Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Crapo and my colleagues in recognizing National Forest Products Week and in recognizing the men and women of the forest products industry for their contributions to our Nation and, in particular, my home State of Washington. The forest products industry employs nearly 30,000 people in Washington, contributing $1.9 billion dollars in jobs and wages. Employees work both in wood products facilities and in paper manufacturing; and these facilities, and the jobs and wages they create, have been a dynamic part of our economy. I would like to commend the industry for its recent technological advances and for continually looking toward the future. Forest products have contributed greatly to improvements in energy efficiency in buildings and their overall environmental performance. I am particularly excited about new ``mass timber'' technologies, such as cross laminated timber, CLT, that are now opening an entirely new suite of opportunities. New technologies create new markets for wood and healthy working forests. Throughout our State, there is great interest in CLT. We are already seeing this new product bringing innovation to the design and construction of buildings. Tall wood buildings are now being built around the world. The U.S. market is ripe for applying this new technology to new construction. I appreciate the support that the administration is providing for builders that want to use CLT. I expect to see an increase in the use of CLT and an increase in the number of facilities that create it. Our forests and forest products play an important role in sequestering and storing carbon. The use of wood in buildings provides a great opportunity to make our buildings more environmentally and energy efficient. This is a great example of the use of forest products creating a healthier economy and environment. Even though I have talked so much about CLT, I would like to commend the men and women who comprise this industry for their many contributions in Washington and around the U.S.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden and Senator Murray be added as cosponsors to S. 2165, a bill introduced earlier today to permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2165, which is a permanent extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund; that the bill be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could continue, because I am very disappointed that these objections are now proceeding. Just to be clear, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been around for 51 years, and this is the first time in the history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund that it has expired. So I hope that sportsmen, I hope that fishermen, I hope that everybody who loves the outdoors and participates in the outdoor economy will call their Senators and make sure they understand that these are important bills to pass. We don't want to become the holdup Senate where you cannot get the Export-Import Bank finally past the finish line, where you cannot get the Land and Water Conservation Fund--things that have worked for decades and decades, that are bipartisan, and that the majority of Members on both sides support--and it is about making sure they can get a vote. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has supported more than 6 million jobs nationwide as part of outdoor recreation, and it is credited with over $900 million from, basically, Outer Continental Shelf drilling. So those gas receipts paid for this open space that then generates more to our economy by having outdoor recreation opportunities. So every State, I am sure, will hear from cities, from counties, from organizations, and sportsmen who will say: Let's get this bipartisan legislation passed; let's continue our efforts as a conservation country to invest in the things that will help grow our outdoor economy. I hope my colleague from the other side of the aisle will stop coming to the floor and objecting to this. I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who have tried to get this passed. I hope that when we return in a week, we will find a path forward to say that this is a priority, that after 51 years of this legislation, we haven't lost our mind as it relates to how important outdoor recreation economies are to our country. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to talk about something I would like to see done in the United States Senate-- passage of reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Definitely the Senate and Congress have disappointed us in not passing the Export-Import Bank reauthorization--which is something I am a big proponent of. And now, here we are with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. For the first time in 51 years since this program was created, it has expired. My colleagues are here on the floor to join me--I thank the Senator from Montana and the Senator from New Mexico--to talk about why this is such a vital program to all of our States and why we should have it reauthorized immediately. The bill creating the Land and Water Conservation Fund was championed by Senator Scoop Jackson at the request of then President Kennedy. Why? Because the American population was growing and there was a need for outdoor recreation, open space, and public lands. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created to help protect some of our most popular national parks, forests, public lands, and iconic places. For me, this is an incredibly important program because it has provided opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreational uses that so many people use when traveling to the Pacific Northwest for vacation or for their livelihood. Those of us who are from States with large amounts of public lands recognize the importance of outdoor recreation. Nationwide outdoor recreation supports more than 6 million jobs. This is an economy in and of itself. In the State of Washington, outdoor recreation contributes more than $11.7 billion annually to Washington's economy. It is clear that protecting our public lands is good for both our environment and our economy. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been credited each year with funds from outer continental shelf oil and gas revenues. The success of that program has helped us authorize and make these investments for the American people, as I said, for more than 50 years. We are here to remind our colleagues that we are going to put up a fight until we get the conservation fund reauthorized. And to make sure that people in our states and all across the Nation that enjoy public lands have access to them. The issue is important to us, and in the energy bill we passed out of the Senate Energy Committee, I worked with my colleague, Senator Murkowski, on a bipartisan basis to include a permanent reauthorization of the LWCF. And I was joined by 31 Senators to introduce the American Energy Innovation Act that also permanently reauthorized and fully funded the LWCF. So you can see from these two pieces of legislation that there was a lot of support from our colleagues for maintaining this vital program that is used by cities, counties, and jurisdictions in my State and in my colleagues' states and many others across the nation and that it is a vital tool for helping us to thrive in our outdoor economy. We want to see this legislation reauthorized as soon as possible. I thank my colleagues again from New Mexico and Montana again for being here and for their leadership on this issue.