[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12815-12826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015--Continued

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I see there is kind of a lull here. We 
are waiting around for a vote to take place at 10 or 10:30 tonight, I 
think it is, and I thought I would share.
  There are still some uncertainties on the bill, the Transportation 
reauthorization bill. It is one I am very proud to be the author of. In 
fact, I was privileged to be the author the last long-term 
reauthorization in 2005. At that time, I was working very closely with 
someone, with a fellow Member who is the least likely to be working 
with me on anything. By her own admission, Senator Boxer is a very 
proud liberal and I am a very proud conservative, but we do agree there 
is that old, worn-out document that nobody reads anymore called the 
Constitution, and it tells us what we are supposed to be doing here. It 
says, defend America and build our roads and bridges. That is what we 
are doing. That is what this is all about.
  We received a disturbing message from the House about an hour ago 
saying they would not take up our bill. We are going to pass this bill, 
but they say they are not going to take it up. That means there is a 
dilemma because at the end of this month, there is no longer any money 
in the highway trust fund, and things will stop.
  I don't know whether their intention is to give a short-term 
extension and go home or--of course, I am still thinking brighter minds 
will prevail and they will realize we have a long-term, 6-year highway 
authorization bill because the things you can't do in this country, you 
can't do with the short-term extensions.
  Yesterday, I listed many of the bridges that were in terrible shape 
and the fact that we could not address those problems unless we pass a 
long-term highway reauthorization bill. I mentioned also that someone I 
knew--it was right around the 2005 bill--a mother and three children 
were driving under a bridge in Oklahoma City. It was far out of its 
extended life, its warranty period, if you will, and a chunk of 
concrete fell off and killed her. This is happening all over America. 
We saw what happened in Minnesota when that disaster occurred, all the 
pictures of the people who died and were injured.
  We are going to be looking at a lot of amendments. I heard there is 
one amendment that Senator Manchin along with Senator Boozman are 
putting together to adopt the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2, which is 
appropriate. It may not be as germane as we would like it to be, but it 
is still transportation.
  The Pilot's Bill of Rights 1 was passed 2 years ago. In fact, they 
would not even take it up in committee, but I had 67 cosponsors to the 
bill. I was very thankful at that time. Of course, the Democrats were 
in the majority. I went to Harry Reid's office and said: It doesn't 
seem fair to me that we have 67 cosponsors, and they will not even take 
it up in the committee.
  He said: Well, that isn't right.
  We came down to the floor, we rule XIV'd it, and passed it. It does 
show that sometimes when things get really outrageous, people tend to 
work together. That was on an issue that just a handful of people are 
aware of, but anyone who is a licensed pilot knows, in their minds, 
that was the most significant thing that was going on.
  I have been flying for a lot more years than most people in this 
Chamber have been alive. Because I have been an active pilot--I have 
been in aviation for many years--the people who have problems with the 
FAA would come to me to help them with their problems. I found this to 
be true back when I was mayor of Tulsa. We had a police force, a very 
good police force. There are a few bad guys who get in there. The same 
thing is true with the FAA. You have a few people who take advantage of 
the power they have and take licenses away from people.
  I remember 10 years ago, Bob Hoover--I bet none of you ever heard of 
Bob Hoover. Bob Hoover was arguably the best pilot in the history of 
aviation. He had a Shrike. A Shrike is a twin-engine Aero Commander. He 
would put a glass of water on the dash, and he would start doing barrel 
rolls and would not spill his glass of water. I would do barrel rolls, 
but I would spill my glass of water. This guy was really good.
  There was an inspection in the field, and Bob Hoover lost his pilot's 
license. There was no reason for it. In order to get it back, I 
actually had to go to the floor, and it took a year to pass legislation 
that would stop that abuse from going on. That has continued. I have 
always helped people until it happened to me, and then that had a whole 
new feeling because people who are involved in aviation--the one thing 
they don't want to lose is their pilot's license.
  For many years, I was a builder and developer in South Padre Island, 
TX. We are on the east coast now. Nobody knows where Texas is here. 
They think there is no such thing as a nice coast with beaches and all 
of that unless it is on the east coast, but there is the Padre Island 
area of Texas. It has beautiful beaches.
  I was in the building business. We built condos and townhouses, and I 
always enjoyed that. Keep in mind this is the southern tip of Texas. It 
is just as far south as Key West, FL, is, but it is in the middle of 
the country. We would go down there. I would fly my plane probably once 
a week for quite a number of years. I went down, and I was making a 
normal landing. It is not a controlled field. You have your approach 
controls that control it. The approach control from valley approach--I 
am getting a little technical here, but I have a reason for telling 
this story.
  He said: All right, you are clear to land on runway 1-3 in Cameron 
County. I went up to land. Just before I touched down, with six 
passengers--so it was too late for a go-around--I saw that there were a 
bunch of people working on the runway. There wasn't a big X on the 
runway, which is required. They claimed there was. They quickly painted 
one on right after that.
  Everyone started criticizing me. I remember there was a front-page 
cartoon in the New York Times. Everyone was having a good time with 
that. The bottom line is, I didn't do anything. They claimed there was 
a NOTAM. That is short for Notice to Airmen. The Notice to Airmen says 
that if you check your notice before you land on the field, you will 
find out if there is construction on the runway, if lights are out or 
something else. Of course, we did that. There was no NOTAM. They 
claimed there was a NOTAM--the FAA did. They never could find it.
  Anyway, to bring us up-to-date, I introduced and we passed the 
Pilot's Bill of Rights. In our system, our legal holdout was where you 
are guilty until you are proven innocent if you are a pilot. That is 
the last--because one man's accusation can turn into the revocation of 
a license, so we introduced the Pilot's Bill of Rights. We gave an 
opportunity, if they disagree with the FAA, if an accusation is made--
or the NTSB--they can go to the Federal district court. That seemed to 
work out.
  The bill forced the FAA to put NOTAMs in one secure place where 
everybody would have access to it, and all of these complaints that 
were made were dealt with, but a lot of the things we wanted to happen 
wouldn't happen.
  In case you are wondering--I will take it off now since there is no 
reason to keep it on. Do you know what that is? That is the pass to get 
into Oshkosh. The Chair knows this because the Chair's husband has an 
FBO operation in Western Iowa. Anyway, I have gone to the largest 
aviation event worldwide in Oshkosh. It is the last weekend of July of 
every year. I have been to every

[[Page 12816]]

