Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina is correct. That is all we have been asking for, and we have talked to our colleagues about various vehicles and various opportunities for those votes. And, yes, that is exactly what has been promised. We are here today because, as the Senator from South Carolina has described, the failure of us to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank will mean huge opportunities for foreign competitors at the very time when we are trying to open up markets for our U.S. companies. All we are asking is for the opportunity to have this vote. As the majority leader said, let the will of the Senate be done. The Senator from South Carolina is right. People who have extreme views on this have decided that this is something they can hold up. Well, I don't think we are here today to try to ultimately say how individual people should vote. They should vote their conscience. The fact that this Bank is about to expire and the fact that these jobs would be lost because we didn't do our job by reauthorizing the Bank is a failure. It is an imminent threat of $18 billion. These are proposed deals for export that will not get approved and will not get done because we won't have a bank. I think the Senate can do better than that. I thank my colleague for being here tonight and going into detail about the Ex-Im Bank.

Ms. CANTWELL. Objection.

Ms. CANTWELL. I object.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I, too, like the chairman of the Finance Committee, have been here all day, and I empathize with the dilemma that he faces, along with the ranking member, on how to move forward with this legislation. This is a discussion which has been going on for months and months, if not years, which is, what are we going to do, as we deal with trade issues, about the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which expires at the end of June? While I appreciate my colleagues on the Finance Committee and the movement of trade legislation, I have had many discussions with them over the last several months about this very issue and the fact that this issue has to get resolved. I know no Member gets to have their way about what legislation gets an amendment. The list that was just given does nothing to guarantee that we would ever see a vote on the authorization of the Ex-Im Bank. While the other side wants to protect what they think are the opportunities to pass this legislation in the House, which I respect, I do not think the House has to dictate to the U.S. Senate how we are going to proceed when the majority of people in both the House and Senate support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Right now, it has deals of $18 billion and more pending before it. If the Bank expires June 30, all of those trade deals, which are jobs for U.S. companies, disappear and go away. So, yes, in my opinion, there is no more important amendment than one that saves $18 billion of U.S. company sales to overseas markets. So I and my colleagues who support the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization, which is the majority in both the House and Senate, have lost our patience with the ability to get this Bank before the Senate and before the House before that June 30 deadline. So I have no compulsion at this moment to say that I do not support moving forward on the cloture motion until we get an understanding of how this Bank is going to be reauthorized. I know people are proud of the work that has been done on TPA, but it is silly to say to the American people that we are moving forward on opening up trade opportunities but we are going to let expire the tool that small businesses and individuals use to export their products--as a credit agency. It makes no sense to open up Cambodia if then you cannot get a bank in Cambodia to have the sales of a product from my colleague from South Carolina to that country. If somebody wants to tell me that one of these New York Wall Street banks will give us that kind of financing, then maybe we will come up with a different solution, but one does not exist. Until our colleagues give us an answer about something we have been clear about for more than a year, we are going to continue to object because we are not going to let this Bank expire--the credit agency-- without a fight. I know my colleague from South Carolina is here on the floor. I appreciate his support of the Ex-Im Bank.

Ms. CANTWELL. I object.

Ms. CANTWELL. I object.

Ms. CANTWELL. Objection.

Ms. CANTWELL. Objection.