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have introduced, along with Senator Vitter and Senator Shaheen, a bill that we believe will help break the glass ceiling women entrepreneurs face in this country. This month is National Women's Small Business Month. Throughout the month, the important contributions women entrepreneurs make to keep the economy growing will be highlighted. According the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, women-owned businesses are growing three times faster than their counterparts. Today, there are more than 10 million women-owned businesses across our country. They provide more than 23 million jobs and are expected to provide another five million additional jobs by 2018. In addition, one-third of all women-owned businesses are now owned by minorities. It is clear that we need to be investing more in our women-owned small businesses. That is why the legislation I am introducing today would help ensure that the next generation of women small business owners can get the training and counseling they need to turn their ideas into realities. This legislation would reauthorize the SBA's Women's Business Centers, WBCs, program for the first time since 1999. I am very pleased we were able to raise the authorized funding level for this critical counseling program to $21.7 million annually. Although the number of women entrepreneurs has continued to grow, funding for WBCs has remained flat for many years. Last year, when I was chair of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, we took a hard look at actions necessary to propel women's entrepreneurship forward and introduced legislation that addressed three components necessary to unlock their success-- increasing access to federal contracts, increasing access to capital, and improving the training and counseling programs that support them. It became very clear that women all over the country agree that the Congress must take these additional steps. As Chair, I also issued a report, ``21st Century Barriers to Women's Entrepreneurship,'' which demonstrated the need for the policy changes we seek in this legislation. I am pleased to say that on October 14, one of those goals will be achieved. The Small Business Administration has finalized sole-source authority for the women's procurement program--bringing the program and the women it serves in line with other Federal contracting programs. This will result in increased access to Federal contracts for women. The bill I introduced addresses another finding in the report which called for expanding training and counseling for women entrepreneurs. It does this by reauthorizing the SBA's Women's Business Center, WBC, program, which provides critical counseling, training, and other assistance to women, particularly in socially and economically disadvantaged communities. I cannot think of a better investment than one that helps women who want to create jobs and contribute to the economy. Women's Business Centers also provide important business counseling and training to underserved minority entrepreneurs. The need is greater than we knew last year. Since the Survey of Business Owners, published by the Census Bureau, was released this summer, a greater number of women have started businesses. The latest preliminary data showed that there are nearly 10 million women-owned firms in the United States. This is a 27 percent increase from the survey's last iteration in 2007 and a 50 percent increase in only a decade. Women-owned businesses generate more than $1.6 trillion in revenue. The report we issued last year showed that women entrepreneurs benefit from the customized business training and counseling Women's Business Centers provide to help level the playing field in starting and growing a small business. The majority of women-owned businesses are still under $24,999 in revenues. Women entrepreneurs receive only 4 percent of all commercial loan dollars, 17 percent of SBA loans, and 4.2 percent of venture capital--so there is plenty of work to be done. It is astonishing to me that more than 100 Women's Business Centers around the country are expected to serve this growing group of entrepreneurs. Women-owned small businesses generate needed income. According to a study released by the Association for Enterprise Opportunity, AEO, ``microbusinesses can be vital for income and wealth creation in underserved communities. In 2010, for instance, female- headed family households in which at least one person owned a microbusiness generated $8,000 to $13,000 more in annual household income than similar households without a business owner.'' For low- income households, this additional income is a path toward prosperity. The report goes on to say, ``the median net worth of business owners is almost two and a half times greater than that of non-business owners.'' Liz Jamieson, Director of the Washington Center for Women in Business, a WBC in Lacey, WA, explains why we need to increase support for Women's Business Centers. ``Since our inception in 2013, the Washington Center for Women in Business has coached and supported over 400 women entrepreneurs, to help them start, grow or scale up their companies. We've also provided training and business skills development to over 1000 entrepreneurs in the same time frame. Our center would not exist without the partnership of the SBA. Even so, our center serves 34 of the 39 counties in Washington State, and two staff people can only do so much, although they do an extraordinary job and we get rave reviews. This legislation will empower us to empower far more entrepreneurs from all over our state, and to help them grow their businesses and create more jobs.'' The legislation enjoys broad support by a number of key national organizations that support women business owners. The Association of Women's Business Centers, AWBC, Women Impacting Public Policy, WIPP, and the Association for Enterprise Opportunity, AEO, believe the changes we are proposing in this legislation are necessary to make this program open to more women. In closing, I would like to thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation. I also want to commend Chairman Vitter and Ranking Member Shaheen of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee for their hard work and dedication to assisting women entrepreneurs succeed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, basic research is a building block of American innovation. Without it, profound breakthroughs in science, medicine, technology and other fields would simply not happen. In Washington State, we know investments in basic scientific research are a key ingredient to the future of our information economy--from aerospace and agriculture to technology and health care, and across all sectors of our economy. It is in that spirit that, today, I recognize my constituent Dr. Yuichi Shoda of the University of Washington and his colleagues, Dr. Walter Mischel and Dr. Philip Peake, for their receipt of a Golden Goose Award for federally funded research. The Golden Goose Award recognizes the immense benefits of federally funded research to human knowledge and our economy by shining a spotlight on obscure studies that resulted in significant impacts to our society and major breakthroughs. Dr. Shoda and his colleagues are being honored for their seminal longitudinal research project that has become known as ``the marshmallow study.'' This