Heidi Heitkamp

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, there is no better partner for me in this quest than the great Senator from the State of Alaska. We have spent so much time relating and recounting our experiences in visiting with Native Alaskans or, in my case, American Indians, talking about the challenges and talking about what needs to happen and how we need to shed a light on not only the despair, so that we all are motivated for change, but how we need to shed a light on the gratefulness and the great spirit that is happening. I know that my great friend has had those situations where you just wonder how resilient a young girl can be who experiences these kinds of challenges and this kind of abuse to come back and say: This is going to be a great future. So I wanted to thank the Senator from Alaska for her strong and abiding and great commitment to all the people of Alaska, and I want to thank her for her partnership.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill which I introduced that I would love to have the Presiding Officer's sponsorship, given how important the Port of Louisiana is to American agriculture and certainly commodities that we ship across the world. It is called the Agricultural Export Expansion Act that I introduced with Senator Boozman as my cosponsor. We have a great bipartisan lineup of people who are interested in this. So what does this bill do? I will say, very rarely does a day go by-- whether I am in North Dakota or whether I am here in Washington, DC-- that I don't speak with or hear from North Dakota farmers and ranchers. The agriculture economy is absolutely critical to North Dakota. Almost one-quarter of North Dakota workers are farmers and ranchers or they are employed in farm-related jobs. During every meeting, farmers and ranchers express the urgent need--the urgent need--to open trade with Cuba and to stop tying the hands of our producers. Just on Tuesday our barley growers were in my office telling me about how important the market in Cuba could be. Last week it was the Dry Bean Council telling me what I already know from my visit with Cuba: The products we grow in the United States--like North Dakota pinto beans or Arkansas rice--are compatible with the Cuban diet, and there is high demand for our high-quality products. These aren't just crops that North Dakota grows. These are crops that North Dakota knows exceptionally well and that we excel in. My State is the No. 1 producer of barley, multiple varieties of beans, lentils, and certain types of wheat. Enabling agriculture exports to Cuba would be a huge boon for North Dakota farmers and ranchers, as well as those from many other States. Unfortunately, because of trade barriers the United States puts on itself, the Cuban people aren't eating North Dakota beans, Kansas wheat or Arkansas rice. Instead, they are importing those products from countries much further away--like Brazil, Canada, Europe, and even Vietnam. I would say not only in terms of proximity of our product to the Cuban market--which is a huge freight advantage--we also have the highest quality of products. So we are forfeiting what in fact would be a natural market for us. Think about that. In this day, where trade is so important--where improving our balance of trade is so important--we will not be able to access the Cuban market. Congress has eased some restrictions on exports to Cuba for agricultural products. They did that back in 2000 with the passage of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act. That was a great first step. We did make some progress in increased sales to Cuba. Unfortunately, now that same law is holding us back. The administration made important changes to U.S. policy and opened some travel and some trade to Cuba starting with their January 2015 changes. Most recently, including last month, the administration made more changes, including allowing for financing of authorized exports to Cuba. Unfortunately, those exports are other than agricultural exports. Because of our once forward-looking bill, agricultural exporters are prohibited now from offering financing that all other exporters can provide to Cuba. That needs changing. In 2014 I visited Cuba. I met with Cuban agricultural trade officials to discuss bilateral economic benefits of expanding agricultural exports from North Dakota and the United States to Cuba. These are conversations we need to continue to have. Last April I and Senator Boozman introduced our bipartisan bill to level the playing field for our farmers and ranchers and make sure we can compete with the rest of the world in Cuba. What does that bill do and how does it improve our trade relationship with Cuba? One of the greatest barriers we have in getting our products to Cuba is we can't finance it. Some might say: Well, we don't want to put government taxpayer dollars at risk. This bill does not put one taxpayer dollar at risk. We are talking about opening the market so we can access private financing for agricultural exports to Cuba. Let me repeat that. No taxpayer dollars are at risk. It is based entirely on individual risk assessment and decisions. Our bill is supported by the U.S. Agricultural Coalition for Cuba, a wide-ranging coalition including every grower group and industry association. This week, the Cuban Government announced that El Nino is going to create an even greater loss of agricultural products in Cuba. This is going to create an even greater opportunity for our agricultural exports--a greater opportunity. Why--why--why would we let other countries keep eating our lunch and dominating this important market, especially given our proximity? It is time for Congress to get out of American agriculture's way and let private businesses make exporting and financing decisions. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor and help pass our bill, S. 1049, the Agricultural Export Expansion Act. Finally, I want to talk about the challenges that American agriculture has. Higher-dollar value has put tremendous stress on our products. We have seen corn prices drop, we have seen soybean prices drop, we have seen American agriculture challenged in ways we haven't seen for the last decade. How do we fix that problem? With another government program? Maybe we will have to help or expand the farm bill to deal with our food security issues created by low commodity prices. I will not take that off the table, but I will say the surest way that we can get out from underneath these challenges is export, is to provide for trade. It is one of the reasons I supported TPA. I believe it is great for American commodities to access additional markets and take down trade barriers to provide us with market, but why are we artificially standing in the way of private investment and private financing of American agricultural products? It is time that we do the right thing by American agriculture and open this market. We can take this incremental step without having this body agree to lifting any kind of embargo. We can take this incremental step without changing the prohibition we have on Federal-sponsored marketing programs. We can begin to access the Cuban market and introduce our high-quality beans, edible peas, and lentils. We can do that. I will close with a story about my great friend Maria Cantwell from the State of Washington. Washington also grows what we call a lot of cross crops--although, I would argue that ours are probably even lot better than what is grown in the State of Washington. Maria Cantwell went on a trade mission to try to sell Washington State lentils. After hours of listening to the trade officials and Mr. Castro, she was successful in convincing him to buy lentils. The lentils he eventually bought were from North Dakota. We have an opportunity to access this market--not just for North Dakota but for the State of Washington, for the State of Louisiana, for the State of Arkansas, for the State of Kansas. For all of our agricultural producers, open this market, give us the ability to do what we do in every other place. We aren't putting taxpayer dollars at risk. We are simply asking for access to markets. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows in Senator Durbin's office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 114th Congress: Jeremy Ward, Elizabeth Lawrence, Karla Hagan, and Craig Crawford.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I thank my great friend from the State of Wyoming. Many of you have talked about the challenges you have in terms of seeing the flaring. If you want to stop waste, whether it is economic waste because of a lack of royalties, both Federal and State, or if you want to stop flaring and waste and do a great environmental thing, you will vote yes on this amendment. What this amendment fundamentally does is shorten the time period for pipeline easements across Federal land--easements where today it takes 2 or 3 weeks to get a private or State easement--which takes over a year. During that period of time, we have seen flaring across North Dakota and across the West. Please vote yes for this amendment. It is a great environmental and economic amendment.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, thank you to my great friend from the State of Delaware. I wish to first make a comment on Adam Szubin because I also serve on the banking committee and have had a chance not only to meet with him personally but to witness the excellent testimony he provided during his confirmation hearing. We all see very smart people. They come through and they agree to serve their country in these appointed positions which frequently get bogged down here. And not taking anything away from anyone else who has ever appeared before the banking committee, I would say that he is one of the brightest America has to offer. He has a wonderful family, he is deeply devout in his religion--he is Jewish--and a friend to Israel, a friend to this country, using his enormous talents to keep this country safe. There is nothing that would recommend that we not confirm Adam Szubin in one of the most critical positions we have in the Treasury Department. If we are serious about stopping Iran from getting a weapon, if we are serious about enforcing a regime of sanctions, then we need our best and brightest. He clearly is our best and brightest. One of the points I want to make coming to the floor is that we cannot allow incremental creep, incremental violations, small, little violations. You know how it is. We are all parents, and we watch kids take advantage and take advantage until pretty soon we don't really have the role anymore of a parent. We want to make sure that when we are enforcing this agreement and when we are looking at this agreement, we send a clear message from the very beginning, which is we will not tolerate a breach. I think it is disturbing that somehow this has become such a partisan issue. We should all be on the floor today encouraging the administration to not let this agreement be eroded by the failure to enforce. An agreement is only as good as the enforcement capability, and we need to fund the IAEA. We need to make sure they have adequate resources. My great friend from Delaware has suggested a long-term strategy for funding. We need to make sure they have the political support, not just in this body, but across the world to do the right thing. We have been talking about the reason we, in fact, agreed to allow this agreement to go forward, and the biggest agreement was the enforcement regime. We believed that because of the unprecedented access that the IAEA would have in Iran, we would know more about this program and we would have access to more. We were reassured about that access when we went to Vienna. We were reassured that, yes, they were not going to back down, but if they do back down and don't give access, we need enforcement. We should all be joining together to talk about what that enforcement should look like, how we fund that enforcement, and what a difference it could make. I share a level of optimism that we are moving in the right direction, but being someone who has negotiated deals, I know it is not over when you sign on to the agreement. It is never over when you sign on to the agreement. It is going to take a level of absolute myopic focus on enforcement to make sure we realize the promise of this international agreement and that we work with our allies and work with our colleagues. We can't do that if we don't have people in those positions who can have a dialogue and speak for the administration, and we certainly can't do it if we allow an incremental breach. I am joining with my colleagues to provide a unified voice that says: We stand ready to do what it takes to enforce this agreement and prevent breach and make sure we realize the promise of the joint agreement.

Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank my good friend from New Jersey for that question. The surest way to prevent acts of terror is to make sure acts of terror are never funded. That takes an international banking sophistication and an understanding of every potential loophole you have in every country out there, and that is what Adam Szubin does. He spends all day getting briefings and reports about where those potential failures could be and how to plug those holes. How do we do what is necessary to unfund terrorism? Whether it is ISIL--ISIS--Hezbollah or Hamas, we need to take away the money. That is the surest way toward success. If we do not confirm someone in this critical position, what is the message? I will be the first person to say that if he is not up to the job, let's find somebody else, but after having met him and watched his testimony and the level of dialogue he has not only with the Democrats but also with the Republicans--this isn't about the caliber of this gentleman to serve our country. It is about a political fight over this deal. The deal is done--not done, but the deal is in its infancy. If we are going to realize the promise of this deal and the commitment this country made, we absolutely need people in place to make sure this deal is enforced, and that is in fact Adam Szubin. My colleagues who were on the trip with me know we received a number of briefings that went to the heart of taking a look at the international banking system, where the weakest links are, and how we can attack those weakest links in shutting down the terrorist network for financing this terrible behavior.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my great friend, Senator Heinrich of New Mexico.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, we rise today to talk about an issue we started talking about a year ago; that is, the oil export ban. What we were going to do is not only educate the public about this 40-year-old ban but also educate those colleagues in our caucus who do not have the level of experience that we have with the oil industry. I can tell you that it has been a journey. I want to make this point because I always make this point when I talk about it: Fundamentally ignore all the other policy arguments. There is absolutely no reason in the world to restrict the export of a commodity that we produce in this country. Commodities traditionally trade on a global market. If we are not going to distort the market, they need to find their market. This is a 40-year-old ban that didn't make sense when they did it, and it made even less sense in an environment where States such as North Dakota were on the path to produce over 2 million barrels a day of light sweet crude from our shale formations. At the end of the day, when we look at the effort and we look at the analysis, occasionally a good argument wins the day. I think that is what we are seeing as we are on the verge of this Congress--signed by the President--lifting a 40-year-old ban on the exportation of crude oil that is produced in this country. I wish to make a couple of quick points about it on a policy matter. First, many people say: Well, wouldn't that jeopardize our energy