Ms. CANTWELL. Objection.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today marks the 35th anniversary of one of the largest and most devastating volcanic eruptions in the history of our Nation--the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. Today, the people of my State continue to embrace the mountain's beauty, but retain a profound respect for its power given the potential for a recap of the 1980 eruption and the devastation that it brought. On the morning of May 18, 1980, small eruptions and earthquakes finally culminated in a destructive eruption that changed surrounding geography and rendered the neighboring ridges void of life. David Johnston, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey was conducting measurements on the mountain. At 8:32 a.m., as an earthquake brought magma to St. Helens surface, Johnston sent the now infamous radio transmission: ``Vancouver, Vancouver. This is it!'' Sadly, just seconds later, Johnston was engulfed by the explosion and the ensuing landslide that swept laterally from the mountain at speeds as high as 670 miles per hour. Tragically, 57 lives were lost as a result of the eruption and 200 homes were destroyed along with bridges, roads, and railways in the vicinity. And the blast incinerated 100-year-old trees and all forms of plant life within the blast zone. Estimates put the total loss of trees at 4 billion board feet. In the 35 years since the eruption, the private sector and the Federal Government's approach to forestry has changed significantly. Following the eruption, Congress directed the Forest Service to embark on a new approach to forest management. In 1982, Congress created the Mount Saint Helens National Volcanic Monument. This 110,000 acre designation has created a kind of ``biological laboratory'' at the site of the eruption to let nature take its course. That foresight has allowed ecologists to learn that forests didn't regenerate from clearings the way scientists had believed for almost a century. We also learned the importance of leaving behind a legacy of dead trees to serve as homes for birds and that patches of remnant areas existed which supported sporadic groups of live trees. The learnings from this natural disaster shaped the forest policy that we see throughout much of Washington and the country today. Now, as residents in Washington and around the country are witnessing unusually large forest fires--the Federal Government needs to take the lessons learned following the Mount St. Helens eruptions and apply them to this new challenge. The government needs to do its part to rapidly provide the emergency services communities need after large fire and natural disasters. But we also need to stabilize slopes to prevent mudslides through investments in seismic monitoring equipment and Light Detection and Ranging or LiDAR. Just as we learned in the Mount St. Helens experiment, a great deal of wildlife thrive in the early forest conditions that come after a wildfire. Those areas need to be considered as managers look at what's the best for our Federal lands. And what better place to visit that conversation, than on the National Forest that houses the ecological record of the Mount St. Helens eruption of 35 years ago. Seismic activity in the Pacific Northwest isn't just a once in a generation event, but an ever present reality in Washington State. The eruption of Mount St. Helens provides a clear reminder of the value of early earthquake monitoring and warning systems. The Pacific Northwest Seismic Network offers early warning systems and comprehensive seismic monitoring that can warn communities up to a minute before an earthquake occurs, or even future volcanic eruptions. With constant seismic activity throughout much of Washington State, including at volcanos such as Glacier Peak in the Cascades, we must continue to make the vital investments in these early warning systems. I look forward to taking lessons learned on Mount St. Helens and applying them to a new approach to forest policy. I have also called for us as legislators and constituents to begin a conversation around what we want our national forests to look like over the next 50 years. What is working well, and what problems we do not want to see as we think about our 21st century vision for our national forests. As we reflect today on the tragic and watershed event that happened on Mount St. Helens 35 years ago, we must work to put our forests on a long-term track to successfully delivering the things we expect from them--quality recreation, clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, and a sustainable supply of wood products.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership on this legislation and on health care in general. I will always think of him as a Senator who has been an advocate for reforming our health care system and oftentimes wanting to move faster than everybody here. I am with him and the Northwest is with him, and that is why tonight is really a very proud moment for him as the ranking member of this committee to see the monumental shift in the way we have been dealing with the payment system and the Medicare access system and the children's health care program. So tonight, hopefully, we will put behind us a long-debated issue of how physicians are paid, but it will also start us on a new path to make sure people in America are guaranteed better outcomes and a process by which we will help reduce the costs of health care by focusing on both the cost of health care and the outcomes. So my colleague entered into the Record tonight--and I want to thank him for that--a colloquy that addresses the issue of how those who are part of accountable care organizations who will be given the resources to focus on high-performing