are not going to let you on an airplane, and you cannot get a gun if you are on that list. According to a 2015 poll, 77 percent of the American voters supported banning sales of guns to people on the terrorist watch list. So we know that the majority of Americans support us in this effort. Yet we cannot get the support to make that happen here on the Senate floor. I also want to bring up public safety because I am reading a statistic here that Washington is one of just 14 States where more people die by gunfire than by motor vehicle accidents. We also have a statistic that 61 percent of perpetrators who killed police officers with guns in Washington between 1980 and 2013 were prohibited from possessing guns but were still able to get them. This issue, for us, is something that we spend a lot of time here debating. There are other colleagues who have led the battle on trying to have background checks and closing the loopholes that exist in current law. I thank them for that. I thank them for their battles and efforts. I wanted to ask the Senator from Connecticut if he is aware--and I am sure he will be somewhat aware--that this issue being neglected by the U.S. Senate is being taken up by citizens of the United States through every measure and vehicle available to them? In the face of growing violence in our State, Washingtonians demanded change, and in 2014 voters in our State overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative to require background checks for all firearm sales, including online sales, sales at gun shows, and sales between private citizens. That is what we passed by initiative in the State of Washington. Is the Senator from Connecticut aware that States are taking up this effort?

Ms. CANTWELL. I would just say to the Senator from Connecticut--and I thank him for his leadership--that we need to come together and consider ways in which to stop gun violence. We need to improve the mental health system, and I know people have talked about that this evening as well. But I want the Senator from Connecticut to know that in the State of Washington we are looking at an additional ballot initiative to prevent gun tragedies involving mental illness. So I think people are going to continue to explore all the ways in which we can make sure that our citizens can become safe, and if it takes that initiative process, I think people are going to see the results. But let's have a vote. Let's at least know where your representative, where your Senator is on these policies that are important. If you are on a terrorist watch list and you can't get on a plane, you shouldn't be able to get a gun. Let's have a good law like this good law that has been enacted in the State of Washington and background checks that produce results like catching felons and stopping them from having access to guns. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for answering those questions and, again, for his leadership tonight on the Senate floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. I so appreciate the Senator, and I wanted to ask him because his comments are right in line with the comments that I think are so important for people to understand. This past March, we got the first hard numbers from the impact of this law that we passed in Washington State. In addition to the nearly 4,000 felons who were caught illegally trying to buy a firearm in Washington through a licensed dealer--another 50 felons were prevented from buying guns from private sellers because of the provisions of the new law. According to data from the FBI, nearly 8,000 private sale background checks have occurred that otherwise would not have without changes in the law. So the fact that we now have this law in place in our State and are now seeing the results that we are actually stopping felons from getting firearms says to me that these are results that the rest of my colleagues and their States should look at. But we should do U.S. citizens a favor by, as you said, not continuing to have this be done State by State, but do it at the Federal level. I ask my colleague from Connecticut how aware he is of this movement and how important it is that the American public continue to demand that we deal with this issue.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am on the floor with my colleague from North Dakota because we feel passionately about this issue. We are frustrated with the shenanigans that have gone on with the export credit agency. I say ``shenanigans'' because for a long time people said: Oh, well, there aren't the votes. We can't get this done. We don't have the votes. Well, when you lift the veil behind some very conservative, threatening tactics, there is majority support, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, for this export credit agency. Now, one committee is trying to bottle up a nominee--if he doesn't like the nominee, come up with a different name. Come up with two names. Who cares? But what really is happening is that those on the other side of the aisle are enabling one individual to thwart the biggest manufacturing economic opportunity our country has to secure manufacturing jobs in the United States of America. Let's build great products. Let's have a credit agency that can finance deals to developing nations, and let's get those countries buying U.S. products. Why on Earth are we continuing these shenanigans so somebody can say to the Heritage Foundation: I got you one more trophy for your shelf. That is not what America is about. America is about competing, succeeding, and growing economic opportunity. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for her leadership on the Banking Committee in trying to move this effort forward and all of my colleagues who care about manufacturing who are willing to come to the floor and make this point. Time is running out this session, before the summer recess, for us to get this done. It is time to get it done.