study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, began in the 1960s. The study presented children aged 4-to-5- years-old with a choice between a single marshmallow they could eat immediately or the promise of two marshmallows for which they would have to wait. Dr. Shoda and his team discovered a significant correlation between how long children were able to wait for the treat and social and academic traits as they became adults. Their discoveries have led to significant advances in the way we understand the human behaviors and the neuroscience behind self-control and delayed gratification. Already, educators are using Dr. Shoda's research to teach children positive habits at an early age. The implications of this research, from education to retirement and health, are vast. As Dr. Shoda's project demonstrates, federally funded scientific research builds the foundation upon which new ideas are developed. Dr. Shoda's research also provides an example for why Congress must make robust and strategic investments in basic research across a variety of fields. I congratulate Dr. Yuichi Shoda and his team for the marshmallow study and wish them a bright future as they continue unlocking new knowledge.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her work and her leadership position in the Senate and for focusing on economic policy and constantly doing the research and legwork on how our economy is moving forward and what key essentials we need to move forward. The fact that she is here this morning to speak about the Export-Import Bank and the fact that the lapse of the Bank itself is causing us great economic challenge--I certainly very much appreciate everything she is doing. She comes from a State that has businesses that are exporters. Minnesota has a lot of exporters, so she knows this is causing a big challenge. I know my colleague Senator Heitkamp, who is an original sponsor of this legislation, is speaking out on this issue as well. I think Senator McCaskill may be joining us this morning. I don't know if the American people know, but many of our colleagues know that the Export-Import Bank is tooled to help U.S. manufacturers export products overseas by financing the deals--not really financing them so much as basically helping private banks finance them when the banks won't take all the risk. The program works just like the SBA--the Small Business Administration--does to help small businesses with bank financing. This helps businesses that are trying to export their products overseas get financing where these developing countries may not have banks to do that. So it has expired, which means it is cutting off economic opportunity here in the United States to grow jobs. When we think about it, with 90 percent of consumers living outside of the United States, the biggest economic opportunity for our country is to sell those consumers products that the United States of America makes. But we have to have financing for developing countries. There are 478 Ex-Im Bank guarantees and credit insurance policies worth $3.2 billion set to expire October 1. If we don't quickly reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, that money will be lost. And those are programs that are already underway. As this shows, there are 116 pending deals--deals we could do, deals we could get approved. That would be basically $9.3 billion in revenue to those companies, and obviously companies could grow their economic bottom line. In my visits with companies in the State of Washington, I have seen that a lot of businesses are looking at maybe 20 percent of their revenues coming from overseas markets, so having the Ex-Im Bank helps them reach new market opportunities. Every time I talk to them--what happens if this program goes away and you can't get financing? Most of them will say: That 20 percent of our business will result in layoffs-- those people who are associated with that business. So right now what we need to do is to help these businesses that are in their fourth quarter have the certainty and guarantee that we are going to compete on the playing field of what is called a global economy. If you are not interested in that, if you think we are just going to make U.S. products and sell them to U.S. people, I guess that could be your strategy. I think it is a wrongheaded strategy. So we are here today to talk about how this is impacting small businesses, big businesses, and what we need to do to get this reauthorized. Why are we here this morning? Because yesterday we heard news from a major manufacturer that basically talked specifically about what is going to happen. It is not that the Koch brothers are going to win or the Heritage Foundation is going to win; it is that companies such as GE and others are going to ship their jobs overseas so they can get financing for the manufactured products they make. So what happened? GE basically has said it has been forced to move 500 jobs from the U.S. to France, China, and Hungary. Why? Why are they moving jobs overseas? Because they still have a credit agency. France has one and is willing to provide export financing as a major component of wind turbines that would otherwise have been built in the United States. Altogether, GE has $11 billion in contracts that require export credit agency support. So they are going to meet customer demand. I worked in business for 5 years. I know what it is like to build and ship a product to meet customer demand. They cannot sit around and wait for Congress to stop catering to special interests to get their customer applications filled. They either do it or they lose business. And that is what is happening today--the American economy is losing business because people here are playing politics with an important tool that helps U.S. manufacturers. GE isn't the only one. Boeing is also facing job loss. On July 31, Boeing announced that it had lost a contract for communications satellite ABS-8, which will provide service to millions of people in the Asia-Pacific region. We know this is important business, satellite communication. Think about the developing world in places such as the Pacific islands, Indonesia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea. This company specifically cited Ex-Im's lapse as the reason they did something else besides going with a U.S. manufacturer. These satellites will still be launched. There will be massive growth in the middle class of Asia that demands it, and they will continue to get a product. It just won't be from a U.S. manufacturer. Why? Because we have chosen to let the Export-Import Bank fail. All in all, this Export-Import Bank is on track to support 58,000 fewer jobs in 2015--jobs that, if they were able to operate, they would be able to continue. So the fact is that Boeing and GE may be hurting, but they will come up with strategies that work well for them because that is what you do when you are a big company--you figure out how to compete. But the small businesses in America that might be the job engine of growth for the future are not so easily able to move their company or move overseas to get the financing. For example, since 2007 Export-Import Bank has supported more than 230 business exporters in the State of Washington. Two thirds of those are small businesses. So these companies aren't going to be able to all of a sudden stop what they are doing, go to France or go to another country, and start a manufacturing facility just to get credit agency support. The damage that is being done to small businesses in