independence? Closing off the market and making sure our commodities can't find a market encourages investment in other places than the United States of America, so it is counterintuitive. They say: Wouldn't this actually raise our gasoline prices? We had study after study that concluded one simple thing: Either it would have no effect or it would have a downward effect since gasoline prices were measured against Brent, which is the international pricing benchmark. When we look at what is good for consumers, what is good for jobs in States such as North Dakota and New Mexico, what is good for national security, and what is good for our allies--I spent a lot of time last year talking to people from the EU and talking to people in Eastern Europe about the significance of energy security and knowing that even though they didn't have a source of energy, they could buy energy from a country such as the United States of America. I frequently referred to our oil as ``democracy oil.'' It is not oil produced by countries that we are at odds with, that we disagree with; this is oil that is absolutely an opportunity to use that soft power, to use that ability to export. That idea was shared not only by foreign policy experts from conservative think tanks but many well-recognized Democratic foreign policy experts. We are at the point of actually getting this done, and that is the good news. We also know that frequently in the Congress a good idea doesn't happen in isolation; it happens when we are willing to sit down and go to negotiations. That is where my great friend from New Mexico came in, taking a look at whether there was an opportunity to actually get a deal done and what we could do to make this actually happen. So we partnered up pretty early in making the pitch together. I wish to ask my friend Senator Heinrich, would you please talk about the piece of this deal that supports the development of renewables and what that means for your State, which is also an oil-producing State, and what that means for jobs not only in a State such as mine, which has a large manufacturing facility that manufactures blades--plus, we think we are the Saudi Arabia of wind. I know there are probably 20 States that say that. In North Dakota, it is true. I am sure the Presiding Officer would agree that we are, in fact, the Saudi Arabia of wind. I ask Senator Heinrich, what does this mean for you in terms of renewables?

Ms. HEITKAMP. Well, it wasn't that long ago that North Dakota became the second largest oil-producing State in the country. We are challenged in North Dakota because we don't have the mature infrastructure of Texas and the basin. We are challenged with transportation. But the amazing thing is, we produce the best crude in the world, light sweet crude. The problem with light sweet crude over the years is it wasn't the dominant crude that was produced in the United States. As a result, the refineries are basically geared up to refine heavy crudes. They are geared up to basically import crude from places such as Venezuela and some of the heavier crudes. That is what the refiners can do. And a lot of refineries that can handle light sweet crude are not on a pipeline system. So on top of producing this great-quality crude, we have additional transportation costs and we were seeing deductions. When you add to that the challenge of producing something that could be so important for energy security in our country but also national security and helping our allies with their energy security in Europe-- when you add the challenge of that product not being able to find a market, what that means is that this energy renaissance for the country that we are so proud that we participated in begins to basically dim. This idea that we can be energy independent starts dimming, and we start seeing people cut back on investment, and we start seeing people reduce their plans to invest in this country when they know they can go offshore and actually market their product. So the bottom line is that this isn't going to raise oil prices overnight. Those folks who may have a prediction that this is going to result in a dramatic increase--I don't think they really understand the oil markets and what is happening right now. But what it does do is it takes a commodity that should always have had the opportunity to find its market and it applies free enterprise system principles and it applies capitalistic principles. When you produce something in this country, you ought to be able to find your market. People say: It is remarkable you have been able to get this far. It tells the American public that the Congress can function if people come willing to make a deal. I see my friend from New Jersey, who a lot of people would not have suspected played such an important role in our discussions and had such a willingness to learn. He impressed a lot of our friends in the oil industry with his rapid understanding of economics. I tried to tell them he was smart. They occasionally get fooled by press releases as opposed to actually meeting folks. I think another great thing that has come as a result of this is certainly a willingness of the Democratic caucus to listen to this argument. There has been a building of relationships that I hope will allow us to have a reasoned debate about oil energy development in this country going into the future. I say to Senator Heinrich, I am going to ask you to close with an explanation of, when you look into the future, how critical this is to your school system and what you see in terms of the future of the industry as a result of this change in your State.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I know that we are up against the clock, and I promised my friend from the South that I would, in fact, conclude, but I saw someone I worked very closely with on this issue come onto the floor. I extend my great appreciation for the hours we spent together talking about this issue and the hours we spent with the senior Senator from Alaska, basically educating as the first step and then finally delivering a product that we can all be proud of. I extend my congratulations and my appreciation to the chairwoman of the energy committee for the work that she did and for her belief, along with my belief, that we could in fact get this across the finish line. I don't think anyone at any point, other than her and me, actually believed we could get it done this year. It is pretty remarkable that we did.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, today I would like to honor a North Dakotan who is among the longest serving fire department volunteers in my State, keeping his community safe from fires and other threats for more than 65 years. That is a rare distinction in public service. The name Joe Simon, Jr., of Thompson, ND, has been on the volunteer firefighters' roster since his high school days when his father was fire chief. Joe served for 36 years as the chief of the Thompson Fire Department. During that time, it was Joe's responsibility to keep the department fully staffed, manage training and medical duties, and work on grants to help keep the department running. Though Joe has retired as chief, he is still actively involved with department, helping with monthly checks of equipment and going on fire calls. According to his friend, George Hoselton, it was under Joe's leadership that the Thompson Fire Department got its first set of the Jaws of Life rescue system--a major purchase for a volunteer department. After a college student died in an accident along the highway near Thompson because no Jaws of Life were available, Joe led door-to-door fundraising efforts to buy the lifesaving equipment. The community, today comprised of just a thousand North Dakotans, contributed enough money that the Thompson Fire Department was able to purchase the Jaws of Life and a rescue vehicle needed to carry the Jaws of Life and other equipment, says George. And that is what Joe is best at: working hard, bringing folks together, and making his community safer. Joe's