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues this morning on the Senate floor in an effort to wake up the Senate to the fact that, without action by this body and specifically the Senate Banking Committee, Members are literally supporting shipping jobs overseas. I believe in a manufacturing economy. I believe in a manufacturing economy because so many people in the State of Washington work in manufacturing and because aerospace is an industry in which the United States is still a world leader. Yet, by not filling the board of the Export-Import Bank we are putting the Bank out of business when we should be making sure that it can issue credit for manufactured U.S. products to be sold in overseas markets. Why is manufacturing so important? Manufacturing is important because it pays a decent wage. It allows American workers to go from working class to middle class. It helps secure jobs in our economy that are stable for families who are sending their kids to school, and because it helps people move up to a better quality of life. I am competitive in general. I don't want to lose a manufacturing base. But I also don't want to lose a middle class. What has happened is that the conservative views of the Heritage Foundation have thwarted the Export-Import Bank, and U.S. manufacturers have decided to put their manufacturing overseas. Think about it. How long is a company or a business going to put up with the fact that they don't have an export credit agency here in the United States? Now, can a big manufacturer get its own credit? Sure it can. Sure, it can go and get credit. But can you ask it to sell in a global market? I will give you an example of a manufacturer in our State, SCAFCO, which sells manufactured grain silos to many countries in South America, in Africa, in Asia, and all across the world. Do you think they are going to finance every single deal they do? No, because they have to put money into their manufacturing facilities so they can stay competitive, and so they can have the best silos being produced. So if they limited their business to only deals they could finance, they would have very limited business. Think about it. Whom do we make that requirement of? It is the customer who is buying the exported product who needs the business to get credit. It is the customer who is out there that wants to purchase what are great U.S. products who is having trouble. Think about it. You could be a small African nation trying to change your economy toward agriculture or you could be a small Asian country that is trying to upgrade the quality of life. It could be, just as Prime Minister Modi said yesterday, that they want to diversify their energy portfolio. Well, guess what? We are holding that up and not allowing all of those countries to buy U.S. energy products simply because we refuse to have a working board at the export credit agency. How ludicrous is that? It is so ludicrous, because what happens if a U.S. manufacturer--an aerospace manufacturer like Boeing for example--wants consumers to buy GE engines and make sure that a South American company purchases U.S. manufactured Boeing and GE engines? Well, they can go and purchase Rolls-Royce engines instead, and the European credit agency can fund the deal. Now, what has happened? GE has lost out on deals. Do you think all of those U.S. manufacturers are going to stay in the United States if there is no way to have credit financing? No--they are going to go where credit financing exists. So, by not moving forward on a fully functioning export credit agency in the United States, all you are doing is helping to ship jobs overseas. It has to stop. We make great products in the United States. We are competitive. Our workforce is skilled. I will be the first to say that we need a more skilled workforce. I am all for providing our workforce with education and skills and every resource our country has because innovation is our competitive advantage. But if we make great products and then we hamstring the financing of those great products--developing countries don't have the same banking and financial tools and edge that we have in the United States--you are basically saying: We are not going to sell our products. I am a big proponent of winning in the international marketplace. I am a big proponent of saying that the middle class is growing around the globe, and one of the United States' biggest economic opportunities is to sell products to that middle class outside of the United States. That rising middle class means they can purchase more U.S. products. Well, they can't if we don't have a credit agency that finances exports. So why are we down here this morning as it relates to the Defense bill that is now being discussed? Well, we are here because there are more than $10 billion of deals and transactions that are in the Export-Import Bank pipeline. Yesterday, Prime Minister Modi was here. The Indian Government has announced that Westinghouse would finalize contracts with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India to build six nuclear reactors by 2030. Well, those deals won't get done if you don't have an export credit agency to finance those deals. The United States Senate is currently considering the National Defense Authorization Act. Last month, the Aerospace Industries Association and the National Defense Industrial Association wrote letters to Senate leadership urging them to make sure that we had a functioning bank. They pointed out that without a quorum, multimillion- dollar exports of aircraft, satellite, and other things won't get done. So we just had this little argument on the Senate floor about how we are going to pay for things in the Defense bill and whether we are going to have balance with our other domestic spending. By not supporting and moving forward on the export credit agency, you are also making defense in the United States more expensive. You are making our security more expensive because you are not allowing that same technology--that we have decided meets our export controls, but we are willing because these are partners of ours--to sell that defense. You are making that difficult. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter from the Aerospace Industries Association and the National Defense Industrial Association, basically saying you are making it more expensive for us to do business as a country in defense because you also will not allow the export of this product.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Murray in introducing legislation to rename the Olympic Wilderness in Olympic National Park as the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness, in honor of former Washington Senator and Governor Dan Evans. Dan Evans has had a long and distinguished career in public service. He was first elected Governor of Washington in 1964 and was reelected in 1968 and 1972. In 1983, he was appointed to fill the term of the late Senator Henry M. Jackson and served an additional term in the Senate before retiring in January, 1989. From 1993 through 2005, Senator Evans served as a member of the University of Washington Board of Regents. During his time in the Senate, Senator Evans was a leader in the passage of two major wilderness bills in our state. He was a cosponsor of the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act, which designated more than one million acres of national forest lands in Washington as wilderness. And he was the lead sponsor of the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, which designated more than 1.5 million acres of Wilderness in Olympic, Mount Rainier and North Cascade National Parks. Thanks to Senator Evans' dedication to protecting many of our state's most spectacular wildlands, Washingtonians and all Americans are able to enjoy outdoor recreation opportunities in some of our Nation's most iconic areas, including protection of more than 876,000 acres of wilderness in Olympic National Park. This dedication will not affect the management of either the national park or the wilderness, but it will appropriately recognize the important role of Dan Evans in securing the permanent protection of this magnificent landscape.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Murray in introducing legislation to rename the Olympic Wilderness in Olympic National Park as the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness, in honor of former Washington Senator and Governor Dan Evans. Dan Evans has had a long and distinguished career in public service. He was first elected Governor of Washington in 1964 and was reelected in 1968 and 1972. In 1983, he was appointed to fill the term of the late Senator Henry M. Jackson and served an additional term in the Senate before retiring in January, 1989. From 1993 through 2005, Senator Evans served as a member of the University of Washington Board of Regents. During his time in the Senate, Senator Evans was a leader in the passage of two major wilderness bills in our state. He was a cosponsor of the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act, which designated more than one million acres of national forest lands in Washington as wilderness. And he was the lead sponsor of the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, which designated more than 1.5 million acres of Wilderness in Olympic, Mount Rainier and North Cascade National Parks. Thanks to Senator Evans' dedication to protecting many of our state's most spectacular wildlands, Washingtonians and all Americans are able to enjoy outdoor recreation opportunities in some of our Nation's most iconic areas, including protection of more than 876,000 acres of wilderness in Olympic National Park. This dedication will not affect the management of either the national park or the wilderness, but it will appropriately recognize the important role of Dan Evans in securing the permanent protection of this magnificent landscape.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we are about to vote on the Energy Modernization Act of 2016. I know my colleague, the chairwoman of the committee from Alaska, will probably like to close debate. So I would like to a take a few minutes before that vote this morning to again thank all of our colleagues for their diligent consideration of this legislation. We will be passing the first Energy bill since 2007. This Energy bill will be the first one in 9 years. It is a modernization of our energy system that is so desperately needed because it focuses on cleaner, more efficient, more renewable sources of energy that is more cost- effective for the consumer. It does this by modernizing the grid, making investments in advanced storage technology, smart buildings, composite materials, and vehicle batteries. It improves cyber security and helps plan for the workforce we need for tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to make sure this legislation passes. I want to say that yesterday, we substantially improved this legislation-- particularly with the inclusion of both the public lands package that includes the Yakima River Basin Bill from the State of Washington; as well as the bipartisan SAVE Act--which will help homeowners recognize the investments they make in energy efficiency so they can benefit from it when they are ready to sell their homes. I think yesterday's efforts helped improve this legislation, but all of this would not be possible without the staff and the support of so many people. I thank Angela Becker-Dippman, Sam Fowler, David Brooks, Rebecca Bonner, Rosemarie Calabro Tully, John Davis, Benjamin Drake, David Gillers, Rich Glick, Spencer Gray, Sa'Rah Hamm, Aisha Johnson, Faye Matthews, Scott McKee, Casey Neal, Bryan Petit, David Poyer, Betsy Rosenblatt, Sam Siegler, Bradley Sinkaus, Carolyn Sloan, Rory Stanley, Melanie Stansbury, Al Stayman, Nick Sutter, Stephanie Teich-McGoldrick, Brie Van Cleve, and of course I thank Colin Hayes and Karen Billups from the majority staff who have worked so hard on this legislation as well. As I said, the improvements we are making in this bill help us reach the goals that have been outlined in the Quadrennial Energy Review. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz helped us on this legislation, clearly calling for the type of 21st century energy infrastructure investments that will help our country remain economically competitive in the future. It also will help us train the 1.5 million new workers we will need, over the next 15 years. I should say, one of the provisions we were so happy to defeat amendments on yesterday was preserving the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the preeminent programs in our country for preserving open space at a time when our country continues to develop. It has been a program that has nurtured that very important need for all of us to be outdoors, and it has also helped to build an outdoor economy. So we are saying to the American public this is a program we believe should be made permanent, particularly after last September's lapse and successfully renewing it for just a couple of years. It is time to say the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that has been around since the 1960s, should be made permanent. I thank everyone again for their work on this legislation. I hope we get a resounding vote out of the Senate and a quick conference with the House of Representatives so we can plan for America's energy future in a more effective, streamlined way, and we can then realize the opportunity to help our businesses and consumers plan for the energy future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. The original Burr amendment did have a lot of discussion and passion on both sides, but the Senators were able to come together this afternoon to resolve their differences over this issue and craft a reasonable compromise that is acceptable to both sides. I want to thank Senator Burr, Senator Tillis, and Senator Boxer for their willingness to find a solution that we can support. So I urge all my colleagues to support the Burr amendment, as modified.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, speaking in opposition to the Lankford amendment, it would gut the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is a program in which the Senator's new language would produce obstacles to the Federal government acquiring land that would cost more than $50,000 per acre, and it would simply add more redtape by having to pass another law just for the land acquisition to be purchased. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lankford amendment and keep the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the purposes that it was designed.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, before we go to the votes that have been scheduled on this bill, I wanted to take a few more minutes. I mentioned some of our colleagues from the Energy Committee and some of their contributions, but I wanted to mention a couple of other provisions that are in this underlying bill and to thank our colleagues for their hard work, Senator Wyden particularly for his focus on renewable energy technologies, such as marine and hydrokinetic and geothermal. These are important provisions because they are going to help us gain a foothold in very important areas of this development. I thank him for his contribution. I mentioned energy storage earlier, and in committee our colleagues dealt with this a lot, but Senators Franken, Heinrich, Hirono, and King all made significant contributions on the modernization of the grid and grid storage, as my colleague from Alaska knows, on how to plan for microgrid activity--and Senator Hirono, because she has a very unique State that she represents, Hawaii. Having an integration of those activities into the grid is very important. I thank them for their contributions on making our electricity grid more distributed and integrating in some of the renewable energies and making sure that our grid has the flexibility to do that. Senator King has certainly worked hard to ensure that distributed generation gets a fair shake in the marketplace and to make sure that consumers are treated fairly. This is a subject our committee will continue to work on. I am sure we are going to hear about it. For those individual homeowners who are making investments in solar energy, we want to make sure they are not unfairly treated by their own utilities in how that solar development plays out. They don't want to be overcharged for the development of solar, if they want to put solar on their homes. They are willing to be part of the solution; they don't want to be the funder of the whole solution. I think Senator King is rightly concerned about how distributed generation gets a fair shake. I thank Senator Franken. He was out here on the floor, and he was a key proponent of the Department of Energy science and investment in the areas of energy storage and generation, and he has been a very strong voice on why storage is so important. And as I mentioned, Washington being a hydro State and having a variety of renewable energies, having storage capability is very important for us in the Pacific Northwest. Senator Franken is also a very strong voice in how energy programs are going to work in the tribal areas of our country. I thank him for that. I also thank Senator Manchin for working with Senator Heinrich and Senator Murkowski on the bipartisan sportsmen's package that is included in this bill, which is something that the Senate--well, let's just say that we had a lot of discussion about the sportsmen's bill over many Congresses, so the fact that we are actually passing a comprehensive sportsmen's package is a great testament to the work of our committee and the work of the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. I thank Senator Warren for her focus on transparency in energy commodity markets and ensuring that consumers' interests are there, particularly when it comes to global natural gas markets, and making sure we are well informed about what is happening in the marketplace. These are all important because we want to have enough transparency that the consumers and the government know what is happening and that we never run into the kind of situation we did before with the manipulation of markets because of very tight markets and people taking advantage of that. I appreciate all of the committee members on our side of the aisle and their contributions, and I certainly appreciate working on these issues