health care systems will be able to under this study equate exactly how well they can do and how well they should be rewarded in reducing costs and giving better outcomes. My colleague from Oregon speaks of this because he and I come from a part of the country that literally delivers better outcomes in health care at lower costs than many other States in the United States of America. Our residents want to know why the rest of the country can't practice medicine the same way. We want those savings that you get from the health care system to be plugged in or used for other purposes. They could be part of tax reform even. But we also want the citizens of our State to get better health care. We want them to have better outcomes, and we think that moving off a fee-for-service system and onto a system that focuses on the outcome of patients is the best way for our country to move forward. So this legislation before us today builds on that process we started in the Affordable Care Act, something that is called the value-based modifier that basically takes the fee-for-service system--when you think about it, fee for service is about volume, about ordering more tests--and we are saying we want physicians to be rewarded for the outcome and the good performance and the focus on whether the patient actually gets well or is given the best health care delivery. In essence, the value modifier seeks to emulate the success Washington and Oregon have had and give us better, healthy outcomes for patients and lower costs. This year the value-based modifier is the beginning which physicians for the first time will see an adjustment. And building on that progress, Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services recently announced that Medicare would aim to tie 90 percent of their Medicare fee-for-service payments to quality or value initiatives by 2018. So this is tying half of all Medicare fee-for- service payments to an alternative payment model and helping us move forward on, again, focusing on outcomes. I thank my colleague for entering into the colloquy the ongoing analysis that we need to do to continue to make changes on the health care system and congratulate him on the significant success of getting this bill done. It means we can spend more time focusing on efficiency, on quality, on the best way to compensate physicians but also keeping the focus on the patients and making sure they get better outcomes. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. I rise to talk about a provision in this legislation intended to move the health care payment system toward better outcomes and efficiency. Physicians in my State and others are innovating by partnering with high-performing Medicare Advantage plans. This model can grant the health care provider significant accountability and ownership of a patient's health, with the result of achieving impressive health outcomes, reducing overlap and duplication, and saving money for everyone involved. I was successful in including a provision in the bill requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to study integrating alternative payment models in the Medicare Advantage payment system. This study will also assess feasibility of including a value-based modifier. I look forward to working with my Finance Committee colleagues in the future to promote the innovation and efficiency taking place in Medicare Advantage. I ask that the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee work with me in the future toward these goals.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. While there are many of us who support full funding for PILT, this amendment is impractical. In fact, the Congressional Research Service reports indicate that attempts to set up tax equivalency for PILT would be wrought with errors and gamesmanship. That is because counties routinely tax different land uses at different rates. Second, my colleagues should note that this may increase PILT payments more than 350 percent of today's authorized level, and that would raise the cost of this program from $4 to $5 billion, to $15 to $20 billion. Because the amendment creates a spending-neutral reserve fund, only cuts to other mandatory spending programs could be used to fund the 350 percent rise in payments. So, Mr. President, I cannot support this amendment. It is unsustainable and unworkable, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Gardner amendment would radically change the way water is handled on public lands. There are real concerns about how Federal land management agencies deal with water, particularly in the drought-afflicted West. But this amendment is so broad that it is trying to address these problems in a way that will have numerous unintended consequences. It would make even worse some of the water shortages in the areas of the West, particularly in the Lower Colorado Basin. It would also create havoc in our national parks in both the East and the West. The amendment would call into question the status of water contracts actually signed by the Bureau of Reclamation throughout the West. Uncertainty is the last thing we need. It would have damaging implications for settlements such as the Yakima Basin where people have come to agreement. I agree we need to continue to work on the drought issues in the West. But saying that Federal management agencies don't have their obligations, such as helping in the national forests with firefighters----