one of those, along with my sons, for 36 years. I never missed one. I 
didn't miss one last week either. Some things are really important.
  I went there with the idea that we have the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 
in order to correct the areas where the FAA is either not complying 
with the intent of the law or even the Federal district courts are not 
accepting cases. We are going to correct that.
  First of all, if it happens that Senator Manchin and Senator Boozman 
offer their amendments, then I will be supporting their amendments. I 
am going to go over why it is important, but if as a result of the 
announcement that was made by the House of Representatives 2 hours ago 
we are not going to be having amendments, it is still introduced as a 
freestanding bill. I have 56 cosponsors. That is a lot of cosponsors. 
If that happens, I want to mention a couple of things that are on here.
  There is a problem with the third-class medical. So 10 years ago, a 
decision was made, and it was a good decision. They took the light 
aircraft, and they said if you can drive a car, you can fly an 
airplane. They went ahead, and we have had 10 years' experience now 
without a third-class medical certificate. There has not been one 
accident in 10 years where it was due to the fact that they didn't have 
any third-class medical certificates.
  In this bill, we are taking that up to include a larger number of 
pilots, and to include airplanes as heavy as 6,000 pounds, carrying six 
passengers, not exceeding 250 knots, and several requirements like that 
in giving them the same opportunities the pilots of the light aircraft 
have. That is a part of this bill. I know there are a lot of people in 
this Chamber because I have talked with them, not a whole lot because 
we have 56 cosponsors, but there are a lot of them who really believe 
that would somehow be dangerous. For that purpose, we have made several 
exceptions to it. I will outline these because I know there are some 
Members of this body that if this comes up as an amendment, they need 
to know this.
  First of all, on a third-class medical, we have the requirement for 
an online medical education course every 2 years. This will make sure 
the pilots coming up for renewal of their certificate are up-to-date on 
all of the new things that have transpired since the last time in the 
new medical requirements.
  The second thing it does is anyone who is a new pilot just coming on, 
he has to have a thorough examination that now you have to have every 
couple of years. That hasn't changed.
  And then the third would be the self-certification that takes place 
every 5 years, which could actually be done with your own doctor. Those 
are some of the changes that have been made to make it a little bit 
easier for some Senators who will be voting on this legislation.
  The second area where the Pilot's Bill of Rights did not--they 
addressed it, but there are two Federal judges. You are supposed to be 
able to go from the FAA to the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety 
Board, and then to the Federal District Court. What has happened in the 
past is that the NTSB has rubberstamped anything the FAA does, so 
really the FAA is making those decisions without proper due course 
which other people are entitled to.
  What we have done with this is--there are a couple of Federal judges 
who said they are not going to take a case on a pilot until they have 
exhausted all of the administrative remedies that come from the FAA and 
the NTSB. We have a solution to that in this bill so this actually 
explicitly states the pilots will have an option to appeal the FAA 
enforcement action directly to the Federal courts for a guaranteed de 
novo trial. De novo means, instead of taking the conclusions of the 
investigation from the FAA and risking rubber stamping it, they have to 
have a trial from the beginning. That is a very significant change we 
are making.
  The other thing we neglected to do is include certificate holders 
other than pilots. You could be a mechanic, a flight attendant, or any 
number of things, and not be included in these legal opportunities, so 
the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 allows all certificate holders to have 
this.
  The third area is the access to the flight records. In my case, I 
could not get access as to what the FAA was accusing me of. We thought 
we had this corrected in the Pilot's Bill of Rights, but it still needs 
to be strengthened, so we have a section in the Pilot's Bill of Rights 
2 that requires the FAA to notify a certificate holder that he is being 
investigated and clarify the incident being used to begin enforcement 
proceedings so that person will know what he has been accused of and 
can address it.
  The fourth area has to do with document requests. The FAA has 
retaliated against pilots because the Pilot's Bill of Rights 1 
requested broad documents from them, which can be very time consuming 
and very costly, and it is not necessary at all. The solution to that 
is that we explicitly rein in the ability of the FAA to initiate the 
expansive document request and limit them to the pertinent issues being 
investigated by the FAA. That should correct that.
  We have several other items too. If somebody has a minor infraction 
in a car, then after 90 days, or so many days, it would be taken from 
their record. That is the way it used to be prior to 1996 when they had 
the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, and now we will go back to 
where we were before that.
  Many of these issues that were problems before and weren't corrected 
with the Pilot Bill of Rights are corrected, and I feel very 
comfortable with it.
  The reason I have all of this in my mind now is that I just came back 
from Oshkosh. Although I was there only 2 days, I was able to give 10 
presentations, and there were a little less than a half-million pilots 
there at the time, so I am sure I got to all half-million of those 
pilots collectively with all of those events that we had.
  It is kind of interesting because for someone who is a pilot, that is 
the most important thing. We are not talking about Democrats, 
Republicans, or things that are controversial. It is just that when you 
go to Oshkosh and you see what people have accomplished through 
experimentation and the technology that has developed--it used to be 
that all planes had to be made out of aluminum, and this all changed 
with new types of things that were discovered at Oshkosh. People are 
building planes behind their garages.
  Well, anyway, so much for that. We have a good solution for all of 
these problems, and I will say to the 56 members that they are 
certainly very popular among the pilots and the group I spent the last 
2 days with.
  I mentioned that only because in the event that they change the rules 
around here, and we are allowed to have amendments that are not 
germane, that would be one of the amendments that I would offer, and I 
want to be sure that we are at least getting things into the Record so 
people are aware of it. While there are no Members here right now, the 
staff is monitoring everything that is going on, so I want to make sure 
people know that is an issue we may or may not be dealing with.
  It would be a surprise to me if the House of Representatives said: 
Well, we are just going to go home, and we are not going to pass this 
bill after we go through all of the trouble of passing it. I think 
there are ample votes to pass this legislation. Long-term 
reauthorization is a very important thing back in the States.
  The coalitions which are coming together on this legislation include 
the Department of Transportation for every State, along with the labor 
unions. They are supporting this legislation because it will provide a 
lot of jobs. The Chambers of Commerce are all involved; the farmers are 
all involved. This has the most popular support of anything that we 
will deal with all year long, so we really need to have this bill. I am 
having a hard time believing that if we go through the trouble of 
having a reauthorization bill, the House is not going to take it up, 
but that statement was made 2 hours ago, and that may be the situation.

[[Page 12817]]

  I can remember in the earlier days when the highway trust fund had 
one big problem: They always had a surplus. They had too much money, 
but that has changed with the increased efficiency of cars. Electric 
vehicles are using highways, but they are not paying the gas tax. 
Consequently, we have a real problem with funding this legislation.
  If we take the total amount of revenues that come from the gas tax, 
let's say over the next 6 years because this is a 6-year bill, each 
year falls short by $15 billion. So we are looking at being short $90 
billion over a 6-year period.
  I can say this because I think I may be ranked as the most 
conservative Member for a longer period of time than anybody else in 
the Senate. I can talk about this because this is a conservative 
position. The conservative position is to have a long-term bill because 
if we do short-term fixes, it costs--and this is irrefutable and no one 
disagrees with this--an additional 30 percent off the top if we do 
short-term extensions, and that is what we have been doing. We have had 
33 short-term extensions since the 2005 bill that we passed expired in 
2009, and that has used a very large amount of the money that was there 
to take care of the problems with the roads and the highways.
  We do have problems out there, and it is going to take a long-term 
bill to take care of it. I have a feeling, since the money runs out on 
the last day of this month, that the House, if they are not going to 
take up our bill, they may just pass a short-term extension and then go 
home. That is not the way I think it should be done, we have to get 
this long-term bill.
  This is something that doesn't happen very often, but now and then it 
does. We went through the same thing with the other big bill, which was 
the Defense authorization bill over the last 3 or 4 years, and they 
didn't bring it up as they should have early in the year. I remember 2 
years ago we passed our Defense authorization bill in June, and the 
leadership didn't bring it up until December. If we hadn't brought it 
up, then the kids who are out there risking their lives would lose 
their reenlistment bonuses, their hazard pay, and a lot of things would 
have happened. Just before the end of December, we were able to get it 
done. It is not the way things are supposed to be done around here. I 
certainly don't want that done with the highway reauthorization bill, 
but that is what very likely could happen if the House does what they 
say they are going to do.
  With that, I do want to come back and go over some of the larger 
problems that cannot be addressed unless we pass a long-term highway 
reauthorization bill.
  I will say this: There is a very fine FBO operation in Western Iowa 
called Red Oak. It just so happens that my son just left Red Oak on his 
way back from Oshkosh. It also happens that Red Oak is owned by the 
husband of a very prominent Senator in this body who happens to be 
presiding now.
  With that, I will come back later, and we will be talking about these 
things because I understand the next thing we are going to do is a vote 
at 10 tonight, unless some time is yielded back. I hope they will yield 
back their time. They are not down here talking, so there is no reason 
not to yield back time. If time is not yielded back, I will talk about 
some of the projects that will not be done unless we have a long-term 
reauthorization bill.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Honoring Marine Sergeant Carson Holmquist

  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to 
one of America's sons who has fallen in the line of duty. Sgt Carson 
Holmquist was a 25-year-old marine from Grantsburg, WI, who lost his 
life tragically as a result of the heinous act committed by a terrorist 
on July 16 in Chattanooga.
  Sergeant Holmquist was one of the finest among us. He gave his life 
to preserve the liberties upon which America was founded. He was a son, 
a husband, a father, and a very proud marine.
  He also must have been a great friend to all the people he knew and a 
man who was respected by many people he didn't know.
  I was honored to attend his funeral this past Saturday, and I was 
witness to a tremendous outpouring of support. I saw a line--probably 
about 2 blocks long, three or four people wide--of citizens from all 
across Wisconsin and from several other States.
  Some of these people were Sergeant Holmquist's relatives, some were 
his friends, many were brothers-in-arms, both past and present. Still 
others were citizens who had no personal connection to Sergeant 
Holmquist. They came simply to pay their respects to a man who swore to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
  They came to honor a man who so loved America that he chose to serve 
in faraway lands. He revered freedom, so he sacrificed his own freedom 
that we may be free. He defended our right to live as individuals by 
yielding his own individuality in that noble cause. He valued life. Yet 
he bravely readied himself to lay down his own life in humble service 
to his comrades-in-arms, to his family, and to his Nation.
  For 239 years, our service men and women have served as guardians of 
our freedom. The cost of that vigilance has been high. Since the 
Revolutionary War, more than 42 million men and women have served in 
our military, and more than 1 million of those selfless heroes have 
given their lives. Wisconsin has borne its share of that sacrifice. 
Since statehood, more than 27,000 of Wisconsin's sons and daughters 
have died in military service. Statistics cannot possibly convey the 
weight of these losses. Statistics are merely numbers that could never 
fully communicate the qualities of promising lives which were cut far 
too short. Statistics say nothing of unfulfilled hopes and dreams.
  So instead of numbers such as 1 million or 27,000, I ask everyone to 
think for a moment about a much smaller but yet even more staggering 
number--simply the number one. Sergeant Holmquist was one man, loved 
and cherished by family and friends. He was one man whose loss is a 
tremendous blow to Wisconsin and to this great Nation.
  He was one man, but his sacrifice was not his alone. His parents 
Thomas and LaBrenda, his wife Jasmine, his son Wyatt, and every other 
relative and friend left behind are experiencing profound loss and 
grief. But tragedy multiplies. It is not contained. For those left 
behind, the pain may slowly subside, but the wound will never heal.
  The Holmquist family loved Carson dearly, and our hearts go out to 
them. I pray they will find peace and comfort amid overwhelming tragic 
loss.
  The torch of freedom burns brightly because of men like Sergeant 
Holmquist. May God bless and comfort the sergeant's loved ones. May He 
watch over those who have answered the Nation's call. May God bless 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Trafficking in Persons Report