with the chair of the committee and many members. I thank Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters. I know we tried for many weeks to work on a solution to the Flint issue. The chair, Senator Murkowski, was very efficient in trying to marshal the discussions on her side of the aisle about how to get a resolution to this issue. I thank her for that. I know our colleagues, Senators Stabenow and Peters, will continue to work on finding solutions to this, so I thank them for that, and I thank them for their leadership on manufacturing and vehicle technology as well. Again, I know we are going to start voting, but I can't emphasize enough how much material is in the underlying bill, the amendments we cleared earlier by voice vote, and the amendments we are going to vote on. This is a lot of work, and I want to again thank the staff for continuing to process a lot of ideas about energy policies, land conservation policies, and workforce and energy issues for the future because all of these are vital policies for us--modernizing our energy infrastructure and making sure we continue to protect consumers and businesses and making sure we are going to be competitive in the future. I again thank the chair for her leadership on this issue and look forward to processing the rest of these amendments.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to thank Chairman Murkowski for her leadership on the Energy bill. She and I have been working on this for almost a year now, and today we are at a point where we think we will see the final product of this legislation in the next 24 hours move out of the Senate and over to the House of Representatives. So it is a good day. We are very thankful that all the hard work she and her team and our side on the minority have put in will result in successfully getting a bill to the President's desk. I acknowledge our colleagues in the Senate have addressed something like 40 different priority pieces of legislation. We have added, as the chairman has said, 60 different amendments during the floor process. We have had important compromises on clean energy technology, energy efficiency, and infrastructure with truly bipartisan support. We need to pass this bill, and that is why we have been persistent. It has been since 2007 that we passed an energy bill, led by Senator Jeff Bingaman and Senator Pete Domenici, that laid down a lot of fundamental things in the renewable energy markets and clean energy investment, but the landscape has changed greatly since 2007. Since then, because of those efforts, the United States has more than quadrupled the wind power than what we had before. It has more than tripled than what we had. Solar photovoltaic installations are up nearly by 15 times. The number of LED lights has grown more than 90 times. From 2007 to 2014, our national energy use also fell 2.4 percent while the GDP grew 8 percent. This represents a very significant point in energy productivity; that is, we have continued to produce cleaner sources of energy and helped diversify our own energy portfolio. Yet our economy and GDP still grew. It is important because these policies that are in this bill are continuing to move forward on energy efficiency, clean energy, renewables, and new technology. I thank everybody who has been cooperative in this process. Clearly, we could have had a my-way-or-the-highway approach that was taken on the Shaheen-Portman legislation. I know my colleague is leaving the floor, but Senator Portman and Senator Shaheen played a large role in past discussions, but the chairwoman didn't take that approach. She said: Let's all work together. In a spirit of compromise, let's pass legislation that our colleagues want to see. And of course, the U.S. Department of Energy published the Quadrennial Energy Review last year, which said that we are at an energy crossroads. And we looked at what our Nation needed to do at this crossroad, to make investments in modernizing our 21st century energy portfolio. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. If we put good energy policy in place, businesses and consumers get more affordable, cleaner, and more renewable energy. This bill takes important steps on research and development of clean energy technologies to help us integrate these new, clean energy technologies that are not already in the marketplace, and gaining a foothold on new clean energy technologies in marine, hydrokinetic and geothermal. I thank our colleague Senator Wyden for his leadership on many of these issues. The bill also takes important steps in advanced grid technology to help us with new integration of our renewable resources. It authorizes $2 billion for technology demonstration grants to make sure that we are continuing the development of a microgrid deployment. I know from the chairman of the committee it is something very important to Alaska and the chairman, as they have a huge territory and lots to cover. So, making sure that microgrid development gets the technical support and assistance is critical. The bill includes an initiative to accelerate the RD&D of energy storage, a technology that many witnesses before our committee have labeled as the game-changer--and I believe it is the game-changer. As a hydro State that gets more than 70 percent of our electricity from inexpensive renewable sources, like hydro. So making sure we can store some of that energy is a game-changer for the electricity grid. Just as important, this bill makes a major investment in cyber security. We are talking about technologies that are key to making sure we protect our grid, making it more resilient, basically making it more robust so we can continue to improve it and face less risk in the future. We have many opportunities in this Energy bill to continue to promote the advanced fuels and energy information that are going to allow us to continue to diversify our energy resources. We also want to make sure we are understanding how the United States can maintains its competitiveness in a clean energy economy. For example, the global smart grid economy is expected to grow by $400 