volunteerism at the Thompson Fire Department over more than 60 years has made the department a model for other communities around the State and country. Thompson Fire Department has taught classes to share its practices with other fire departments in the region and has long led the way in improving its volunteers' skills and safety. Under Joe's leadership, the department secured one of the earliest automatic defibrillators in the State of North Dakota. Joe also helped get medical first response units up and running at other volunteer departments in the region and was instrumental in getting 911 and emergency first responder radio systems set up in Grand Forks County. Service is a way of life in Joe's family. His wife, Sue, has been an EMT with the Thompson Fire Department for 27 years, which puts her in second place in seniority. After studying at the University of North Dakota, Joe has spent his life in Thompson helping to grow and support the community in many ways. For 36 years, he worked as the head of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service in Grand Forks. Outside of his firefighting duties, Joe has been actively involved in American Legion baseball, Thompson High School football, and almost any other sporting event in town. Every Memorial Day, Joe puts out flags in nearby cemeteries, and reads a list of the honored dead--all of the veterans buried at four cemeteries around Thompson. Friend and fellow firefighter George says that Joe ``gets the biggest smile on his face when he helps someone. That makes his day.'' Volunteers make up 96 percent of North Dakota's firefighters. They have other jobs but continue to give back, building stronger and safer communities and supporting the very fabric of our State. North Dakotans know that each of us has to step in to help our family and neighbors during tough times, and our first responders know that better than most. It is North Dakotans like Joe who epitomize why our State is such a unique and wonderful place filled with dedicated individuals who put others before themselves. Thank you, Joe, for your tremendous service to your community and for your tireless efforts to keep communities throughout North Dakota safe.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, after 7 and a half years of leadership educating the best and brightest minds not only in North Dakota, but from around the world, University of North Dakota, UND, president, Dr. Robert O. Kelley, is retiring. I want to take the time to thank him for his service and send my best wishes to President Kelley, his wife, Marcia, and his family for their commitment to the students, faculty, and families served by the university. President Kelley joined the University of North Dakota in 2008, serving as the school's 11th president and providing the university, its students, the city of Grand Forks, and the State of North Dakota the steadfast direction needed to strengthen the legacy and leadership of the institution. As an alumna, the University of North Dakota will always hold a special place in my heart. The University of North Dakota is where I gained knowledge and skills that helped me in both the private and public sectors. So I am proud President Kelley similarly ensured that students continue to receive the skills they need to succeed. Under his steady guidance, the University of North Dakota has grown significantly. Nearly $225 million in building projects are underway at the university, including the school of law building addition and renovation and the new school of medicine and health sciences building, which will open in the fall of 2016. Each and every time I return to the campus to visit with students and faculty, I see firsthand the exceptional college experience UND offers. I know these accomplishments are in large part attributed to Dr. Kelley's direction and will be an element of his legacy for years to come. Since the university's founding in 1883, it has been an academic center for North Dakota, where young minds have had the opportunity to learn and grow to become the leaders of the State and the country. President Kelley's leadership has worked to navigate the university through sometimes controversial reforms including the process to change the school's nickname and logo. Under his guidance, the school worked to ensure a smooth transition. As UND looks to the future, I recognize that President Kelley's work over these last 7 and a half years has strengthened the institution's foundation for excellence and will help those who follow in his stead to maintain the school's legacy. On behalf of the students, families, and citizens of North Dakota, I wish him and his family the best and thank them for their hard work and service to the University of North Dakota and our great State.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I want to express my great thanks to my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Capito, who has been absolutely a champion on this issue, but also a champion on looking at new technologies and a champion to actually see what we can do moving forward with the great innovation that is the history of this country and the history of coal country. If you look over the life of the Clean Air Act, you will see literally billions of dollars of investment in cleaner energy, billions of dollars of investment in pollution control, billions of dollars of commitment to the environment by the industries we represent, whether it is a utility industry that has an interesting resource mix that includes coal or whether it is those facilities that utilize the energy looking at energy efficiency. The numbers that Senator Capito gave you in terms of America's achievement on reduction of CO2 happened without any involvement or any interference by the Environmental Protection Agency. North Dakota's situation is unique as it relates to the Clean Power Plan rules, and that is why North Dakota filed its own separate piece of litigation because we have a different story to tell, I believe, a story that involves lignite, which isn't the coal that is mined in West Virginia, but it certainly, for those of us in the center of the country, has become an important fuel source for a generation of electricity for generations. When you look at it and you think about where we are with fuel sources, you remember that there was a period of time when utility companies in this country were told you cannot use natural gas to generate electricity and, as a result, billions of dollars of investment were deployed to find a way to have a redundant, reliable, and affordable source of energy, and that redundant, reliable, and affordable source of energy was coal. Now things have transitioned. North Dakota is truly all of the above as it relates to our energy resources in this country and providing the electricity and the reliability of our electricity in the region. When we look at where we are right now, we have created an incredible level of uncertainty for utility companies in this country. What do I mean by that? If you are sitting as a member of the board of directors in a utility company right now and know you are going to have baseload growth moving forward, how do you build out your resources to meet the demand, which is required by our regulatory environment? Now you are told: Look, by this year, those of you in North Dakota have to reduce your CO2 output by 45 percent. Guess what. The original rule, as drafted, had an 11-percent reduction, and now we are up to 44 percent. In what world is that an appropriate leap as we move forward in terms of looking at compliance with this new regulation? The EPA is not authorized to issue rules that are impossible. The baseline and fundamental principle of both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act is about using the best available technology--what is actually there and commercially available in that space. I have sat down with people who run utility companies in my State, and they have told me it is virtually impossible. Not only do we have a