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise because I am deeply and 
profoundly disappointed in this year's ``Trafficking in Persons 
Report'' that was released today. By upgrading Malaysia and Cuba, which 
were at tier 3--the worst tier at which any country could be 
considered--the administration has turned its back on the victims of 
trafficking and turned a blind eye to the facts and politicized the 
report, and they completely ignored the calls from Congress, from 
leading human rights advocates, from the realities on the

[[Page 12818]]

ground in Cuba, and from Malaysian Government officials themselves to 
preserve the integrity of this exceedingly important report. They have 
succeeded in elevating political considerations and political goals 
above the most fundamental principles of basic human rights.
  I heard Secretary Kerry, in his presentation of the report, say 
something to the extent that we should not put a price on our fellow 
human beings' freedom. Well, it seems we have in this case. In 
arbitrarily upgrading Malaysia and Cuba, they are clearly politicizing 
the report, giving an undeserved stamp of approval to countries that 
have failed to take the basic actions that would merit this upgrade. 
This flies in the face of what Malaysians themselves want. In Malaysia, 
members of the
Parliament, the legal profession, and human rights activists have urged 
the United States to support their efforts to maintain the tier 3 
ranking they tell us Malaysia deserves. Today we have failed them.
  In Cuba, adults and children are subjected to sex trafficking, and 
the government continues perpetrating abusive practices of forced 
labor. The administration's decision to upgrade Cuba defies common 
sense. In the State Department's own words, Cuba is a source country 
where adults and children--children--are subjected to sex trafficking 
and forced labor.
  In the case of forced labor, the Castro regime itself is the single 
greatest perpetrator of forced labor in Cuba. Every year the Cuban 
Government coerces tens of thousands of its own doctors and medical 
professionals to serve in foreign missions under conditions that 
violate international norm. The Castro regime restricts the movement of 
its doctors while they are overseas, takes their passports from them, 
and often prevents family visits. Additionally, the Cuban Government 
garnishes its doctors' wages by more than 70 percent, using what should 
be a humanitarian mission as a means to fill its own coffers.
  This gross violation of international standards is so bad that the 
United States has a specific parole program for Cuban doctors who have 
been subjected to forced labor conditions by the Castro regime. We have 
our own special parole program for Cuban doctors who have been 
subjected to forced labor conditions by the Castro regime. Thousands of 
Cuban doctors have come to the United States as a result.
  So at a time when these doctors are being received into the United 
States on humanitarian parole, we are going to turn a blind eye to the 
fact that the Castro regime is the sole responsible actor. This raises 
one question. Is this yet another emerging detail of something that the 
administration and the Cuban Government have been discussing in recent 
months, another demand of the Castro regime that the United States had 
to agree to in the name of normalizing the relations? They are willing 
to look the other way on human rights in order to normalize relations? 
As the State Department's own report recognizes, there has been no 
progress--no progress--on forced labor in Cuba. Given that reality, any 
upgrade of the country's ranking challenges common sense.
  So I intend to use all the tools at my disposal--from hearings, to a 
call for investigations, to legislation--to challenge these upgrades. 
The credibility and commitment of the United States to fighting the 
scourge of modern-day slavery is on the line. We spent an enormous 
amount of time in this Senate on the legislation Senator Cornyn had, 
along with others, on modern-day slavery, spent a lot of time on it in 
the Foreign Relations Committee on which I am privileged to serve under 
Senator Corker, who had his own legislation about how we deal with 
human trafficking in the world--modern-day slavery, as he calls it. So 
we need to make clear that the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' must 
not be subjected to political manipulation.
  I am utterly dismayed at the administration's decision to upgrade 
Malaysia and Cuba under these circumstances. It represents a 
bastardization of the trafficking-in-persons ranking process and calls 
into question the credibility of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report,'' 
and it takes away the power to incentivize real progress. The 
administration's upgrade of Malaysia as well as Cuba compromises 
American values in the interest of promoting a trade agenda with a 
country that has consistently failed to uphold human rights. One can 
only characterize this action as a cynical maneuver to get around the 
clear intent of Congress with no regard for the effect on a key 
measurement tool of a country's human trafficking record. This not only 
represents the latest release of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' 
in the history of its publication--nearly a full 2 months' overdue--but 
calls into question this administration's commitment to uphold human 
rights.
  We all know that the Malaysian Government has not undertaken a 
consistent, serious effort that would warrant an upgrade.
  As I have noted before on other occasions, on April 17 of this year, 
the U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia--our Ambassador to Malaysia--said that 
the Malaysian Government needs to show greater political will in 
prosecuting human traffickers and protecting their victims if the 
country hopes to improve on its current lowest ranking in the 
``Trafficking In Persons Report.'' This is the person on the ground in 
Malaysia representing the U.S. Government who has eyes on what is 
happening, and he said on April 17 that, in fact, the Malaysian 
Government needs to show greater political will in prosecuting human 
traffickers and protecting their victims if the country wanted to rise 
from tier 3 to a better tier 2 standard.
  On June 1, the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Migration 
and Refugees, Anne Richard, reaffirmed that ``this year's report covers 
up to March 2015, which means Malaysia's handling of the Rohingya 
refugee crisis will only be reflected in the 2016 report.'' According 
to the Assistant Secretary, then, actions taken after March of this 
year, good or bad, should certainly not be reflected in this year's 
evaluation.
  Well, if you are not going to reflect the mass graves of Rohingya 
Muslims and what the Government of Malaysia did or did not do--the 
holding pens of humans--because it came after the reporting period, 
then you can't claim that the government's action to pass a law that 
has no teeth, no enforcement, and that hasn't even been put into effect 
after the date--the same date that you say you cannot consider the 
plight of hundreds who lost their lives--then you can't consider the 
passage of a hollow bill. It doesn't work both ways.
  Even the Malaysian Bar, the Malaysian association of legal 
professionals, stated in a letter last week: ``If there is any lesson 
to be learnt from recent experience, it must be that the government has 
an excellent record of drafting written plans, but a less than 
satisfactory record of implementing them. As such, the upgrade of 
Malaysia, if it were to occur, would be premature and undeserved.''
  The fact is, by the admission of the ``Trafficking in Persons 
Report,'' the Malaysian Government had only three human rights 
convictions in 2014--a two-thirds decrease from the last report. So 
compared to the last ``Trafficking in Persons Report,'' they had a two-
thirds decrease in their convictions of human rights abuses. Yet they 
get an upgrade. Wow. That is a surefire way to send a message across 
the world that we are serious about human trafficking. Frankly, that is 
beyond comprehension and common sense.
  There can be no clearer statement nor a more compelling statement 
that we have lowered the bar on human trafficking and lessened the 
value of the one report the world relies on to evaluate the behavior of 
nations. The events of recent months have clearly shown that the 
Malaysian Government has not even begun to adequately address its human 
trafficking problem. Thousands of victims continue to be exploited 
through sex trafficking and forced labor. And it was unnecessary to do 
this, having passed an amendment that said tier 3 countries in the 
``Trafficking in Persons Report'' of the State Department would not be 
allowed preferential access to the U.S. market unless they cleaned up 
their record,

[[Page 12819]]