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, on the observance of this very solemn milestone. This Sunday will be 1 year since this catastrophic event. I want to thank Senator Murray for something she did not mention, which is her leadership on helping us get passed the Green Mountain Lookout legislation in the aftermath of this event, which is legislation that she had championed for a long time and yet had been stuck. When people realized there were things we could do for this community to help restore its recreational and economic activity, she got on it and we were able to pass that very quickly. So I thank her for that leadership. This Sunday is a very solemn milestone, because 43 Washingtonians lost their lives in a very destructive mudslide that buried the highway between the communities of Darrington and Oso and nearby Arlington. These communities lost loved ones, friends. Their memory will be with us for a long time. These communities have shown that even in the most unimaginable devastation, people can come together in unity and persevere. They showed how light and hope can shine through even in grief. Now, after many months, stores are reopening, the highway is again bustling, there are new connections of Internet and phone lines being restored, residents are rebuilding, and they are hoping for a brighter economic future. As my colleague said, we were very inspired by the hope and grace of this community, that continues to demonstrate that on a daily basis. It is hard to believe that a year has gone by. On that morning, it became just like every other morning, a rainy Saturday morning, and people went about their business. But as the heavy rain weakened one of the hills in the Stillaguamish Valley, the resulting landslide was approximately 1 square mile. Forty-nine homes were destroyed, 530 were covered, and the Stillaguamish River was basically rerouted. So many problems arose. But immediately more than 1,000 volunteers descended. Many from the local community, with their own transportation systems, their own rigs, came to the river and devoted thousands of hours to try to help survivors and to help the community recover. This American flag was hoisted by one of the firefighters. It is tacked to a standing nearby tree, just to show our resilience. Much like the American flag, this community was battered and bruised but was very proud. During those days, many Washingtonians would make sure that every resource was made available to this community. When faced with these immense challenges, these communities of Darrington and Oso pulled together and, yes, Oso became ``Oso strong.'' It was a rallying cry for the volunteers, to the young people, to many people who were working many hours a day. Private companies and individuals, corporations, tribes, charities, nonprofits--all sorts of governments chipped in. Everybody helped. We want to thank them for that help. It was just a year ago that it seemed as though every resource covered the festival grounds and the Forest Service parking lot, FEMA, Snohomish County, the Department of Natural Resources, the National Guard, fire departments up and down the State. They continued to make sure everything was addressed--recovery efforts underway, local people gathered, such as the small business owner there in Darrington, Kevin Ash, who tried to keep a plan for every business to stay open. We looked at what could be accomplished for the future. Out of these meetings, we were able to secure a $150,000 grant from the Economic Development Administration to draft an economic disaster recovery plan for the community. That plan is set to be unveiled in June and help the local economy that once was heavily dependent on logging that was hit hard by this disaster. Senator Murray and I have worked with Mayor Dan Rankin from Darrington, whose leadership and on-the-job focus for this has helped the community continue to survive this incredible disaster. There are so many strategies Mayor Dan has put into place that are about how the community moves forward. Over the past year, the Small Business Administration awarded $400,000 in low-interest loans to help rehabilitate businesses in the area. It is helping the Darrington-Arlington economy and others in the affected area. Through their innovation and hard work, everybody is trying to help what is called the Upper Stillaguamish Valley not just get back to where it was but flourish in the future. This is some of the most beautiful territory in our State, from the heights of Glacier Peak to the depths of the Upper Stillaguamish Valley. This typifies the beauty of the Northwest. I want to make sure we thank the appropriate people who helped us in this response: President Obama, who visited the area; Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson; FEMA Director Craig Fugate; obviously our Governor; Representative DelBene, who was there practically every moment of this disaster, from the moment it happened, for days and days and days, and then around the clock, shuttling back and forth between Washington, DC, and the site; Congressman Larsen; obviously SBA Administrator Maria Contreras-Sweet, who came to the site; the Red Cross; the Oso fire station. We talk about first responders here. But when you see first responders for small communities step up and address such an incredible natural disaster and coordinate everything--I want to say a thanks to Willy Harper from the Oso fire station, and Travis Hots, who was the incident command leader for the first several days from Snohomish County Fire District, which brought all of the resources together to try to make the planning and recovery efforts for this incredible disaster go as smoothly as possible; County Executive John Lovick and Sheriff Ty Trenary. I also want to say Arlington Mayor Barbara Tolbert did more for the community in using every resource she had to help support the recovery of these Washington residents. Some communities might say, well, that is somewhere down the road, and who is going to help us? But she put every Arlington resource onto this site, knowing it might be months and months and months before she ever saw any of the resources to reimburse them. We want to thank Arlington for everything they did. So while we will this weekend be having a moment of silence on the site, we have to remember the individuals we lost, and how we need to move ahead. This hillside bears an unmistakable scar. It has inflicted deep wounds. But it is healing because of the friends and neighbors who have strengthened us in this region. We want to make sure that the memories of those we lost will fuel our determination to do better. Regardless, it is not going to be easy, it is not going to be quick, but we will continue to build off of the strength this community demonstrated in the aftermath of this disaster. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Murray, in commemorating the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's 50th anniversary. As our constituents in Washington State know, PNNL is an integral part of our economy. The lab has a total economic output of $1.3 billion and supports more than 6,800 jobs in Washington. PNNL's commitment to commercialization and technology transfer has brought research out of the laboratory and into the real world, further bolstering PNNL's reputation as a national scientific leader and supporting Washington State's economy. I am reminded each day how the work at PNNL impacts our daily lives. During my visits to the Port of Seattle, I know that PNNL has deployed radiation detection systems that keep our ports safe. And when I watch a movie at home, I know that the DVD I use is possible because of PNNL's advancements in digital data storage technology. Because of these and other important contributions, PNNL has earned more Federal Laboratory Consortium Awards than any other national laboratory, holds more than 2,300 U.S. and foreign patents, and fostered the creation of 108 spin-off companies that remain open today. PNNL plays a unique role in addressing our Nation's energy demands by furthering research in climate change, advanced biofuels, and the electric grid. In the 1990s, the lab helped create the Global Change Assessment Model to help institutions across the world explore the impacts of climate change and the different policy proposals to address it. The scientists at PNNL have also developed a cutting-edge chemical process that transforms algae to crude oil in minutes, a technology that could help our Nation reduce its dependence on foreign oil. And the lab continues to lead in assessing cyber security threats by developing and testing technology to help protect the electric grid. With its stellar record of commercializing research, I have no doubt that PNNL's work will continue to meet the United States' energy challenges in the future.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues not to override the President's veto of this special-interest piece of legislation. I wish to thank my colleague from California for her leadership on this issue and for her constant involvement in making sure that national environmental and safety standards are adhered to. She has been a great advocate throughout this process and I very much appreciate her voice as we close the debate about the Keystone Pipeline legislation. This bill to approve the Keystone Pipeline undermines a well- established process for determining what is in the national interests. If we overrode the President's veto, we would be subverting safety and environmental standards that are important to the American people. I am glad the President vetoed this legislation, and I urge my colleagues not to override the decision. I think the President's veto message said it best: Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest. . . . And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest--including our security, safety, and environment--it has earned my veto. So the President sums it up pretty much, I think. Why circumvent the process? The people who have been advocates for the pipeline have been circumventing the process all the way through. They circumvented the process by not going through the utility commission in their State, the public utility commission, and instead wrote legislation around that. That legislation has been challenged in court. The rest of it has been an enormous process here in Washington, DC. While the company was negotiating with the State Department, it was also supporting efforts to circumvent that process at the State Department and just get a rubberstamp on their permit, saying ``project approved.'' I think this project, as does every other project in the United States of America, should follow the rules. While we spent the better part of January considering this legislation, there were other events that transpired. We heard a lot about the routing and that it was a settled matter. Since January, it is worth noting that Nebraska landowners have taken new steps to defend their rights as private property owners. On January 9, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a special carveout of TransCanada to site the Keystone XL Pipeline. They did this even though four judges who addressed the question said this carveout was unconstitutional. After the setback, several landowners whose property would be seized along the proposed route filed a new suit and hopefully stopped the seizure of their land. Last month--just this past February--two Nebraska district courts have issued temporary injunctions enjoining TransCanada's effort to acquire rights of way to support the Keystone Pipeline by eminent domain. So at this moment here in the Senate, with the vote imminent, the pipeline's route through Nebraska is still in doubt because the new lawsuit challenges the Governor's ability to approve it. It is also worth noting