rule that is impossible, but we have an issue that I think the good Senator from West Virginia talked about that is even more serious. We have one agency of the Federal Government not empowered by any law in this country basically controlling our energy deployment, our electrical deployment. We have ignored FERC, and we have ignored all the other agencies that are responsible for the transmission of electricity. If you look at the history of this country and compare our history with many of our competitors across the world, the one thing we do better than our competitors is our reliable electricity. No matter what time of the day it is, you can reach over and turn on a light switch in the United States of America and the lights come on. If you are building a new manufacturing facility and need new energy, that energy is made available to you. Having electricity deployed at the end of the mile in my State, which can be as remote as another 20, 30 miles away from anyone else is a miracle. That is really a miracle of the commitment we have made to make sure we have power in America. This rule jeopardizes that commitment. This rule is wrongheaded and it is a dramatic change from the draft rule, especially as it relates to the State of North Dakota. This rule represents an attitude that says: We don't care what the law says. We don't care that you have rejected cap and trade. We don't care that you have rejected a carbon tax. We are going to unilaterally adopt those public policies as public policies in America. I don't think any of that should happen. I think it is time that we push back at all levels. As I said many times on the floor, whether it is the waters of the United States or the Clean Power Plan rule, the challenge we have is trying to do what this Congress is responsible for doing, which is to legislate. It is not to have a fight about whether we like the EPA or not. It is not to have a fight about whether this rule is right or not. It is about the appropriate public policy. When we simply leave it to the regulatory agencies, we end up with litigation and uncertainty for those people sitting in the boardroom who have a critical responsibility for delivering power in the United States of America. I gladly join my colleague from West Virginia as we pursue this matter. I think we all know that this legislation will likely pass. We also know what the likely outcome will be once it reaches the President's desk. We need to continue to have these conversations. We need to continue to talk about what the consequences are, not just for the coal miners in West Virginia and North Dakota but for the redundant, reliable, and affordable delivery of electricity in our country. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the students, faculty, and parents of Washington Elementary School, located in Valley City, ND, on being awarded the 2015 National Blue Ribbon School Award. Founded in 1982, the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program recognizes public and private elementary, middle, and high schools where students perform at very high levels or where significant improvements are being made in students' academic achievement. A National Blue Ribbon Schools flag overhead has become a mark of excellence in education recognized by everyone from parents to policymakers in thousands of communities. Since the program's founding, the U.S. Department of Education has bestowed this coveted award to just over 7,500 of America's best schools. Washington Elementary School serves nearly 265 students in grades 4 through 6 and was the only school in North Dakota to receive the honor of exemplary high-performing school in 2015. Receiving recognition as a National Blue Ribbon School signifies the hard work and dedication of the educators, students, and parents involved, and I have no doubt its students are on a path to success. At Washington Elementary, every staff member understands that every student, regardless of background, is important and deserving of the best. To support its students, the school provides access to a reading program that has been vital in ensuring targeted assistance for those students who require additional support. Through this program and others, the school continues to excel and surpass necessary benchmarks. As school leadership states, ``The success of Washington Elementary cannot be attributed to one person, program, or initiative. Rather it is the collective effort of all the outstanding people involved--the students, staff, parents, and community members who continue to strive for excellence each and every day.'' It is through this dedication that the school provides access to a reading pilot program that enhances reading and language skills, a math and science curriculum supplemented by STEM activities, and history courses that emphasize creativity and flexibility in teaching. The Valley City Public Schools mission statement reads, ``Together we are building a legacy of excellence, one student at a time.'' This mission embodies all that Washington Elementary is working to accomplish by looking at the needs of each individual student as well as providing a safe and respectful learning environment that breeds success. I wish the very best to the community of Valley City and congratulations to all engaged at Washington Elementary for achieving this high honor. Thank you for your commitment to our children and leaders of tomorrow.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, finally we see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not a train. It is, in fact, the eventual and necessary passage of the Ex-Im reauthorization bill. As you know, last week the Ex-Im bill passed the House by a vote that was 72 percent in favor. We have been told for months and months as we debate the Ex-Im Bank that this bill could not possibly pass the House as a stand-alone bill. Remarkably, when that myth was put to the test, we found out that not just 51 percent, but 72 percent of the House supports reauthorization of the Ex-Im bill. Last night we faced another challenge for the Ex-Im bill which was, in fact, a series of amendments on the Ex-Im portion of the Transportation bill. Once again, we exceeded expectations by having supermajorities on almost--in fact, all of these amendments suffering defeat at a very wide margin. So now what we know is we have a bill that continues to have broad-based support and continues to represent the necessary steps that need to be taken to reauthorize and reopen the Ex-Im Bank. Let's just recount history. The Export-Import Bank has been closed for over 3 months, preventing needed support for small business across the country. Many of those small businesses--guess where they are? They are in States such as North Dakota. A lot of people, such as my colleague from Washington State who has come on the floor--I think everybody understands the significance of exports to States on the Pacific Rim and understands that story, but I don't think anyone really thinks about the Ex-Im Bank in conjunction with places such as North Dakota. So I wish to take a few moments today to talk about small business, to talk about the people who have been dramatically affected by the closure of the Ex-Im Bank and why it is so important that we understand, appreciate, and not have a long-term history that does not move the Ex-Im Bank forward. Let's start out by talking about the 5,800 small businesses around the country that depend on the Export-Import Bank to finance export deals and how many of them right now have no support as this issue has languished in the Senate. I think we all know that small business makes up a large percentage of that economic opportunity in the United States. That is true in North Dakota and true to a greater extent because probably 95 percent of all employers in North Dakota qualify as small businesses. For many of these businesses, if they do not have help exporting their products, that help, which the Export-Import Bank provides, they can't grow. With more than 95 percent of all