which had strong bipartisan support of the members of the Senate 
Finance Committee and ultimately was incorporated in the TPA, the trade 
promotion authority legislation that passed the Senate and was sent to 
the House. In good faith, because of concerns that maybe that would 
undermine the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in good faith I negotiated an 
amendment--a provision to change it in the amendment that would have 
said you could still negotiate with Malaysia, but they had to clean up 
their act if you concluded that negotiation and they were part of TPP. 
They had to clean up their act on human trafficking before they got the 
preferential access to U.S. markets. I thought it was a significant 
give on my part, considering the vote of the Senate, but it was a good-
faith effort. So this wasn't even necessary to do unless you just want 
to give Malaysia a pass. The goal was to take the full weight of the 
TPP deal off of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' process.
  Instead of choosing the route we worked out together, requiring the 
President to testify in writing that Malaysia has taken concrete steps 
to deal with its very serious human trafficking problem, the 
administration backed out. I therefore see no reason why the 
comprehensive ban on fast-track for tier 3 human traffickers should now 
be amended. I see no reason why my willingness to accommodate should be 
amended.
  This underscores the need for further oversight of the trafficking in 
persons process, both legislatively and through the noble work of human 
rights groups here in Washington and out in the field.
  I plan to work with my colleagues to advance my amendment to the 
State authorization bill passed by the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee last month which requires the State Department to notify 
Congress of all trafficking in persons upgrades and downgrades 30 days 
prior to the release of the report.
  I am looking forward to speaking to the chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee to see if he, within a very busy schedule 
because we have all of the Iran nuclear review--but it seems to me this 
merits a congressional hearing to determine what went on here. If I, 
for some reason, cannot achieve that, then I may very well turn to the 
inspector general of the Department to seek a report as to what went 
on.
  Despite the clear will of Congress, this administration has made a 
mistake and will now have to answer questions as to its ability to 
objectively evaluate global human trafficking. The hard-working, 
committed NGOs that labor in the field to fight human trafficking and 
the countless victims who continue to suffer deserve an honest 
reflection of American values, not an arbitrary determination based 
upon expediency in achieving a limited political objective rather than 
a real solution.
  I look forward to working with all of the groups that have been 
instrumental in shining a light on the continued human rights abuses 
that take place in Malaysia, in Cuba, and elsewhere, to ensure that the 
integrity of the ``Trafficking in Persons Report'' is restored.
  Thousands and thousands of men, women, and children around the world 
who are the victims of human trafficking--it is on their behalf that I 
come to the floor. It is in their interest and in the interest of 
responsible trade policy that recognizes there can be no reward to 
nations that ignore those types of trafficking in persons and do 
nothing to end the scourge of what amounts to modern-day slavery, one 
of the great moral challenges of our time.
  It is for the world's 50 million refugees and displaced people--the 
largest number since World War II, many of whom are targets of 
traffickers. Because they are displaced, have nowhere to go, they are 
preyed upon. We have the largest number since World War II of refugees 
in the world. It is for the 36 million women and 5 million children 
around the world subjected to involuntary labor or sexual exploitation. 
For the victims of these crimes, the term ``modern slavery'' more 
starkly describes what is happening around the world.
  I will continue to fight against human trafficking in all its forms. 
I intend to fight for the integrity of a report that is a critical tool 
for us to be able to not only cast the light upon human trafficking in 
the world but to get countries to understand they must meet this great 
moral challenge and change the course of events in their country. That 
is why I come so incredibly upset to the Senate floor on something I 
never thought would have happened, but it has. We need to change it and 
change the course of events.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cyber Security

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the Nation's 
cyber security. Prior to being elected to the Senate, I spent nearly 12 
years working at a cloud computing company. This is a company we 
started from virtually nothing. We took the company public, and we grew 
to over 1,000 employees. It became a leading cloud computing company in 
the customer experience sector. I have seen firsthand the opportunities 
created by advances in technology, but I have also seen the power Big 
Data holds because our information becomes currency for both companies 
and for hackers.
  These risks are even greater when they impact our children, and as 
the daddy of four children, I know the importance of maintaining a 
close relationship between the parents and their children's school. 
Today, student electronic records are used in schools across the 
country, and updates can be easily made and can follow a student from 
one school to another. This more accurately reflects the nature of 
students' movements within the school system.
  But at a time when overseas hackers are fighting to gain access to 
any information they can, these technological gains also come with some 
risks. Securing students' digital information is critical to ensuring 
that our kids' privacy is protected. That is why I am grateful and 
proud to announce that I joined Senator Blumenthal in introducing the 
SAFE KIDS Act.
  The Safeguarding American Families from Exposure by Keeping 
Information and Data Secure--the SAFE KIDS Act--protects student 
privacy by establishing clear parameters for third-party operators when 
using data collected from students. This bipartisan legislation 
empowers parents to control access to their children's information 
because keeping personally identifiable information secure will lead to 
a uniform way to secure our students' data. By placing that power back 
in the hands of the students, in the hands of the parents, and in the 
hands of the schools, we can make progress toward protecting the 
privacy of our children because our schools and our kids aren't the 
only ones at risk for a serious breach.
  This week we are debating ways to provide the certainty and resources 
needed to improve our Nation's infrastructure--our roads, our bridges, 
our ports, our highways--but recent news reminds us that we must also 
consider the security of the cars that are driving on our roadways. In 
fact, just in the past week, news broke that Fiat Chrysler announced a 
recall of 1.4 million vehicles due to a vulnerability that could allow 
hackers to disable the vehicles on the highways. In fact, through the 
radio of a Jeep Cherokee, hackers disabled the vehicle's transmission 
as a driver drove onto a public highway in St. Louis. This episode is 
telling in that cyber hacks can affect every sector of our economy, 
from the financial sector to our automotive manufacturers.
  Our military installations across the globe are also vulnerable to an 
attack, according to a new report from the GAO. In fact, our utility 
systems that provide water, electricity, and other

[[Page 12820]]

essential services to our military installations worldwide have limited 
defenses against cyber attacks. Report details that the industrial 
control system--ICS--the computers that monitor or operate physical 
utility infrastructure, ``have very little in the way of
security controls and cybersecurity measures in place.'' In fact, in a 
recent July 25 Military Times article, they cite: ``An example of a 
successful cyber-physical attack through an ICS was the `Stuxnet.''' It 
was a computer virus that was used to attack Iranian centrifuges in 
2010. By hacking the Iranian nuclear facility's ICS, the centrifuges 
were made to operate incorrectly, causing extensive damage.
  The fears of a massive cyber security breach don't only rest in the 
Pentagon. Just yesterday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on ABC's 
``This Week'' that a cyber attack by the Islamic State is one of the 
terrorist group's biggest emerging threats to our country. In fact, 
during the interview, Attorney General Lynch noted that the terrorist 
group now boasts over 20,000 English language Twitter followers. Our 
country's most sensitive data can be in the hands of our enemies at the 
mere click of a button or press of a screen.
  As I speak today, we have yet to obtain answers from the Obama 
administration on the scope and the perpetrators from the massive hack 
at the Office of Personnel Management. This attack has paralyzed the 
Obama administration. They haven't put in place any real, meaningful 
reforms at OPM. I have called for Chief Information Officer Donna 
Seymour's resignation since June 24. Yet she still remains in her post 
and we still don't have any concrete answers for the 21 million-plus 
Federal employees who were victims of this attack.
  We must do more. We must act more quickly and more nimbly than those 
seeking to wage a terror attack on our Nation's cyber security 
infrastructure.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the freight division 
of the DRIVE Act, the highway transportation bill that is under 
consideration before us at the moment.
  The freight provisions represent the combined efforts of both the 
Commerce Committee, which I have the honor of chairing, and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. To create this division, we 
incorporate a number of provisions from legislation offered by Senator 
Cantwell, Senator Markey, Senator Booker, Senator Murray, and the 
administration's GROW AMERICA Act proposal. We worked very hard to 
incorporate and make this a bipartisan product. We took into 
consideration suggestions that were made by our colleagues, many of 
whom serve on the Commerce Committee and some who don't, but we got to 
a point where we feel as if we had a good product that incorporates the 
best ideas--not everything, obviously, that everybody wanted but that 
addressed many of the issues that pertained to our particular part of 
this legislation.
  The language included in the Commerce Committee's freight program 
also drew from recommendations made by the Department of 
Transportation's nonpartisan National Freight Advisory Committee--
another entity we looked to and consulted with respect to these 
particular provisions of the bill.
  Because of our Nation's vast transportation network, freight can move 
by rail, it can move by aircraft, it can move by truck, and it can move 
by ship. It is multimodal. Under the bipartisan legislation before the 
Senate, freight-planning efforts will be concentrated under the 
Secretary of Transportation. This is to reflect the multimodal nature 
of how goods are transported and to ensure the involvement of various 
agencies which regulate different forms of transportation is properly 
coordinated.
  Because freight moves from truck to rail to port, freight planning 
must consider these connections, and it must include the development of 
a strategy to expand capacity and to increase efficiency to meet 
growing demand. This is especially true when it comes to focusing 
infrastructure investment decisions. Growing demand indicates and fuels 
a growing economy. We need a plan to handle the significant growth of 
freight traffic we expect in the coming years.
  The Department of Transportation notes that, by 2040, our 
transportation system is projected to haul an additional 9 billion tons 
of freight. That represents a 45 percent increase over what we move 
today. As our economy recovers and continues to grow, we will continue 
to need additional freight infrastructure. The freight network serves 
our import and export needs and is a critical element of our economic 
competitiveness.
  Bottlenecks and delays have significant economic cost. Freight is, by 
nature, not just a highway problem. Airports, ports, and railroads 
connect farms, manufacturing centers, and the markets they serve.
  Freight needs are not just urban issues. They are also very important 
for rural America. Advancing agricultural freight projects is necessary 
for the economies of many States, so ensuring planning and funding for 
these projects is also critical. Keeping freight transportation costs 
low keeps American farmers competitive in the global marketplace.
  In the winter of 2014, South Dakota faced significant challenges 
moving grain from the State due to congestion in the rail network. When 
the freight couldn't move, farmers weren't getting paid. Commodities 
faced spoilage due to a lack of available storage space.
  Agriculture is the leading driver of South Dakota's economy. Delays 
and the significant increased costs of moving grain by rail negatively 
impacted the pocketbooks of many of the farmers in my State. This, in 
turn, reduced Main Street's bottom line as well.
  More recently, the West Coast port slowdowns delayed shipments to and 
from stores in South Dakota and across the country. Agricultural 
products for export were delayed, and imports of products from lumber, 
medical supplies, and automobiles to basic retail goods were delayed. 
This was an unforced error that harmed our economy for way too many 
months.
  This labor strife underscored the interconnected nature of our 
transportation system and how vital our freight infrastructure is to 
each and to every State in this country. In fact, the resulting strife 
was widely cited as a contributing cause of the U.S. economy actually 
shrinking in the first quarter of 2015.
  Protecting our competitiveness is at the core of this legislation's 
freight program that was developed between the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee and my colleagues on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee.
  Planning for and fixing our freight network will create and maintain 
jobs over the long term. Reducing delays and lowering the price of 
freight transportation serves the entire supply chain and, ultimately, 
the American consumer.
  That is why the freight division in the DRIVE Act is so important. 
The bill improves the planning process, engaging States and 
stakeholders to help plan for future freight needs. States will provide 
a forward-looking plan to address these freight needs step by step. 
These plans will develop investment strategies and prioritize projects 
for funding.
  The bill's consolidated strategy that plans for both highway projects 
and multimodal projects is a significant improvement over what we have 
today--or the status quo. In addition, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee developed a highway trust fund formula program that will 
support critical projects in every State. In the first year alone, the 
bill provides $450 million of grant funding to assist with these 
critical investments.
  Projects to improve rail grade crossings, port facilities, and 
connections