America right now is acute, and we need to make sure we get this export agency reauthorized. An example of this: My colleague Senator Merkley and I visited Bob's Red Mill. I think that about everybody in America, if they don't know Bob's Red Mill, knows they have bought a product from Bob's Red Mill when they have gone and bought oatmeal or grains. It has grown their export revenue about 35 percent since they started working with the Export-Import Bank in 2012. Think about that: Those consumers--90 percent outside of the United States--want to basically consume more products like Bob's Red Mill, a great product. I personally think these are the kinds of things the United States ought to be focusing on. We are still number one in agriculture. We still should be focused on shipping agriculture products to developing markets around the world. This is one of the biggest and easiest opportunities, feeding the world with a product like Bob's Red Mill. But no, no, no. Bob's Red Mill will lose business because they will not have an export authority. I doubt that Bob at his age--a great man, a very vibrant guy at 80-some years old--is going to start a business somewhere else in Europe or in Africa just to export to that market and try to get the financing. Texas-based Air Tractor will lose up to 25 percent of their sales because the Export-Import Bank is stopping. Pennsylvania-based Precision Custom Components, which manufactures parts for the nuclear industry, says it has over 100 jobs linked to their ability to service people with export-import financing. This is a loss of real jobs. When people talk about what we are dealing with in our fiscal crisis--the fact that people are talking about shutting down Government--to me, if you want to be a good fiscal steward, then reinstitute the Export-Import Bank. In 2014 alone, Export-Import Bank paid $675 million into our Treasury. That is deficit reduction. In fact, in the previous 5 years, it had generated somewhere around $5 billion in deficit reduction. Not only are we taking away a key tool, where are you going to plug the hole in our budget from the hundreds of millions of dollars this year-- to say nothing of next year and the next year--that you don't have from killing the Export-Import Bank? People need to realize, these people-- small businesses, big organizations seeking financing--have to pay a fee. That fee generates revenue. That revenue is used to pay down the Federal deficit. Not only do we create jobs and not only do we reach market access, we actually have a government program that is helping us pay down the Federal deficit. Why would you not want to reinstitute that? The good news is that the Senate voted to do that. From what I hear, there are enough people in the House of Representatives. People have continued to hold this program hostage because people are anxious about the politics of the Heritage Foundation, the Koch brothers, or people sending out emails or challenging them when in reality you just need to stand up and speak for the fact that you want U.S. job creation, and you believe that U.S. manufacturers making and building a product and selling it overseas is a winning economic strategy for the United States of America. It is. To boot, it pays down the deficit. We know that American businesses are obviously working hard to try to communicate this. Everybody from the manufacturers association to individual workforce organizations is trying to express this. I know my colleague Senator Heitkamp has been working very hard on this on the banking committee. With just a short period of time left before whatever this proposal is to shut down the government, which I certainly don't support, we have to say to our colleagues that you either have to get this on the highway bill--which it is as part of a package that we passed out of the Senate--and get either the package that was passed here in the Senate passed by the House or come up with another vehicle that gets this done, as my colleague from Minnesota just suggested, on the continuing resolution or some other bill so that we actually know we are giving American businesses the opportunity to continue to compete. I hope we will get a long-term solution here. The fact that we have sent this message around the United States and the world--that there is no longer financing available--has really hurt our competitive opportunity at a time when America needs to embrace the fact that there is so much business in these developing middle-class markets around the globe. You can sit here and trade away our opportunity to compete by saying I don't want U.S. job creation or deficit reduction. Instead, I want to ship jobs overseas. I don't get the strategy. I don't get what someone thinks is smart about allowing U.S. jobs to be shipped overseas just because they can't get financing here. If the market were willing to take those risks without some of the security put forth here, obviously people would want to see that. But that is not happening because if you are selling grain silos like we are to African nations, there is no bank there that is financing that deal. If you are selling product to Asian countries that are just developing, whether it is seafood or whether it is grain like Bob's Red Mill, they are not always able to get financing. This is a way for the United States to win. All we have to do is embrace this and make sure that we pass the Export-Import Bank as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Wyoming. Senator Murkowski and I have been working together to propose a solution to this problem as well, and I am proud to be able to say that we have been working with Senator Enzi, Senator Wyden, and our other colleagues. We have to enable the Forest Service to have both the resources it needs to deal with wildfires, but also the resources it needs to manage the National forests. The current system of paying for wildfires by, perpetually, taking funding away from the programs that enable the Agency to maintain recreation facilities and complete important restoration projects is simply unacceptable. We can't sit idle and expect this budget issue to fix itself. We all agree a budget cap adjustment of some sort is the solution needed to end the practice of fire borrowing. I appreciate Senator Wyden's efforts to fix this problem, and I appreciate Senator Murkowski's recent work to fix this problem. Most of these solutions have the common theme of requiring a budget cap adjustment, and we are looking to your leadership, Senator Enzi, to assist us with that. People's homes are burning because of these wildfires. We need to get the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior the money they need to respond to wildfires, but we also need to ensure the money is being well spent. We have a number of ideas to round out the solution. I will be working over the summer with my colleagues to develop comprehensive legislation that solves this budget problem, but also ensures we see fewer large wildfires and fewer houses being lost to them. Our solution--and I want to emphasize our-- will be a solution that is easy to explain to the public and that is able to get to the President's desk to be enacted.