consumers in the world living outside the United States, if businesses in the United States do not export, if they are not competitive, we will lose economically. Several of my colleagues have been on the floor talking about manufacturing and talking about economic opportunity. At the end of the day this is about small business, but it is also about the jobs that small business create. So we have seen companies such as GE and Boeing, which use, interestingly enough, 16 suppliers in North Dakota that are dependent on the work GE and Boeing does--and their necessary reaction to the failure of this Congress to appropriately and timely reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank has been to look for other ways to encourage their business growth, and that encouragement has not been in this country. They have had to look overseas. So it is critically important we understand the idea of a supply chain. Everybody says: Well, this is a bank for big business. This is a bank for these people. That is just pure nonsense. In every one of those deals that is done for one of these major manufacturers, inside that deal are literally thousands of small businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs created in those small businesses as they support the supply chain. I want to talk about a number of the export-import uses in my State and brag a bit about the work they do because they are on the cutting edge with a lot of their technologies. The first business I want to talk about is Amity Technology. It is a 20-year-old family-owned company based in Fargo that sells farm manufacturing equipment to companies around the world. They began in August of 1977. They sold their first business to Case International and then built Amity in the winter of 1996. What I love to tell about this story is these brothers--one of whom I went to college with--come from the family who actually created the Bobcat. So they have been entrepreneurs, they have been inventors, they have been innovators, and they have driven a lot of jobs in North Dakota. Amity is a big user of the Ex-Im Bank. It is the largest distributor of sugar beet equipment, working with some of the world's largest farm equipment companies around the world. With agriculture markets slowing down, business is harder to come by and so it is particularly important they have all the tools in their arsenal. Without the help of the Export-Import Bank, the company, which employs 70 North Dakotans, could quickly lose out on at least 10 percent of their business and face tough questions about the future of their exports. The next business I want to talk about is WCCO Belting in Wahpeton. Wahpeton is a small community in the far southeastern corner of our State. It is a 60-year-old, family-owned rubber supply company often used in farm equipment that is supplied to every major farm equipment company in the world. For 12 years, the Export-Import Bank has allowed WCCO Belting to continue to export opportunities it had previously been ignoring. The Bank has supported over $850,000 in exports from the belting company since 2007. The company employs 200 employees who generate more than 60 percent of their annual revenue from customers that are located outside of the United States. That would not be possible if it were not for the Ex-Im Bank; if that 60 percent of their business is driven by the opportunity that the Ex-Im Bank gives them. I want to talk about JM Grain. That is a small grain company in Garrison. They are a young family-owned pea, lentil, and chickpea distributing company that supplies their products to top packaging and food companies around the world. When you look at their numbers, $15 million--in fact, 70 percent of the company's annual revenue for almost a decade--has been backed by the Ex-Im Bank. It has allowed JM Grain to pursue export opportunities to top manufacturing and packaging food ingredient companies that demand buyers to provide financing for 90 to 100 days--something they could not do on their own. Incidentally, they could not find a private bank that would be willing to do it. Without the Export-Import Bank, JM Grain would not have been able to pursue exports to such high-quality, high-selling companies because it would have to significantly cut its price or risk going under. The company now has doubled or tripled the pay of its workers, retaining its workforce throughout the oil boom, which has been awfully tough in North Dakota given high living costs, and has been able to hire top technological workers. It is incredible. It is an incredible story, but it is a story that would not be possible without the Ex-Im Bank. It is responsible for $10 million of the company's annual $15 million in revenue. Without the Export-Import Bank, the company would risk losing sales to competitive exporting companies abroad, including companies from India, China, and South America. The last company I want to talk about is Equipment Wholesalers based in Fargo, ND, and Sioux Falls, SD. They sell equipment such as John Deere tractors in the United States and abroad. Equipment wholesalers told us if the Export-Import Bank is not reauthorized, it will have a negative impact on the company's sales. How great is that? Well, it will be a 35- to 40-percent impact on their sales. Imagine that. Just because of the inactivity of Congress, we have risked 35 to 40 percent of this company's business. The company acknowledges it has already lost business to companies in Germany that have access to Germany's export-import agency. They say without the Export-Import Bank being reauthorized, Equipment Wholesalers will lose even more business. While our businesses are left at a disadvantage because the Export- Import Bank expired, foreign--foreign--export-import banks, including those in India and China and 60 other places around the world, are hugely benefiting. In fact, they are wondering what is going on in the United States, but we are not going to let any grass grow under our feet as we run to daylight and a take advantage of the inaction in Washington, DC. They are already stepping in and filling our place. If we do not reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to support American businesses and manufacturers, China and India will step in. There is no doubt about it. They are already doing it. In fact, during the recent downturn in both of those economies, the first investment they made was putting billions more in their export credit agencies. Do you know why? Because it made business sense. It made sense to their balance of trade. It made sense to their economy to support their manufacturers, especially in an environment where we weren't supporting ours. Last week my bipartisan bill with Senator Kirk, which would reauthorize this agency, passed with the support of more than 70 percent of the House. Just yesterday--again, I will repeat--the Export- Import Bank reauthorization was attached to the House Transportation bill. Despite efforts to once again derail the Export-Import Bank from people who believed they could kill it altogether with amendments, over two-thirds--and in most cases those same House Members who tried to kill it--voted against those Export-Import Bank-killing amendments. Doesn't that tell us something? Doesn't that tell us that the vast majority of people here are not ideologues; that they look at the facts? They say: In what world would you not support exports? We used to do this in State government when I was attorney general and when I served on the Industrial Commission. We would talk about North Dakota's economy and we would say: What do we do to grow economies? We say: We have new wealth creation. I am not picking on retail businesses. Retail businesses typically, unless we are inviting Canadians, which we do, to come down and spend money, they are not new wealth creation. It is those things that bring new dollars to our State. If you look at new wealth creation in this country and look at what creates wealth in this country, guess what it is. It is exports. It is