billion in the next 5 years. It is pretty basic. Anytime you can save on the supply you already have, it is a wise investment. Many people want to invest in making their electricity and the use of their current energy supply smarter. I like the smart building provisions of this bill. Smart building will end up using sensors to better direct and maintain the energy flow in buildings. Why is this so important? It is important because about 40 percent of our energy use in the U.S. comes from buildings today. The Department of Energy believes we can reduce the cost of energy in our buildings by about 20 percent. I don't think there is a person in the Senate who hasn't walked into a room and felt like the thermostat just wasn't right. Whatever it said, the room seemed to be the opposite. That is why we want buildings to have smarter technology, more sophisticated technology, so we can save energy and help our businesses be more competitive. Energy efficiency in the Chinese market is expected to be more than $1.5 trillion by 2035. So continuing our leadership, this bill will help us grow jobs and grow industries in the United States. Energy efficiency and building standards have also lowered costs. A 20-percent cut of energy use in buildings would save $80 billion each year in energy bills. That is something that would give any U.S. manufacturer a competitive advantage. Investing in smart building makes sense. I am pleased that while investing in this we are also helping our manufacturers. We just had a hearing with the manufacturing industry in the Energy Committee. They told us they were literally bringing overseas jobs home to the United States because we are continuing to invest in the right advanced manufacturing technologies so they will continue to be competitive. I speak now of what is happening with aerospace manufacturing in composite lightweight materials. The research we did allowed us to continue to be proficient in that area and have more jobs brought back to the United States. This bill invests in smart manufacturing. It would enhance fuel efficiency opportunities for advanced truck fleets. I thank Senators Stabenow, Peters, and Alexander for their work on that provision. Heavy-duty trucks move 70 percent of our freight and use 20 percent of the fuel consumed in the United States. This sector can continue to use the advancements in these technologies to continue their competitive advantage. This legislation also focuses on workforce training issues. We know we need more jobs as the energy profile continues to change. The good news is these are high-paying jobs. In my State, the average salary for a utility worker is 57 percent higher than the average salary of all other industries in the State. Our bill establishes a competitive workforce grant, a job training program through community colleges, and helps with registered apprentice programs so we can get the workforce of tomorrow that the Secretary of Energy says we need. His report says we need 1.5 million new workers in the energy industry. Let's go about making sure we get that. Lastly, I want to mention the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that was actually authored by Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson from Washington and he remains the longest-serving chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was a fully functional and effective program for 50 years, until Congress allowed its authority to lapse last fall. This bill would make sure that never happens again by making it permanent. I thank the chairman for her leadership because she helped us craft a compromise on making the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanent, to get the right focus on how the program works and to continue to make sure we are making investments in outdoor recreation. This Land and Water Conservation Fund helps support more than 200,000 jobs in the State of Washington and a nearly $20 billion economy. When we talk about the various amendments we are going to be talking about today, I want to make sure Members understand that a lot of good work in the committee went into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We will also be voting on a lot of public lands amendments later. I want to bring up one, the Yakima River Basin bill, which we passed out of committee on a bipartisan vote. It's a holistic approach to dealing with water management. I hope it becomes a model for the rest of the country. I also thank Secretary Moniz and his staff and Secretary Jewell and her staff for all the work that was done in the committee on both the lands package and on the energy provisions. I know the chairwoman probably discussed the issue of natural gas exports and Secretary Moniz provided us language for how the agency is working that we put into the bill. I again thank my two colleagues who are on the floor, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman. Certainly Senator Shaheen has been dogged in her enthusiastic support for not just energy efficiency policy, working with Senator Portman, but when she left the committee, I don't think she really left the committee. She just pretended, so that she was somehow still connected to our efforts. I thank her for that and also Senator Portman. I think we have taken the good work of these individuals and probably had almost 30 different energy efficiency proposals in this base legislation bill that we have incorporated and now are able to move forward on. I also thank my colleague Senator Heinrich, who has several provisions in this bill and several that will be voted on shortly in the lands package. These individuals, along with those I just mentioned, members of the committee, provided such great leadership for us in putting this final bill before the Members of the Senate. I hope our colleagues will give it enthusiastic support. It represents a lot of discussion. It is not the perfect bill that the chairwoman would have written nor the exact bill I would have written. But it is a compromise on the modernization of energy that this country needs to move toward a safer, more secure, cleaner energy force and a skilled workforce to go with delivering it. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I may add to my colleague's comments, this underlying bill supports the Yakima River Basin bill, which is an integrated approach to addressing water management needs for farmers, families, and fish. It will help restore the ecosystem, ensure that communities have access to water, and conserve and provide water for farmers in times of drought. It is not only important to the future of our State, it is also a model for how water management should be done in the 21st century. This legislation also includes water provisions for Senators Feinstein, Flake, Merkley, and Wyden, as the chairwoman said, Murkowski herself, and several of our other colleagues--Merkley, Burr, Gillibrand, and Kaine. Support this legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and this vision. Senator Paul's amendment takes advantage of economically distressed communities in our country by saying we will take the hedge funds, big banks, rich investors and see their capital gains taxes completely eliminated. The amendment would allow some of the areas in the country with the biggest environmental challenges, the most vulnerable communities, to ignore environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, ignore the requirements of National Heritage Areas, would lift Davis- Bacon, and it would scar school districts in these areas by not allowing public education dollars but allowing them to go to private schools instead. In short, this amendment would turn these vulnerable communities into an experiment I don't think we need to have. I raise a point of order that the pending measure violates section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for a productive afternoon. We certainly improved the Senate Energy bill with a variety of amendments--the lands package specifically but other amendments as well, such as the energy savings by our colleagues, Senator Isakson and Senator Bennet. I am very glad we are where we are today, and hopefully we will have this wrapped up very early tomorrow. I thank all our colleagues for their cooperation. I again thank the staff for getting us to this point today.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague from Minnesota and my colleague Senator Murray from Washington, along with our other colleagues who have already been here to speak about the important issue of paycheck fairness. It is truly shameful this kind of discrimination still exists. We have heard the statistics about what the pay gap means, but literally over someone's career--over a 40-year career--a woman in my state could lose as much as $500,000 in income. An Asian American woman could lose $700,000 over a 40-year career and a Native American woman could lose as much as $900,000 over the same time period. So, yes, when women are discriminated against, it costs them and their families. The gender pay gap issue is a family issue. Women are breadwinners too. Women today still earn only 79 cents for every $1 paid to a man. This means less food on the table, less money to buy clothing for their children, or less money for insurance premiums. What we need to do is make sure we are listening to these stories and taking action. Here is a story from one of my constituents, Adrianna from Olympia. She said: In 1993, when I was in college, I was working at a restaurant. . . . This job enabled me to pay my way through school with no student loans. A young man several years younger than me with less experience was making a larger wage and I found out about it. I politely confronted the owner as to why this fellow was making more money than me. The owner was caught off guard and could give me no reason whatsoever. . . . The thing that really stuck in my craw was that the young man told me he only worked there so he could get money to gamble. . . . Of course, I had no other choice and worked 7 days a week for 5 years to get a Bachelor's degree. Unfortunately, this story isn't unique. Wage discrimination affects a wide range of professional fields, including realtors, educators, administrators, and even CEOs. For example, male surgeons earn 37 percent more per week than their female counterparts. In real terms, that female surgeon earns $756 less per week than her male colleagues, and this adds up. And this does not apply only to high-paying, male- dominated careers: Women are 94.6 percent of all secretaries and administrative assistants. Yet they still earn only 84 percent of what their male counterparts earn per week. My colleague Senator Murray brought up the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team that helped bring this issue to the forefront. Despite being more successful and attracting more viewers than the men's team, the U.S. women's soccer team still is paid 25 percent less than the men's team. In fact, one of my constituents last week--an 11-year-old girl soccer player from Washington--asked: If I keep playing sports, am I going to get fair pay? Young women are asking us to do our job and make sure we pass legislation that helps. That is why we commend Senator Mikulski for introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act and for her tireless efforts on this legislation. I am proud to be one of its cosponsors. The Paycheck Fairness Act requires that pay be job related and not discriminate based on gender. It would strengthen the penalties for discrimination and give women the tools they need to identify and confront unfair treatment. It would make sure we recognize women are breadwinners, too, and that they get the equal pay they deserve. That is why my colleagues are coming to the floor today to say we should pass this bill this year. We don't need to commemorate another day of what women have done for our country; women need to receive equal pay for the equal work they are doing. I thank my colleagues for helping to bring attention to this issue, and I encourage the passage of this legislation. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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