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, Senator Murkowski and I released a bipartisan energy bill. We hope to mark up that bill next week, but critical to that Energy bill is the modernization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Forty years ago, we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to prevent economic distress caused by oil disruption. People remember exactly what happened with the Arab oil embargo in 1973. The law that created the SPRO--the Energy Policy Conservation Act--was enacted in 1975 specifically to help protect the U.S. economy from energy disruptions. The core policy reason for having the reserve really hasn't changed, nor should it. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an important asset to our energy security. We need it as much today as we did then. Perhaps even more so now that we have so much volatility. Clearly, we have seen dramatic changes in our energy policy landscape. Instead of importing a lot of oil, we have become a bigger producer in the United States, and our oil infrastructure and refining capacity has reduced our ability to make sure SPR is available in case of an emergency. In fact, the Department of Energy did a test sale in 2014 and identified a series of challenges associated with the way the SPR distribution works today. That is why I think it is so important. These very supplies that make us more secure in one respect are also stressing our national infrastructure and may actually lessen our ability to respond in an emergency. That is why it is so important to modernize the SPRO, to use the resources we have there, to make sure we make investments. Some may have seen the Quadrennial Energy Review recently produced and released. Its key findings--I am now reading from the report--show that multiple factors affect U.S. energy security. These include U.S. oil demand, the level of oil imports, the adequacy of emergency response systems, fuel inventory levels, fuel substitution capacity, energy system resilience, and the flexibility, transparency, and competitiveness of the global energy marketplace. The report goes on to say the United States is the world's largest producer of petroleum and natural gas. Combined with new clean energy technologies and improved fuel efficiency, U.S. energy security is stronger than it has been in over half a century. But the report goes on to say: Nonetheless, challenges remain in maximizing that energy security benefits of our resources in a way that enhances our competitiveness and minimizes our environmental impacts of their use. The network of the oil distribution has changed significantly. So the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's ability to offset future energy supply disruption has been adversely affected by global domestic and global market development, and so there is a need for an upgrade. I think people can all agree it needs an upgrade. So that is why we raise a question about a transportation bill on the floor that takes money out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve not to upgrade that energy security need but to put it into highways, which will do nothing to secure us if there is an energy supply disruption. The report goes on to say the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect the U.S. economy from severe economic harm in the event of a supply emergency associated with spikes has been diminished. It has been diminished. Changes in U.S. energy production are stressing and transforming the way energy commodities are transported in the United States. Some of these commodities, the report goes on to say, such as coal and ethanol have traditionally relied on rail and barge transport to move these products. These transportation modes, such as rail, barge, and truck transport, are also shared by agriculture and other major commodities and are being joined by significant growth in the use of transport of oil and refined petroleum products. So it creates a limited infrastructure capacity among these commodities. The report goes on to say that those costs are being increased in shipping and then being passed on to the consumer. So literally, by taking money out of the SPR and not investing it in the modernization of our energy infrastructure and security--we are taking money and building highways--we are making it more expensive for consumers to get products and to secure our economy. The Department of Agriculture has indicated that disruptions to agricultural shipments--that is, agricultural products that can't get on the rails because we have so much oil, natural gas, coal, and all these other things or just sand for drilling--are basically causing a disruption so big that it is bigger than the disruption to agriculture caused by Katrina. So we have supply. But the economic challenge of having other products displaced or having the cost to consumers go up is what is threatening us. Even the ability to maintain adequate coal stockpiles at some electric powerplants has been affected by rail congestion. That comes directly from the report. Why is that so important? Because all these energy commodities are important to us. These agricultural commodities are important for us. The quadrennial review calls for an update to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Department of Energy should make infrastructure investments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and its distribution systems to optimize the SPR's ability to protect the U.S. economy in an energy emergency. That is right from the report. The report calls for creating a multimodal freight program to make sure we improve investment in freight and to make sure there is Federal action on shared transportation infrastructure that makes sure we can move our energy products. It says we have to work on our waterways as well because the waterways are critical to moving our energy products around. The report goes on to say that the Federal facility that consists of a network of 62 salt caverns at four geographically dispersed storage sites need upgrading. A lot of this is happening in the south of our country, in Louisiana and Texas. We need to make sure our economy does not see another disruption or price spike without our ability to update the SPR and actually get the product out. The report called on DOE to make a $2 billion investment to increase the incremental distribution of SPR by adding a dedicated marine loading-dock capacity at a gulf coast terminus--my guess, again, is probably in Texas or Louisiana--and that Congress should update the SPR to be more effective in preventing serious economic hardships to the U.S. energy supply and making sure we optimize our capacity for infrastructure distribution. The report also calls for an additional $2.5 billion over 10 years to make sure we are making these connectors. So not only are we required to do this as a country--to make sure that our country is safe and secure and that we take advantage of the product we have--but we are also a member of the International Energy Program. As to members, they make sure every country is doing what they should to make sure there is an increase in supply and that we can withstand anything--a world event, a natural disaster, a hurricane or critical infrastructure destruction by some cyber event or by an actual attack. So the SPR is like a rainy day fund, an account that makes that infrastructure work. There are two things in particular we should consider when we are thinking about the drawdown of this product that is not specifically tied to an emergency. First, we should make sure this investment is an upgrade to the SPR's infrastructure and for its emergency capabilities. That is, if we are going to take money out, it should go to infrastructure in responding to emergencies and not just to