[[Page 12821]]

between freight modes of transportation will have access to these new 
resources. This will reduce the time and the cost of moving goods.
  The Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors noted that 
the planning and strategy outlined in the bill is ``a significant step 
forward for multimodal freight planning and policy.'' The American 
Association of Port Authorities says: ``Elevating a policy for freight 
within your legislation sends a strong message that freight must 
continue to be a priority and that planning, funding, and the 
establishment of a multimodal freight network are critical for the 
economic growth of our nation.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the full statements of these two organizations I just mentioned.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [From the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors, July 
                               16, 2015]

 Goods Movement Coalition Applauds Commerce Freight Policy, Calls for 
                            Freight Funding

                 (By Executive Director Elaine Nessle)

       Washington, DC.--Yesterday the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation approved a six-year 
     transportation bill, the Comprehensive Transportation and 
     Consumer Protection Act of 2015, S 1732. Included in the bill 
     is a freight chapter, providing a focus on multimodal freight 
     planning and policy.
       The Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection 
     Act of 2015 is a significant step forward for multimodal 
     freight planning and policy. I commend Chairman Thune and the 
     Committee members for developing policy that incorporates the 
     many modes of transportation that move freight. The proposal 
     contains several policy objectives held by the Coalition for 
     America's Gateways and Trade Corridors, including creation of 
     a multimodal national freight policy and the call for 
     designation of a multimodal national freight network to 
     inform transportation planning and improve investment 
     decision making.
       While this proposal is a step in the right direction, 
     dedicated freight funding is necessary to make targeted 
     system improvements. The Coalition has long called for a 
     minimum annual investment of $2 billion in addition to 
     current programs of funding. A freight investment grant 
     program, with multimodal project eligibility that distributes 
     funding on a competitive basis, is needed to make strategic 
     investments. Businesses and agricultural producers rely on 
     our national multimodal freight system to move goods to 
     market and support growth. To remain competitive in the 
     global market place, we must invest in the system that moves 
     our nation's commerce.''
       Demonstrating the large number of projects that stand to 
     benefit from a competitive grant approach, CAGTC published in 
     April a booklet titled ``Freight Can't Wait.'' The booklet 
     contains a sampling of significant freight infrastructure 
     projects that could be realized with federal resources, like 
     funding distributed through a competitive freight investment 
     grant program.
                                  ____

                                              American Association
                                              of Port Authorities,
                                    Alexandria, VA, July 23, 2015.
     Hon. John Thune,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science and 
         Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thune, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Nelson 
     and Ranking Minority Member Boxer: On behalf of the American 
     Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) I want to thank you 
     for your leadership on the freight policy and funding 
     provisions included in Division D of the DRIVE Act (H.R. 22) 
     that will be considered on the Senate floor over the next 
     week.
       AAPA is the unified and collective voice of the seaport 
     industry in the Americas. AAPA empowers port authorities, 
     maritime industry partners and service providers to serve 
     their global customers and create economic and social value 
     for their communities. Our activities, resources and 
     partnerships connect, inform and unify seaport leaders and 
     maritime professionals in all segments of the industry around 
     the western hemisphere. This letter is on behalf of our U.S. 
     members.
       The approach of grouping the Environment and Public Works 
     and Commerce Committees' jurisdictions into one division 
     within the DRIVE Act is a positive step forward. This 
     grouping reinforces a top AAPA priority--that freight policy 
     must be integrated as well as intermodal in order to be 
     efficient, safe and secure. In the past, freight policy and 
     funding measures have been fragmented. Elevating a policy for 
     freight within your legislation sends a strong message that 
     freight must continue to be a priority and that planning 
     funding and the establishment of a multimodal freight network 
     are critical for the economic growth of our nation.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you on building 
     the freight provisions in the DRIVE Act as the legislation 
     moves forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Kurt Nagle,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate is a 
critically important part of addressing our Nation's current and future 
transportation investments. As Senator Cantwell often says: Freight 
can't wait.
  The DRIVE Act includes these critical freight provisions that will 
help our economy and lead to job creation. Strengthening our freight 
program is yet one more reason to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I hope before all is said and done in the Senate we 
will complete action on this legislation this week and get many of 
these provisions, which are so important to our economy, so important 
to jobs, and so important to America's competitiveness, passed into 
law.
  Of course, first we have to get action by the House of 
Representatives in order to get it to the President's desk, but the 
work that has gone into this is the product of a lot of various Members 
and committees, those from the stakeholder community offering their 
input and consultation to get us to the point we are today where I 
think we have a product we can be proud of and that we can say actually 
will help address the freight challenges and the needs we have across 
this country and make our economy even more competitive.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with regard to one of the 
parts of the highway bill we are talking about, and that is the Export-
Import Bank, otherwise known as Ex-Im.
  I rise today as somebody who feels strongly we need to have a long-
term highway bill. I am glad we are on the floor with that because it 
is about jobs and crumbling infrastructure. I am also pleased that 
within this bill there is some regulatory reform on the permitting 
process, and I thank the authors for including my permitting reform 
bill. But I also am pleased by the fact we also voted to add as an 
amendment the reauthorization of this Bank called the Export-Import 
Bank.
  If I may, let me talk about why this is so important to Ohio jobs and 
to jobs around this country and to keeping our economy from falling 
behind. Some people say: Well, why do we need the government involved 
in this business of providing financing or credit to companies that do 
business overseas? Well, frankly, it is because often these are 
relatively high-risk ventures, so companies cannot get the credits, the 
guarantees or the loans from private-sector companies.
  I will give a few examples of this in a minute, but it is also 
because of the fact that other countries all over the world have these 
export credit subsidies. In fact, we are pikers. We have a lot less 
than our competitors. On average, our competitors do a lot more in 
terms of supporting their exports than we do.
  So we need to have this in order to ensure that we don't lose jobs in 
this country. By our unilaterally saying we are not going to help our 
companies to export, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
  Now, if these other countries around the world were to say, you know 
what, we are going to back off on our export financing, that would be 
great. When I was U.S. Trade Representative back in

[[Page 12822]]