that South Dakota will hold a new hearing on the proposed route of the pipeline through their State in May. At this time we simply don't know whether South Dakota will make the same decision it did when it first approved the route 3 years ago. The situation in Nebraska and South Dakota makes it clear that even if this bill were to become law, the Keystone Pipeline will not get built any time soon. I know my colleagues would like to rush the process, and they will talk about all of the various steps in the process where this project got delayed. But who said building a pipeline through the United States of America by a foreign interest should get ``expedited approval'' stamped on it from the very beginning? That is what they have done. They have circumvented what is the process in the State, which should have been through the utilities commission, and they have tried to circumvent the process here in the Senate. So I hope we will not override the President's veto, but give the President of the United States the ability to still consider these national interests of the environment and security. We had a pretty robust debate here on the Senate floor, and many of the issues that would have been important my colleagues voted to say we shouldn't consider--environmental issues. So I get that on the other side of the aisle, there are people who want to give a pass-go, a speedy permit to this process. I urge my colleagues to not override the President, but allow him to do the homework that is needed on security, on the environment, and on making sure that due process is followed. I ask my colleagues to not override the President's veto. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a historic decision by the Federal Communications Commission. It was a 3-to-2 decision in a landmark case that will go down as a way to protect an open Internet economy. Consumers all across America should applaud this decision--and I know they will in the Pacific Northwest--because we will be protecting an aspect of our economy that has created thousands of jobs and millions of dollars. This decision, known as Net neutrality, simply says that cable companies and telecom companies cannot artificially charge more on the Internet, thereby slowing down traffic or making a two-tier system in which some applications would be given access to faster service and others not, based on what they paid for. This is an important decision because it champions an open Internet economy that has built so many new aspects of the way we communicate, the way we educate, and the way we continue to transact business around the globe. In 2010 the Internet economy accounted for 4.7 percent, or approximately $68 billion, of America's gross domestic product. Next year that Internet economy is expected to pass $100 billion and comprise 5.4 percent of our country's estimated $18 trillion GDP. So in 6 years the Internet's value has climbed over 30 percent. What this decision says is: Let's protect the Internet. Let's not artificially tax it, let's not artificially slow it down, and let's not artificially create two tiers of an Internet system and stymie innovation. So many of us now know and enjoy the benefits the Internet provides when we buy a Starbucks coffee and use an app to pay for it or use an app to get on an airplane--and so many other ways that we communicate in an information age. Slowing all that down by just one second causes big problems and curtails an economy of growth. We all know we have questions about the way cable companies and phone companies charge us for data. Let's make sure the Federal Communications Commission does its job by overseeing those companies that might want to charge more for those services than they need to charge. Let's keep an open Internet. Let's have Net neutrality be the law of the land. I applaud the FCC for this historic decision today. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the President's veto of legislation that would have rubberstamped the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. This legislation allowed a circumvention of Federal review processes and allowed corporations not to adhere to various environmental safety standards that are important for the American people. So I am glad the President is vetoing this legislation. The rules for siting cross-border pipelines are well established, and time and time again TransCanada has shown that it doesn't want to play by the rules. So with this veto by the President of the United States, he is clearly saying TransCanada must play by the rules. The President's veto recognizes three important implications for Congress in the intervening and trying to pass this Keystone Pipeline process. First, this bill was premature because it authorized the construction of the pipeline while legal and administrative processes were still ongoing in Nebraska and North and South Dakota and where landowners and tribes are seeking review in the courts and before regulatory bodies. The legislation also eliminates the need for a national interest determination, which is associated with the process of the pipeline, which was a key authority for the U.S. Government to insist on safety and environmental regulations. It is a process that should have allowed the State Department and the President to insist on pipeline safety conditions. Finally, this legislation did not address the loophole for tar sands oil companies to avoid paying for oilspill cleanups. By vetoing this bill, the President refused to throw hundreds of conditions out the window. These are things from 59 different pipeline safety conditions that would have been legally binding--but not if the legislation had passed. My colleagues also remember that we talked about work--that we now have concerns on the existing Keystone Pipeline. So I am glad the President of the United States vetoed this legislation. I hope we will get on to working on other important energy opportunities. I hope my colleagues will not try to override this veto but instead focus on renewing the energy tax credits that help employ hundreds of thousands of people in various industries--anything from solar, to wind, to hybrid electric vehicles--and get on to the other issues that are so important for us in talking about a 21st-century energy strategy. Again, I am glad the President of the United States has vetoed this legislation that would have been a rubberstamp by Congress for a special interest. Instead, let's make sure all environmental and safety conditions are met. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of the issue of Net neutrality and the importance of it to our innovation economy. The Internet is a $638 billion economic force, and according to the McKinsey Global Institute, it supports millions of jobs across our Nation. Setting the right policy for the Internet is critical for the continuation of American job creation in an innovation economy. Over the next 24 hours, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is expected to announce strong Net neutrality standards to support the growth of this innovation economy. According to news reports, the FCC will establish clear rules of the road to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet cannot be divided into fast and slow lanes. This announcement would set a clear framework for the innovation economy and the millions of jobs that depend on it across our Nation. It would make a game-changing milestone for American innovators and consumers because a comprehensive plan would protect consumers while still allowing for flexibility of business growth and investment and making sure that American consumers and innovators are protected. The Commission is expected to vote on this rule later this month, and I hope that all of our colleagues will be paying attention to this decision because this decision is not just whether I can download or use Netflix, it is really about equal access to the marketplace. It is about how the future success of these innovators are determined. Over the last few years, we have been debating the future of the Web, and that is because broadband companies have tried to leverage what is to be established as a two-tier Internet--those with fast lanes because of their ability to pay more and slow lanes for those who can't pay more. I believe the President did the right thing. He called on the FCC to make the right decision when it comes to the Internet and protecting it from cable companies who want to overcharge or slow down connections. The FCC seems to be willing to make the right call, by protecting consumers and the Internet, under a new order which, just like a utility, would give consumers the ability to be protected from bad service or exorbitant fees. At this point in time, that is what we need to do to protect consumers. According to the news reports, Chairman Wheeler will announce a plan to use the FCC authority in the most comprehensive way to protect Net neutrality, prohibit pay-to-play fast lanes, prohibit blocking and throttling, require greater transparency for consumers, and apply the rules to wireless broadbands so that smart phones are treated just like the browser on your desk. This plan would cover what is known as the middle mile or Internet traffic or the companies that content providers, such as Netflix, pay to bring traffic to cable companies, such as Comcast, to connect to you, the end user. These important policies will provide certainty to a startup in business, and they will make sure that those products get equal access. Last month I had a roundtable in Seattle with several startups and experts on Net neutrality, and many of those companies relied on the Internet to transform their ideas into successful businesses. They explained how the debate affects more than just tech companies. They said software is revolutionizing every industry, from retail to health care, everything from the way you pay for your coffee at Starbucks to how you access your own personal health information. If we allowed a two-tier system to develop, the big guys would have the ability to pay more while the smaller customers would have disruptions. What we have done, hopefully with an announcement today, is to make sure we are putting a stake in the ground to protect consumers. The CEO of the Washington Technology Industry Association put it best when he said: We have a multi-trillion dollar evidence base study that says the current rules of the game--which mean open, neutral access to the Internet--work. I couldn't agree more. Our innovation economy depends on equal access for all ideas. The proof is in the numbers. Over 6 million U.S. jobs are tied to the Internet. That adds up to a payroll of $558 billion. In the Seattle metropolitan area alone, from 2009 to 2014, there were 433 different venture capital deals related to Internet companies, totaling nearly $2.6 billion. All of this growth in the Internet economy relies on an open Internet. That means no blocking, no throttling of these priorities. That is why I support strong net neutrality rules. They need to be responsible and efficient. I thank Chairman Wheeler for his leadership in setting up strong rules. I hope this information on the Web continues to be one of our great economic engines and continues job development here in the United States. A strong net neutrality rule is the best tool in the toolbox for preserving the openness of the Internet today. It will go a long way to help us continue our economic prosperity. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.