the highway bill for highways. We need to make sure the SPR's critical systems and equipment, which are nearing their life-end operational capacity--that in fact there is the $2 billion that is needed to repair that. I am not even sure you can sell money out of the SPR now onto the marketplace because all of the apparatuses and the functioning capabilities for it don't work correctly now. I know we want to mark up a transportation bill that has this money in here, but we may not even be able to collect on it. Let's make sure we do our repairs. Secondly, let's make sure the receipts from the SPR sale should be used to improve the critical urgency and energy infrastructure investments that we need. Now, some of my colleagues talk about how expensive this oil was when we bought it and now what we are selling it for. I could say taxpayers are definitely not getting their fair share. But one way to make sure they get their fair share on this investment is to make sure it is invested in the energy security infrastructure that our Nation needs. Now would not be the time to damage our Nation's emergency preparedness by giving this money away in a transportation deal that is only about highways. I hope, my colleagues, if we are really serious about this effort, if we are going to sell SPR at any price and affect the American taxpayers, that we will follow the recommendations of the Department of Energy's Quadrennial Energy Review that found that many different areas of our energy infrastructure need investing. We could make investments in resiliency, reliability, and security, and focusing on hardening our infrastructure, particularly our transportation systems, which are going to be critical for how we move this product around in the future, and, also so that we have port connectors, which are challenged by the movement of critical freight in critical freight corridors. We want our country to continue to be self-reliant and to have the great products we are exporting through our ports, but they too need the infrastructure investment. Multiple commodities are competing, and they can't even get on the tracks or through our port corridors without making further investment. I believe the Secretary of Energy needs the flexibility to manage the SPR and the SPR assets. I believe, if the Secretary of Energy or the President of the United States thought it was such a great idea to sell money out of the SPR for highways only, we would hear them saying so. We don't. I think we need to provide the Secretary with the dependability to make these decisions about our energy security and make the right investments for our future. I hope we can get this right before this bill is done here in the Senate. Otherwise, we will not be doing ourselves any favor when it comes to energy or energy security. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the Every Child Achieves Act. I would like to thank Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for their hard work on this legislation. This bipartisan bill offers an opportunity for real progress in educating our children. The Every Child Achieves Act takes an important step forward in updating the badly broken No Child Left Behind Act. This reauthorization is greatly needed to support Washington State's students, educators, and families. Currently in Washington, our schools must still comply with the original and most onerous requirements of No Child Left Behind since our flexibility waiver was revoked in 2014. The Every Child Achieves Act would end the States' need for waivers and provide them with greater flexibility to come up with state-led education plans. I have visited a number of schools in Washington and I have heard from so many of my constituents about the need to improve this law to better support our Nation's teachers and students. I am pleased that the Senate was able to have this important debate that is critical to our Nation's progress. Today, we live in a global economy and our children are not only competing with other students in the United States but with students across the world. Therefore, I am particularly interested in science, technology, engineering, and math education to keep American students competitive in the 21st century. Washington State ranks first in the Nation in the concentration of STEM-related jobs, and it is essential that we invest in our future workforce. The Every Child Achieves Act includes an important dedicated funding stream to support partnerships between schools, businesses, universities, and nonprofit organizations to support student achievement and teacher training in STEM subjects. I am a strong supporter of these partnerships and I am pleased that the bill also includes a provision with an emphasis on increasing access to STEM subjects for women, minorities, economically disadvantaged students, and other groups that are frequently underrepresented in STEM subjects. Additionally, I am pleased that this bill includes a new competitive grant program championed by my colleague, Senator Murray, to enable States to improve early childhood learning. I long have supported early childhood learning due to its importance to developing young minds and intelligence. These grants would target resources for low- and moderate-income families. There are few programs more important than early childhood education in preparing children to succeed. I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Casey's Strong Start for America's Children amendment, which I regret did not receive enough votes for adoption. This would have established a partnership between the Federal Government and the States to fund high-quality kindergarten programs for low- and moderate-income families. Washington State has been on the fore-front of early education and since 2006, the Department of Early Learning has ensured that Washington students have access to high-quality learning opportunities, so that they are prepared for kindergarten and a successful school career. According to the Washington State Department of Early Learning, there is clear and convincing science that early childhood is a critical time for mental development. Economists and social scientists have found that for every $1 invested in high-quality early learning, at least $3 are returned in reduced costs for remedial education, public safety, health care, and other social spending. I would call this a good return on investment. In closing, I would like to commend my colleague Senator Murray for her leadership and for her steadfast commitment to ensure that STEM education and early childhood education were included in the Every Child Achieves Act. I was happy to partner with her on these efforts. I urge my colleagues to support these important investments in our Nation's education system.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator from North Dakota has obviously been working so hard on this in the Banking Committee, and she understands, I believe, that when the Bank expires on June 30, there is about $12 billion of approved deals that are in the process, and they will not be approved while the Bank is not operating; is that correct?

Ms. CANTWELL. So today's vote is a symbolic vote but does nothing to help us resolve the issue for getting this approved before June 30.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for her leadership in committee. As she said, with 65 votes, we can do a lot of things to get this legislation out of here, so we will certainly be looking for those opportunities.