the Bush administration, that is what I pushed for. I think we should 
be getting rid of these subsidies.
  By the way, also in terms of agriculture subsidies and others, if 
there were a level playing field, where our competitors were not doing 
this, it would be a different world. I will note one thing I like about 
the amendment that was adopted--or at least the cloture vote here and 
the amendment that is likely to be adopted to this bill on the Export-
Import Bank--is that it requires, as one of the reforms--and, yes, I 
think it should be reformed--that the administration begin the process 
of an international negotiation to get rid of these export subsidies 
all over the world.
  In the meantime, if we as the United States of America say 
unilaterally that we are going to stop these export subsidies through 
this financing mechanism, we are going to lose jobs. It is not just we 
are not going to create jobs that would be otherwise created by these 
projects, it is the fact that some companies will actually move 
overseas to take advantage of the export subsidies in other countries. 
They have told me this, and I am sure they have told other Senators 
this, and Senators know this.
  I view this in pretty simple terms: No. 1, this program actually puts 
money back into the coffers every year rather than taking money out. I 
think it added about $650 million or so to our surplus last year. Over 
time it has added billions of dollars, so it is not costing taxpayer 
money. It brought $7 million in profits to the U.S. Treasury since 
1992. Last year it generated $675 million in profits, and by the way, 
it created 164,000 jobs and $27 billion in exports. So No. 1, it is not 
one of these government programs that is costing the taxpayer.
  No. 2, other countries are doing it, and if we don't do it, they will 
continue to do it and we will lose out on jobs, on contracts. I am 
told, for instance, that right now, while this program is in flux--
where we are not sure whether it will go forward or not because it has 
already technically expired--there are 100 transactions sitting in the 
pipeline worth more than $9 billion, and those transactions won't go 
forward unless we take action. So again, this is one where the United 
States of America would be shooting itself in the foot by saying we are 
not going to expand exports to the detriment of our workers.
  Then No. 3, yes, we ought to get busy on reforms to the Export-Import 
Bank, to make it more transparent. I think that is good. One of the 
reforms in here, as I said earlier, is to ensure the President submits 
a strategy for ending government supported export subsidies 
internationally. The Obama administration should be more aggressive at 
that. I believe that is appropriate, and they should be doing it.
  By the way, it also creates a risk management committee to oversee 
the Bank's risk exposure. It also sets up a new nonpolitical chief 
ethics officer to provide oversight with regard to the ethics practices 
of Bank employees. That is all important, and I support all those 
reforms. I could probably support some more, too, but let us not shoot 
ourselves in the foot and lose these good-paying jobs we have in this 
country.
  I view it frankly a lot like the trade debate we just had. What we 
want to do in trade is have a balance, where we are sending more 
exports overseas, creating more jobs in this country--in my State of 
Ohio, in the Presiding Officer's State of Indiana, and other States 
around this country--at the same time leveling the playing field by 
increasing our enforcement and stopping the unfair imports from other 
countries--the dumping and the subsidies.
  In the trade bill--we talked a lot about this over the last month--we 
actually got in place a new amendment to help companies be able to deal 
with unfairly traded imports, to get a remedy right away, and it is 
already working. Sherrod Brown, my colleague from Ohio, and I put 
together an amendment. It is part of the trade bill that was passed. 
Already, tire workers in Ohio, United Steelworkers union employees in 
Ohio have been able to take advantage of that because they got a 
positive determination from the International Trade Commission, in part 
because we gave them better tools. We improved the law to be able to 
more easily show they have been injured by these unfairly traded 
imports that are sold below cost or dumped or subsidized and so that 
they can get the relief needed to avoid losing so many jobs that they 
go out of business.
  That is one thing we ought to be doing to expand exports--more trade. 
Another thing we ought to be doing is ensuring we aren't pulling back 
on this export financing--again, it doesn't cost the taxpayers 
anything--at a time when we are under-exporting compared to what we 
should be doing as a country.
  When we look at our exports per capita in the United States of 
America, I think we are somewhere between Tonga and Ethiopia in terms 
of our exports per capita. Other countries depend a lot more on trade 
than we do.
  We need to export more. Why? It creates good jobs--jobs that pay 13 
percent to 15 percent more on average and offer better benefits. The 
last thing we want to do is to pull the rug out from under these 
exporters by saying we are going to change the law to make it even 
harder to export and put American workers at a disadvantage vis-a-vis 
the rest of the world.
  It is the same thing with regard to trade policy, generally. Let's 
expand exports by opening up markets for our products through good 
trade agreements, and let's enforce the laws and increase the 
enforcement, as we did with regard to the amendment I talked about 
earlier. That makes it easier for those tire workers at Cooper Tire in 
Ohio and around the country to be able to say: This isn't fair. The 
Chinese tires--in this case--are coming in under cost and are being 
subsidized. We want our government to stand up for us so we can compete 
and so we can export more of our product.
  So if we were not to allow this Export-Import Bank to continue, it 
would be running counter to everything we just did in the trade bill. 
We want more exports.
  The final thing I have to say, again, is if we don't allow American 
companies to compete globally as American workers making products here 
in America, some of these companies are going to go overseas. A lot of 
them already have production overseas. Let's be honest. A lot of these 
U.S. multinational companies make things all over the world on two, 
three, four continents. They can shift production overseas, and then 
they take advantage of the export guarantees in that country. That is 
what some of them have told me they are likely to do if we don't have 
an export guarantee in this country and we don't do anything about the 
international situation, where these other countries do more than we 
do.
  That reminds me of another topic we ought to be taking up here on the 
floor of the Senate, and that is tax reform, because our Tax Code does 
the same thing. Our Tax Code says to an American company: You can't 
compete fairly. You have to compete with one hand tied behind your 
back. It is the American workers who are hurt by this because our tax 
rate is so high. Because of the way we tax internationally, we make it 
an advantage to be a foreign company. That is why so many U.S. 
companies are becoming foreign companies. Last year there were twice as 
many transactions in dollar terms--twice as many as the year before--of 
foreign companies taking over U.S. companies, driven largely by our 
inefficient and out-of-date Tax Code.
  So if we combine all of these--if we combine what is going on with 
trade, if we combine what is going on with our tax system--we certainly 
don't want to put our workers at a further disadvantage by pulling the 
rug out from under them with regard to this export financing. Yes, 
let's try to get the rest of the world to do the right thing. But in 
the meantime, let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.
  On many of these projects overseas, there is a de facto requirement 
that you have to have financing from a government. All these other 
countries provide it. So whether in Africa, Asia or in

[[Page 12823]]

some of these other emerging economies, they say: Where is your 
financing? This is why, as I said, there are about 100 projects in 
limbo right now.
  Let me talk about some of the companies in Ohio that benefit from 
this Export-Import Bank--again, this bank that actually puts money back 
into the coffers every year. I have talked to these companies, and I 
have talked to the workers on the line whose jobs are at stake because 
of what we are going to decide here in this body.
  One is U.S. Bridge. They are in Cambridge, OH. They have been 
manufacturing and building bridges in America and around the world for 
81 years. They are quite a success story. Their global business depends 
on the financial guarantees of the Export-Import Bank. They can't 
compete in bidding for these projects around the world without it. 
Recently, they got a $100 million contract to build bridges in West 
Africa, but it was immediately put in jeopardy after they got it 
because Congress refused to move on the Ex-Im Bank one way or the 
other. We just allowed it to expire without even voting on it. That is 
one of those projects currently in limbo. They have 150 employees in a 
very small county with high unemployment in Eastern Ohio.
  If they get this job we talked about to build bridges in West Africa, 
they say they can add up to 50 new manufacturing workers with this one 
contract. That is a big deal for a family-owned company that has been a 
cornerstone of the eastern part of Ohio in the small town of Cambridge, 
which has 10,000 people. That is 50 jobs right there, in a small town 
in an area of Ohio that has high unemployment, that are at stake if we 
don't move on Export-Import Bank.
  Let me talk about McGregor Metalworking in Springfield, OH. I know a 
lot about the McGregor family because they are distant cousins of mine. 
My family was the McCullough family. They came to Springfield from 
Scotland.
  The McGregors run a company that is a staple of the community. They 
are pillars in the community. They have skilled trade jobs. The workers 
there get good pay and good benefits. However, they are very concerned 
about what is going on with the Ex-Im Bank. More than 60 workers at 
McGregor work directly on products that depend on Ex-Im financing. That 
is about 16 percent of McGregor's sales. They are not a big company, 
but they are a really important company to that community, to those 
workers, and to their families.
  So to the people who have stood up on this floor over the last couple 
of days and said this is not about jobs, this is about jobs, folks. 
This is not just about big businesses. Yes, it is about them, and that 
is important too. We want those jobs here as well. It is also about a 
lot of small businesses.
  I recently spoke to some of the workers at McGregor. They told me 
there are a lot of manufacturing issues they just can't control--their 
health care costs, which are going up. ObamaCare has not helped. It has 
made it worse. In Ohio, they are told their costs are going to go up 
between 10 percent and 33 percent next year. That is what the insurance 
companies have told them. The price of steel goes up and down. 
Sometimes it is tough to get the skills to be able to compete and to 
get these jobs in places such as McGregor. Those are things that are 
out of their control. But Ex-Im is something they know we can control, 
and they are wondering why we are making it even more difficult and 
less predictable for them by not acting.
  Let me talk about another small business in Hamilton, OH, called 
Kaivac. They employ 50 people. They manufacture commercial cleaning 
machines used to clean floors in schools, museums, stadiums, and 
airports. They are a kind of modern-day mop and pail.
  With the help of Ex-Im, Kaivac grew its international sales by 60 
percent last year, exporting their commercial cleaning machines all 
over the world. But as we have heard repeatedly, this is another 
company that said they can't do that in the future if they don't get 
this financing from Ex-Im.
  So what will happen to these companies? For a lot of these smaller 
companies, they will just lose business, and they will lose jobs. They 
will lose the jobs they already have, and they won't be able to gain 
the jobs we have talked about today.
  For some of the bigger companies, they will be OK. They will move 
overseas. Frankly, I am not worried about the companies. I am worried 
about the workers in Ohio--American workers who work hard, play by the 
rules, and do all the right things. We are going to pull the rug out 
from under them. That doesn't make any sense to me. We need to stand up 
for these American workers. Whether it is with regard to trade or 
whether it is with regard to taxes, as we talked about earlier, 
Washington is letting them down. We are not doing the basic things we 
ought to be doing to create the environment for success to allow them 
to be able to compete and to win.
  Today we have the opportunity to stand with American workers. We have 
the opportunity to move forward--yes, with regard to trade, knocking 
down barriers to our exports, making sure there is a more level playing 
field, including the amendment we talked about earlier that allows us 
now to bring trade cases and get results and help American workers. We 
have to be sure that we do reform this Tax Code, because if we don't, 
more American companies and investments are going to go overseas. That 
is our job. We are letting the American worker down right now.
  I see Senator Schumer here on the floor. Senator Schumer has been 
working on this international tax reform issue, and his point is a very 
simple one: We want the jobs and investments here. We are tired of 
seeing companies get taken over by foreign companies and move their 
jobs to those other countries. We saw this recently. A pharmaceutical 
company got bought by a foreign entity. By the way, the foreign company 
had just left America. They inverted to another country. They then came 
back and started buying American companies. One third of the workforce 
of that company bought by the foreign company is now gone--Raleigh, NC, 
to Canada.
  So these are things we can do. It is within our control here in this 
body for us to pass these kinds of bills and, with regard to Ex-Im, to 
ensure that we are not shooting ourselves in the foot and shooting 
American workers in the foot by taking away their opportunity to, yes, 
win these bids, to win these competitions, to build that bridge in West 
Africa, to send those cleaning supplies all over the world, to be able 
to ensure, with regard to McGregor Industries, that the parts they put 
into those locomotive engines that get sent to developed countries and 
developing countries can continue to grow.
  Our job here is not to make life harder for these workers and these 
small companies. It is to make it easier for them to compete and to win 
so that we can begin to bring back not just more jobs but better jobs.
  Over the last 6 years, we have seen wages flatten out and on average 
go down. Economists tell me it is about a 6-percent reduction in real 
wages. Think about that. This at a time when health care costs are up, 
in part thanks to ObamaCare, which makes it harder, not easier, to get 
health care at a reasonable cost. Education costs are up. Electricity 
costs are going up, in part because of the regulations that the Obama 
administration is putting on the economy in my home State of Ohio and 
around the country. That is called the middle-class squeeze. Wages are 
flat and declining, and expenses going up. That is what the people I 
represent are experiencing.
  Let's not make it more difficult for them. Let's stand up for 
American workers. Yes, let's tell the Obama administration, as this 
legislation does: You are required to put more pressure on the 
international community and other countries to reduce their export 
subsidies, their guarantees, their credit agencies. But in the 
meantime, let's be sure we are standing up for the people we represent 
and doing the right thing for the American worker.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the reauthorization of the 
Export-Import Bank and support American manufacturing, because a 
country that