having a favorable balance of trade. It is making sure we are a country that believes in reaching out to the 95 percent of the consumers in this world and saying to them: We produce the best quality agricultural products, we produce the best quality manufacturing products, we are the top supplier and the most trusted source of products in the world, but we need the tools to make those sales, and the Ex-Im Bank is a critical tool. It is part of that structure of trade infrastructure that we need to make this work. I hope, I sincerely hope--because I don't know whether I am going to be here when we go through this again--I hope the lessons of the last 3 months have been learned. I hope the lessons we have been preaching since really this spring--that we cannot let this Bank expire and there will be dire consequences if we do--have been learned and that the Ex- Im Bank and the people at the Ex-Im Bank, but more importantly that our American businesses that rely on the Export-Import Bank, our jobs that rely on the Export-Import Bank, and our opportunities created by the Export-Import Bank, are never forgotten; that they are never left behind. Once again we have cleared yet another hurdle. The light is at the end of the tunnel. We believe we are ready, willing, and excited about the opportunity of once again opening the doors of the Export-Import Bank and welcoming American business in and saying once again, ``America is open for business'' to the rest of the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend from Washington.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I want to make one final point, along with my colleague from Washington State. I don't know how many times the Senator from Washington and I have been on the floor telling the story of the Ex-Im Bank, about what the problems have been since we have closed the Bank for business, talking about what this means for small business, trying to reflect the amazement we get from our small businesses: Why is this happening when we return money to the Treasury and this doesn't cost anything? I find it curious that as many times as we have been down here, there has been no one down here arguing the counterpoint. There has been no one down here willing to ask us to yield for a question about why we believe what we believe about the Ex-Im Bank. There is no one down here challenging what we are saying about the Ex-Im Bank. I find that interesting, and I think it is a lesson maybe for the future--let's not mess around with jobs; let's not mess around with people. I think everybody thinks they are picking on some kind of large corporation, but the reality is that those large corporations in many ways can wait this out or they can devise a business plan that gives them a workaround from the Ex-Im Bank or they can assemble their materials someplace other than the United States. But my small businesses, the ones I just outlined, don't have that choice, and they don't have a big line of credit they can use to just wait this out. They don't have the ability to wait. It is one thing to say we are all about small business and helping small business. We hear it every time. The two great lines that are used here: We care about the middle class and we care about small business. But as it relates to the Ex-Im Bank, there has been no activity here that would actually prove the point that we care about small business. So I want to say I do find it extraordinarily curious that we have gone unchallenged in this whole discussion. No one really wants to take us on because at the end of the day there is no argument on the other side. Yet we have closed this Bank for over 3 months. We have closed this Bank and this opportunity for America's manufacturers, America's small businesses, and all of the great people who work there. Just know that I am so grateful for the work of my colleague from Washington. She has been an incredible leader. I thank her for everything she has done. She is an expert on the Export-Import Bank but also a woman who has been in business most of her life and who understands the critical importance of the Ex-Im Bank. So let's not unlearn this lesson. Let's make sure this never happens again and that we never disrupt Americans' economic opportunity the way we have by shutting down the Export-Import Bank for the last 3 or 4 months. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy Crane, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session of the Senate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, listening to this, you would think that people who want some commonsense regulation don't believe in clean water. You would think that if we do this, somehow the Charles River or the Cuyahoga River, having been navigable the whole while here under the Clean Water Act jurisdiction, would suddenly not be navigable. That is not the case. That is not the case. I think it is really important that we ratchet down the emotion and we start looking at the facts. Let's start with where we are right now with this idea of what are, in fact, jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act. This has been a debate for 40 years. It has been in and out of the courts for 40 years. In 1985 the Court made a ruling. In 2001 the Court made a ruling. In 2006 the Court decided a case called Rapanos. What Rapanos said is--four Justices said EPA is right, four Justices said EPA is wrong, and one Justice said EPA may be right. As a result, we have created a system that has caused great uncertainty in America today as it relates to how we use land. Acting on that uncertainty, EPA promulgated a rule. That rule is inconsistent, in my opinion, with the direction they were given by the Court. That rule has created an incredible amount of uncertainty. To suggest that all the major ag groups, all the groups that are out there, including the Association of Counties, including many of the Governors, are all wrong and they all love dirty water is absolutely insulting as we kind of move forward on this discussion. I am going to show you why North Dakota is concerned about this regulation. This is an aerial picture of my State. You may not think there is a lot of water in North Dakota. This is a picture of my State and Devils Lake in the Devils Lake area. You might say: Oh she picked a picture that looks like this. I ask and invite any of you to come to North Dakota and I will fly you anywhere in North Dakota. This is what North Dakota looks like. You see all this water here and you see all this water here and you see this. Do you see that? That is a pothole, what we call a prairie pothole. It used to be and seasonally is full of water. Sometimes it is farm, sometimes it is not. Is this waters of the United States? It is not connected to any navigable stream. It is not adjacent to any kind of navigable water, moving water. None of this is connected with any kind of cross-land connection. I will tell you under the rule that we have and under the interpretations of the Corps of Engineers--which we always forget when we are talking about this--the Corps of Engineers and EPA, what they would say is: We don't know. We would have to send biologists to take a look at this. We would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, of taxpayer dollars, to determine whether in fact there is substantial nexus. We asked for a simple rule. First, just as a point of view, when the statute says navigable water, that water ought to be moving someplace other than into the ground. All water in the world is interconnected. We know that. That is a matter of hydrology. That is a matter of science. Scientists would say there is no such thing as a discrete separation. But you know what. Legally there is. It did not say every drop of water is controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act, it said navigable water, and we have been in this fight for a lot of years, including 2006. Mr. President, I know we are in excess of the time. I ask unanimous consent for just a little more time to conclude my remarks.