Ms. CANTWELL. Are there a lot of small businesses in South Dakota that are a part of this export economy? I say that because I think a lot of people get the impression that this is about big manufacturers. I have always said those guys will take care of themselves; they have lots of people here to take care of them. But the small people who will actually lose business on June 30 don't have people here and that is why we are fighting so hard to get a vote before June 30 that actually will go over to the House on a vehicle.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor, and I know we are talking about the Defense bill. I know my colleagues are trying to work things out as it relates to the Defense bill, but I am just as concerned about the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank--a credit agency that helps small businesses in the United States of America-- which is expiring at the end of this month, June 30. As we had discussions on the trade promotion authority act, I was very concerned that we were going to be passing trade policy while at the same time allowing very important trade tools to expire. I still remain very concerned about the small businesses that are here in the Capitol today and that have given much testimony at various hearings-- yesterday in the Senate Banking Committee and today in the House Financial Services Committee--about the need for this type of credit agency that helps small businesses ship their products to other countries that are new market opportunities for them. The reason why this is so important is because other countries have credit agencies--if you will, credit insurance. You are a small business. You want to get your products sold in developing markets. You can't find conventional banking or you can find conventional banking but that bank says it is not going to insure these losses. Thus, what has emerged for the United States of America, Europe, China, Asia, many parts of the world, is what is called credit insurance. That credit insurance takes the conventional banking and says: We will help secure that conventional banking loan. So that if you are a manufacturer in, say, Columbus, OH, making machinery and you are selling that in China, you actually have an opportunity to sell that product, use commercial banking in Ohio, have that guaranteed through credit insurance. A lot of business gets done on behalf of the United States of America. We know this well in the Pacific Northwest because we do a lot of international trade. There are a lot of companies that have learned that the best way for them to grow small business is to become an exporter. So, yes, it may have started with our agricultural economy, where people started trading our agricultural products, but many of our agricultural markets are big export markets. Washington wheat, 90 percent of it is exported. Obviously, people know a lot about aerospace and the fact that the aerospace market is also an export market. But what people do not realize is a lot of small businesses also became exporters, and they understood that the big market opportunities that are out there for their products are in growing economies around the globe. In fact, there is going to be a doubling of the middle class around the globe in the next several years. There are huge opportunities as those economies have higher income individuals to buy products and services. So it is natural for us to want to increase exports. That is why the President has had an initiative to double exports over the last several years. I think he has set it for a 5-year period. We made good progress toward that growth in exports. So it really remains one of the biggest economic opportunities for our country, which is to have U.S. companies grow jobs by becoming exporters. The Import-Export Bank costs zero to the U.S. Treasury. In fact, it actually generates money to the U.S. Treasury. So the notion that we would let a tool of the American economy expire, which literally helps us grow small businesses in the United States and throughout our country, when it actually generates money to our economy and costs us nothing, is something that is pretty hard to believe. In fact, I do not know where my colleagues are going to come up with the money to pay for the $670 million hole that you will have in the Treasury if you do not do the Export-Import Bank. It has been a great tool for growing that economy. What we have heard from small businesses now is that they are actually seeing their deals affected. They are in the process of trying to negotiate with a country. Maybe it takes months and months to negotiate a final sale. They are showing up for those negotiations, and the businesses are saying: We are going to buy from somebody else. We are not going to buy from you, U.S. manufacturer. We are going buy from an Asian manufacturer because it is clear their credit insurance company still works and we don't have to wait. We don't have to wait for the uncertainty of the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, so we are going to go ahead and do that business deal with them. In fact, we have U.S. manufacturers on the Hill today saying they are losing business because the U.S. Senate will not vote on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. So we worked very hard during the trade discussion to guarantee that we would get a vote on the Export-Import Bank before June 30 on a vehicle mutually agreed upon by the supporters here of the Export-Import Bank and Senator McConnell, the Senate leader. I think what we are saying is we do not think the Defense authorization bill is that vehicle. Obviously, the Defense authorization bill, now under criticism by the White House and threatened to be vetoed, is not a vehicle that is going to get done any time soon, certainly not by June 30, and that is when the Bank expires. So I guess to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who continue to hide behind the Heritage Foundation and will not declare whether they support the Export-Import Bank or don't support the Bank, the attempt to put it on another vehicle that is not going anywhere is not going to help American business and the American economy. The Export-Import Bank in the State of Washington has helped generate $102 billion in exports and has helped over 230 exporters in our State. Those companies have grown their businesses. We have heard from one. In fact, there is a Web site you can go to for Manhasset Specialty Company, which makes music stands. You can hear a lot about them and how they have grown their business around the globe because they have used the export credit agency. They do not understand why this Agency is about to collapse. They are concerned about their business. What we hear from a lot of businesses is, if this credit agency is curtailed--which is the wish and desire of the Heritage Foundation, an organization that does not even support our export agenda--basically, about 25 percent of their business, on average, is related to the export market. They say that about roughly 25 percent of their employees will then end up being laid off as those business deals are unwound over the next several months. That means they will not be able to keep and retain current workers. So my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, by refusing to bring up the Export-Import Bank on a vehicle that could be voted on by the House of Representatives before the end of June, are literally saying to small businesses across America: Go ahead and lay off workers; we don't care. Now, the reason I have been so passionate about this and out here fighting is not because I don't think the aerospace industry can take care of itself--there is a lot of discussion that the aerospace economy can be built where there are economies that will support credit agency financing--but why I am here is because there are a lot of small businesses that are crafting their products every single day to be the best on the globe. They are working hard to figure out how to stay ahead of the competition. In fact, we had a hearing when I was the chair of the small business committee with one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whose constituents said to us: You know, small business exporting is not for wimps. I thought that was a great statement. Because what they were saying is it is hard enough to be a small business person, take the financial risk, build a company, have employees, but then you have to go to the point of saying: Well, OK. I am going to ship my product to a new or developing market. How am I going to make that work? It is not like you can just go down the street and figure it out. So this employer, a big manufacturer--medium-sized, small business manufacturer but big in this small town said: You know, exporting is not for wimps. You are taking risks. One of the things that we have done as a country to help minimize the risk of that small business owner who is helping the U.S. economy grow by expanding his market and hiring new employees is to have a credit agency that provides the insurance to his local bank so the deal can actually get executed. Well, for some reason, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, after years and years and years of supporting the Export-Import Bank, now all of a sudden do not want to support it anymore because the Heritage Foundation is saying it is something they should not support. In fact, they are giving bonus points on a ranking system as a way to say: We will reward you for trying to get rid of what has been a viable tool for small businesses in our economy. So we hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will soon wake up to the fact that the expiration of such an important tool is not in the interests of our economy and not in the interests of small businesses and will come up with a vehicle for this to get done. Those on the other side of the aisle who think it is OK that the Bank lapses are putting about $18 billion of deals at risk that are before the Bank but will not get executed if the Bank closes at the end of this month. So I hope my colleagues will work toward a solution on this issue. I hope they understand the export credit agency is a job creator for small business and will come up with a vehicle so that it must pass by June 30. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, speaking against the Flake amendment No. 1243, this amendment would strike the extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. I support trade, but I am not going to tie the hands of the American workers from getting retrained or small businesses from getting Ex-Im support or making sure that we have enough people to do enforcement. If we are going to have trade, we will also have to have the tools to do trade. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Flake amendment and keep TAA.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I would say to the Senator or ask the Senator, in this debate, I think you raised an important question, if I understand it correctly, which is, How much will the U.S. Government spy on U.S. citizens? And that, combined with the question you were asking to the changes to the PATRIOT Act and the accumulation of business records, is when that individual could be a U.S. citizen. For example, you and I could be somewhere--you could be an individual of interest to one of these Federal agencies, but just because I happen to have a cup of coffee with you, now all of a sudden all of my business records, all of my personal information could be under investigation by the U.S. Government, and I wouldn't even know about it; is that the Senator's understanding?