[[Page 12824]]

doesn't make something can't make something of itself.
  I have seen everything manufactured in Maryland, from crab cakes on 
Kent Island and ice cream in Laurel to commercial truck engines in 
Hagerstown and unmanned aircraft in Hunt Valley. I have met with 
innovative manufacturers who credit the Export-Import Bank with helping 
them grow their businesses by exporting to new markets overseas.
  Through critical assistance, at no cost to taxpayers, these small and 
medium-sized businesses are able to sell American products around the 
world.
  I visit businesses all over Maryland. I have visited bakeries, 
microbreweries, factories of small machine tool companies. I visited 
Main Street, small streets, rural communities. And I have talked with 
business owners and their employees.
  These are ``good guy'' businesses. They work hard and play by the 
rules. They have jobs right here in the U.S. They want to expand. They 
want to hire. They need a government on their side and at their side.
  Some business owners I met with said that the secure financing at the 
Export-Import bank helped them strengthen their business and grow.
  Selling your products overseas isn't as simple as selling them 
locally. But getting secure credit insurance helped Maryland 
manufacturers that relied on cash-in-advance payments for exports 
expand their businesses by exporting to new markets.
  Other business owners I met with said that the Export-Import Bank was 
a lifeline during a difficult economy. They told me that they relied on 
private financing before 2008, but during the credit crisis even safe 
investments couldn't get help from the private sector. The Export-
Import Bank helped them weather the storm.
  The Export-Import Bank provides critical direct loans and loan 
guarantees to foreign buyers of U.S.-made goods. The Export-Import Bank 
also provides working capital loans to small businesses that are 
exporting. And it provides insurance for exporters in case a foreign 
buyer fails to pay.
  In all these cases the bank is filling gaps in the private market. It 
is an important tool for U.S. companies that are seeking to compete 
with foreign firms, and those foreign firms often get aggressive trade 
financing support from their own national governments.
  On July 1, 2015, the authorization for the Export-Import Bank lapsed. 
Right now, the bank is unable to process applications or engage in new 
business. The bank cannot authorize any new transaction to do any new 
lending or help any businesses with any new exports. That puts American 
jobs at risk. American businesses and workers are missing new 
opportunities because they can't get the new financing they need to 
close the deal and make the sale abroad.
  A vote to support the Export-Import Bank is a vote to support 
American manufacturing jobs. Reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank means 
Maryland will be able to export more, manufacture more, and create more 
jobs.
  The Export-Import Bank helped over $27 billion in export sales in 
fiscal year 2014 and supported 164,000 jobs nationwide.
  Nearly 90 percent of the transactions done by the Export-Import Bank 
directly supported small businesses.
  From 2007 to 2015, the Export-Import Bank financed $2 billion in 
exports from Maryland.
  The Export-Import Bank is about helping Main Street. It is about 
helping the entrepreneurs with a dream in their heart, with a small 
business underway, with the grit and determination to be able to create 
a job for themselves and for others.
  I call upon my colleagues to think about where America is going in 
the 21st century. Where are we going to be? Are we going to create more 
opportunity? Are we going to create more jobs that pay good wages with 
good benefits?
  I am proud to stand firm in my commitment to manufacturing jobs from 
Hagerstown to Stevensville and from Baltimore to Easton.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the facts are undeniable. Climate change 
is real, it is caused by humans, it is happening now, and, it is 
solvable.
  Today I would like to talk about a noncontroversial way to reduce 10 
percent of the world's carbon pollution: fighting deforestation.
  Of course, no single action will solve climate change, but stopping 
deforestation is underrated as a solution, with a high impact and a low 
cost. While we have been on this floor for years in an intense, often 
partisan, debate over pipelines and the EPA's rules on coal-fired 
powerplants, forest conservation is an area where we have always had 
strong bipartisan support.
  As forests are cut down, two things happen. First, carbon stored in 
trees is released. Second, the trees stop absorbing carbon from the 
atmosphere.
  Each year, the world loses forests the size of Ohio, and that rate is 
increasing. Unless we act, an area twice the size of Texas will be lost 
by the year 2030.
  Of course, most deforestation is happening in tropical forests, in 
the Amazon, the Congo River Basin, and in Southeast Asia. But global 
demand, including demand from the United States, for palm oil, soy, 
beef, and timber products greatly contributes to forest loss in these 
regions.
  This is why the United States has to lead in stopping deforestation. 
There are three things that we can do: First, we have to fully 
implement and fund the Lacey Act. This law prohibits the import of 
illegally harvested wood products but has only been in place since 
2008. Congress hasn't given the USDA and other agencies the tools to 
fully implement it. We are good at catching raw products like lumber 
from illegally harvested forests, but we still need more tools to catch 
illegal wood, which is in processed products such as furniture.
  Full enforcement of the Lacey Act could keep 27 million metric tons 
of carbon pollution out of the atmosphere each year. This is equivalent 
to the emissions from more than 5 million cars every year. The Lacey 
Act is also good for the U.S. timber industry because illegally 
harvested wood products undercut this industry by $1 billion in 2013 by 
reducing the competitive advantage of legal timber.
  Second, we have to support private sector commitments to stopping 
deforestation. We have had some recent very good news in this space. 
Driven by consumer demand, 34 corporations recently committed to 
cutting deforestation from their products in half by 2020 and ending it 
by 2030. These are big companies--Walmart, McDonald's, and Unilever, 
among many others. These businesses were joined by 35 governments, 16 
indigenous groups, and 45 NGOs. This was the first time that leaders 
from developed and developing countries have partnered around a 
timeline for ending deforestation.
  One challenge in meeting these commitments is that we don't have a 
robust standard to verify that they are being met. Without this, we are 
merely taking everyone's word for it, but the United States can lead in 
monitoring and verifying these commitments. Publicly available 
satellite imagery from NASA and USGS has already allowed forest 
scientists to measure the magnitude of global deforestation, but we 
still need more accurate, real-time monitoring of the carbon content in 
forests, and the technologies do exist.
  Finally, we have to provide forested countries with technical and 
financial support to protect and grow their forests. Absorbing carbon 
with trees is more cost-effective and more energy efficient than doing 
so from coal or gas