Ms. HEITKAMP. I want to make this point because it really is a question. The Senators who have come to the floor and talked about this rule talk about: Look, we are making progress. What they haven't told you is that rule has absolutely no legal effect anywhere in this country today. Do you know why? Because the courts of the United States have stayed it. It is not in effect while we litigate yet another case. So when we looked at this problem and we looked at trying to give certainty to farmers who own this land--by the way, this land is not owned by the people of this country. This land is owned by farmers who need certainty, who need to know. So we looked at this and we said: It is time for Congress to do what Congress ought to do, which is to legislate, which is to actually make a decision--to not just get on either side of a regulatory agency and yell about whether they are right or wrong but actually engage in a dialogue. That is why Senator Donnelly, Senator Barrasso, Senator Inhofe, and I sat down and said: Look, this will continue in perpetuity. We will spend millions of dollars litigating this and never get an answer because chances are we are back to 441, and that is not an answer. So we put together a piece of legislation looking at how can we as legislators, as Congress provide some parameters on what this means. People who will vote no on a motion to proceed will tell you we want EPA to decide. I am telling you that people in this country expect Congress to decide. They expect Congress to make this decision, to step up, and resolve this controversy because 40 years and millions and millions of dollars spent in litigation is not a path forward. As we look at this legislation simply on a motion to proceed on one of the most controversial issues in America today--which is waters of the United States--not voting to debate this issue, not voting to proceed on this issue is the wrong path forward. I urge my colleagues to open the debate and let's talk about this map--not the Charles River and not the Cuyahoga River because I will concede that they are navigable water. I want to know in what world is this navigable water of the United States, what world should EPA have jurisdiction over this pond, and in what world--when you are the farmer who owns it--do you think you have any certainty as we move forward? We are trying to give certainty to the American taxpayer. We are trying to give certainty to people who build roads and bridges. We are trying to actually have a debate on an important issue of our time. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed so we can have an open debate--it could be fun--as we talk about this issue. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, once again we are down on the floor of the Senate, begging, pleading, and trying to get anyone to listen to our pleas to once again open the Export-Import Bank. As we look at the consequences of having closed--for the last 3\1/2\ months--the Export- Import Bank, it becomes readily apparent every day and every hour that we are losing American manufacturing jobs and we are stressing small businesses that have a strong history of reliance on the Export-Import Bank, and that we are, in fact, not only not helping American business, but we are hurting American manufacturers in this country. Why would we do that? Why would we wait one more day? Before the charter expired on the Export-Import Bank, we were told that the reason why--even though we had 64 votes in the Senate for the Ex-Im Bank--we couldn't possibly get this done was because the House of Representatives would not take this up. The House of Representatives would not move on the Ex-Im Bank, and, in fact, if it came to the floor, it was doubtful that we would actually get a vote that was favorable to the Ex-Im Bank. Well, a funny thing happened when we looked at the reality of where the House of Representatives is today. When we counted the votes this week for the Ex-Im Bank, guess what; over 70 percent of the House of Representatives voted to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. And probably even more remarkable, a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. Now, you might wonder: What changed? What happened? How could we possibly have been so wrong? Well, let me tell you that no one in their right mind in the business community ever believed that we would let the Ex-Im Bank charter expire, and so everybody assumed that we would do the right thing here--that the charter would go on and that this would happen. Guess what happened. When we shut down the Ex-Im Bank and people weren't able to approach the Ex-Im Bank to get credit guarantees to do the work of manufacturing and exporting, all of a sudden, those small business men and women and those employees of those institutions picked up their phones and started calling their Members of Congress. When they called their Members of Congress, that is when we saw action. That is when we saw things moving in a direction that actually supports American manufacturing. This is an institution that has been reauthorized many times. This is an institution that has been in existence for decades. It is an institution that is in competition with dozens--in fact, about 80 or 90 export credit agencies are run by other countries--of credit agencies every day. They are competing against those same agencies. What we have now is unilateral disarmament. Imagine this: American manufacturers--longstanding manufacturers--are actually considering moving their manufacturing facilities offshore so that they can compete for this export business. We can't wait another minute. We can't wait another day. We can't wait for another opportunity to present itself. We have to do this now. I understand and know that I am new to this institution. But most times when you have supermajorities in support of something, it shouldn't be that hard to get it done, and we know the President will sign it. I am always a little shocked when people say: Well, you know, we still can't get that done because we need to find a vehicle. And I think: Well, what does that mean when you actually introduce a bill and the bill itself is sitting at the desk and there is an opportunity not to try to attach something so that somebody can hide their vote or not to try to attach it to something because you might be able to leverage another idea on there but to actually move this bill forward? We don't need to look for a vehicle. We don't need to look for another opportunity to advance the Ex-Im Bank. Guess what we need. We need to bring this bill to the floor right now. We need to ask our colleagues to engage in what we should be doing here, which is debate and legislation on the floor of the Senate. We need to resolve this issue and wrap it up. When we started this journey, we were told the Ex-Im Bank was in need of reform. In a very bipartisan way, my office sat down with Senator Kirk's office, joined by Senator Blunt, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Manchin, and Senator Donnelly and said: What do we need to do to make the Ex-Im Bank better? What do we need to do to make the Ex-Im Bank more accessible and more accountable? We negotiated something that is rare here, which is a bipartisan bill, the Kirk-Heitkamp Ex-Im Bank reauthorization bill. That bill has been the vehicle and the kind of blueprint for how we are going to move forward. In fact, when the House did their discharge petition, they discharged the bill that is, in fact, the Kirk-Heitkamp bill. There is nothing in there where we have to balance this or somehow reconcile a House version and a Senate version. We can get this done today. We can move this forward. We can send the message to the rest of the world that the Ex-Im Bank and American manufacturers are open for business. It makes absolutely no sense for us to wait any longer and in any way delay the movement of the Ex-Im Bank. I yield the floor.