Ms. CANTWELL. If I could ask another question of the Senator without losing him the right to the floor, this is a debate, as you were just saying. I think I understand your premises that there are three legs to the stool. There is a Federal Government that wants access, but they should go through the judiciary system, and there are separately the entities that have the actual records, which are the telecom companies, and that keeping those separate, not blending them, not actually giving the telephone companies the right to keep all the data and information of individuals is a critical distinction. You were just describing, I think I understood, that in this case the government was just saying: Oh, keep all of that data and information, which is not exactly what the phone companies had acquired or kept for any business purposes, but it just puts personal data and information at risk. Am I understanding that correctly?

Ms. CANTWELL. Will the Senator yield for a question without losing the floor?

Ms. CANTWELL. I am so pleased to hear my colleague talk about encryption technology because it is clearly something very important in this privacy debate. I hear with interest, as you cite that article, that one of the key things about the encryption debate is several years ago, those involved at the highest levels of government basically decided that instead of being able to break the encryption code, that maybe it would be a good idea to put an actual government chip in every computer. That was called the clipper chip. And the notion was that then the NSA and other people wouldn't have to worry about breaking the code. They would just have a government backdoor to our technology. In fact, there were many people--I kept saying you are going to say instead of ``Intel inside'' you are going to say ``U.S. Government inside'' of every computer. Is that what we were trying to do? So the clipper chip battle in the 1990s was a very famous debate about exactly how we were going to proceed on making sure that we were guaranteeing privacy to U.S. citizens. So clearly we were successful in defeating the clipper chip, but it took a lot of time and a lot of energy. So I thank my colleague for continuing to fight on these important issues. You mentioned many of the organizations that were also involved in that battle. Are you saying that now you believe there are new government efforts to thwart our encryption capabilities?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, 4 years ago, I joined my Republican colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and voted to give the President of the United States trade promotion authority--4 years ago. I have been a supporter of trade promotion authority for a long time, but I also realize that when it comes to trade, there are issues on which we have to work on together. We are at a juncture now where it is hard to move forward here in the Senate. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there are basic things about the future of America in a global economy--the American people want to be assured that there are going to be tools for them to compete. So the fact that the Finance Committee and the negotiators of the trade promotion authority spent months and months on whether we were going to have TAA--which is a program that helps laid-off workers who are impacted by trade--because some House conservatives did not support trade adjustment authority--workers being retrained when they are affected by trade agreements--we spent months and months because some conservatives in the House do not believe in government and do not believe in this program that helps support laid-off workers. Then we had to spend weeks and weeks out here because people on the other side of the aisle--again at the behest of conservatives in the House--did not want to support enforcement. Now we are at this juncture because the same conservatives, because of an ideological belief by the Heritage Foundation--not something about business and labor, no; actually, business and labor support export tools, such as a credit agency that helps them sell their products. Again, this conservative group is holding up trade legislation because they do not think that it meets their political standards, as my colleague from South Carolina said, Senator Graham, that it is all about some private organization they are trying to politically atone to. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I have been a supporter of TPA for a long time, but I do not plan to support a cloture motion and I do not plan to support moving ahead until we stop catering to this very minority group that does not support the basic tools the American people want to see when it comes to trade. They want to know that if they lose their jobs, they can get retrained. They want to know that if export markets are open, they will have some ability to sell their products to those developing markets that may not have a bank there but can help get financial support from a bank in the United States with the help of a Federal export credit agency. And yes, we have to have some basic tools on enforcement. So if the other side of the aisle wants to resolve these problems and move ahead on a trade agreement, they have to stop catering to the conservatives in the House--and probably some of them do not even support trade overall--and start working with the people who do support trade. As I said 4 years ago in the Finance Committee when I supported TPA, these policies are important tools for the U.S. economy. I feel strongly that in the developing world, trade can be a great asset in helping stabilize regions. I do not want to hold down other growing middle classes around the globe. We do not want to lose jobs here in the United States because of it. So let's have the tools that go along with trade, and let's get these bills passed. But if we are going to continue to cater to a group in the House who claims they do not want government, I do not see how, in this debate, we are going give the American people the tools that will give them security. I yield the floor.