[[Page 12825]]

powerplants. This is because trees capture carbon using energy from the 
Sun and powerplants capture carbon using additional energy from a 
powerplant.
  Despite the ability of forests to capture and store carbon, we can't 
just tell landowners to stop cutting down their trees. They are often 
in a very dire financial situation on a personal level. We have to 
share with them our expertise in sustainable forest management--how to 
prosper from a forest without cutting it down and moving on to the next 
stand. The State Department, USAID, and USDA bring sought-after 
knowledge in this area from how to fight forest fires to how to combat 
illegal logging.
  We also have to provide financial incentives for landowners to 
protect their forests. The economic benefit of forests is real. They 
store carbon, filter water, keep soil healthy, and protect against 
erosion.
  The value of a forest's ecological services, not just its raw 
materials, must be recognized in the global economy. REDD-plus 
programs--shorthand for reducing emissions from deforestation and 
forest degradation--provide a mechanism for financially rewarding 
countries that reduce emissions from deforestation. If we want to lead 
in solving climate change, we have to contribute our fair share to 
these programs.
  Thankfully, forests in the United States absorb more carbon than they 
release. However, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that the loss of 
forests through urban growth and wildfires could make our forests a 
source of carbon pollution as soon as 2030. We have to ensure that our 
forests continue to absorb more carbon than they release and work with 
our allies to protect our forests abroad.
  We have solutions on climate change. Stopping deforestation is one of 
them, and it is one of the solutions I am most excited about because it 
is an opportunity for bipartisan work. We know what we need to do, and 
we know how to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have been discussing the value of 
having a multiyear transportation bill, a highway bill moving through 
the Senate. It is something that I, too, would like to see, but as with 
everything that we do around here, it is important how we do it. When 
you have a multiyear highway bill, it is important to ask the question, 
how are we paying for that?
  One of the considerations that is in front of this body is to pay for 
$9 billion of this multiyear highway bill through a selloff of crude 
oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve--SPR.
  I have come before this floor several times already during this 
debate to try to convince colleagues that this is exactly the wrong way 
to address our transportation priorities by selling off a national 
energy security priority; basically, an insurance policy that we have 
for this country, an insurance policy to ensure that at the time that 
we might be most vulnerable with our energy supplies, we have reserves, 
we have a safety net we can turn to in the event of an emergency 
brought about by a hurricane or natural disaster or whether it is a 
manmade disaster, war or something else that has caused global 
disruption.
  In short, it boggles my mind that we would be willing, so willing and 
almost eager, to tap into this strategic asset for such short-term and 
limited gain. In the absence of supply disruption that justifies 
releasing oil from the SPR, selling our strategic reserves only worsens 
an existing competitive disadvantage for our American oil producers.
  As you know, we have in place an outdated 40-year-old-plus ban on our 
ability to sell our domestic crude oil overseas. We are limited in our 
ability to export that. I think that is a wrong and outdated policy, 
and I am working with many, including the occupant of the chair, to 
lift this outdated policy. I have introduced legislation to do just 
that. We will actually have a bill before the banking committee 
tomorrow to, again, shed some light on the fact that it is so 
incredibly inconsistent from a policy perspective that we would be 
talking about lifting the sanctions on Iran, allowing Iran to access 
the broader global market so they can sell their oil reserves, so they 
can take advantage of the resources that will come to them to do who 
knows what mischief, while at the same time prohibiting, further 
prohibiting in this country our oil producers that opportunity to 
access the global market. By lifting the sanctions on Iran and keeping 
the oil export ban in place in this country, we are effectively 
sanctioning our own U.S. oil producers. That is wrong. Again, we are 
working to address that.
  We are in a situation currently in which American companies cannot 
sell oil to the same countries that we let Iran sell its own oil to. 
Now, with this proposal in front of us to sell off some 101 million 
barrels of oil from the SPR, we are potentially going to saturate a 
market that is already oversupplied. Think about what that means to 
those in Oklahoma where the rig count in this country right now is down 
by half of what it was just last year. We are at a 5-year low with 
that. Our market is oversaturated.
  This morning I introduced yet another white paper out of the energy 
committee. It is entitled ``A Turbulent World: In Defense of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.'' This white paper outlines some of the 
history behind the SPR, why I feel so strongly and why I will continue 
to come to this floor to oppose the sale of 101 million barrels of oil 
from the SPR to pay for a portion of this highway bill.
  Let's take a look at the history of when we have had emergency 
drawdowns. We have had exactly three emergency drawdowns ever. The 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been in place since the mid-1970s. We 
had a drawdown in 1991 with Desert Storm. We had a drawdown in 2005 
when Hurricane Katrina hit and then in Libya in 2011 during their civil 
war.
  This red right here is the 101 million barrels that this legislation 
seeks to sell off--101 million barrels. The total amount of sales from 
emergency drawdowns ever combined is 58.9 million barrels.
  What we are talking about doing is, in one act, taking 101 million 
barrels and putting it out there on the market. In the 40 years that we 
have had access to reserves in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we have 
had three emergency drawdowns--one, a hurricane and, two, in the event 
of disruption for war, and together, all three of those totaled just 
shy of 60 million barrels. Yet this proposal is 101 million barrels.
  We have exchanged oil out of the SPR a total of 12 times. This was in 
Hurricanes Isaac, Katrina, Lili, Ivan, Gustav, and Ike. We have created 
a home heating oil reserve. We have closed some ship channels for 
accidents. We have imported oil from Mexico. All of those exchanges, 
not drawdowns, but all of those totaled only 68.9 million barrels. 
Again, we are talking about a 101-million-barrel sale. We have also 
done test sales. We have done three test sales. In 1985, in 1990, and 
then in 2014. We have also closed down a reserve site--Weeks Island. We 
have sold off some barrels for that. The total for all of that activity 
was 15 million barrels for all four sales.
  I have had people tell me: Oh, don't overreact here; don't overreact. 
This is no different than what we did with the two sales in 1996 for 
Federal deficit reduction.
  Let's look at that chart. In 1996, we had a deficit reduction in May, 
which is shown in blue, and then in October we did further reductions, 
and that is shown in green. Both of those sales totaled 23 million 
barrels. Again, back in 1996, there was a total of 23 million, and what 
we are looking at with this legislation is, again, a selloff of 101 
million barrels. That is not even a fair comparison. Selling 101 
million barrels would be the equivalent of 60 percent of all of the oil 
that has ever left the SPR.

[[Page 12826]]

  We have effectively taken out a total of 161 million barrels and 
moved that out of this SPR since it was created in 1975, about 40 years 
ago. We have had three emergency drawdowns, we have had the exchanges I 
talked about, we had test sales, and then we had the sales in 1996 with 
the Federal deficit reduction. If we take all of that together--
everything in the history of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we 
ever sold off or exchanged--it brings us to 161 million barrels, and 
now we are talking about selling 101 million barrels, which is 60 
percent.
  I think it is important to put into context because this is a big fat 
deal. Yet we are acting like this is just another withdrawal from your 
ATM. Just go down, check the balance, there is enough money in there so 
it must be OK.
  Let's talk about the strategic environment we are operating in right 
now. There is a nominal drawdown capacity of 4.4 million barrels per 
day. I mentioned this the last time I was on the floor. The drawdown 
capacity is subject to some discussion in terms of what we are actually 
able to pump out, and that is why we do test sales. It is to make sure 
it works as it was designed.
  Secretary of Energy Moniz has suggested that our distribution rate--
our ability to move this once we take it out--is significantly less 
than this nominal drawdown capacity of 4.4 million barrels due to 
congestion and changes in midstream infrastructure. This is one of the 
reasons I have been banging the lectern, and Senator Cantwell, the 
ranking member on the energy committee, has also been joining me in 
saying that doing this is not appropriate. We have significant 
maintenance issues within the SPR that we need to address. There is 
somewhere between $1.5 billion and $2 billion that it is going to take 
to address some of the shortcomings we have in the SPR, some of the 
maintenance and operations aspect of it. As we speak, there is a study 
underway to determine the right size of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. What do we need to do in terms of maintenance?
  If we go ahead and sell off 60 percent of what we have done 
historically throughout the whole lifetime of the SPR to fund a highway 
bill for 6 years--again, it just causes one to wonder why we are doing 
this because of the strategic environment and the drawdown capacity we 
have.
  We have a pretty volatile world out there, and I think we all know 
that. We have unplanned disruptions, unplanned production outages, if 
you will, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya, and Iran. 
These are around 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day. These are pretty 
tense regions of the world, and I don't think anyone would dispute 
that.
  On the next chart what we see is our drawdown rate of 4.4 or 
thereabouts is greater than the daily production of Iran, Iraq, 
Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria or Libya. I don't think anybody would 
suggest that any of these countries in blue exudes stability or 
security.
  Look at the transit chokepoints. A drawdown rate of 4.4 million 
barrels per day is bigger, in fairness, than the capacity of some of 
the other areas that would be clearly noted as these chokepoints. We 
have the Panama Canal at the end, the Turkish or Danish Straits, and 
Bab el-Mandab off the coast of Yemen. If something went wrong in more 
than one of these critical parts of the supply chain at once, we could 
be overtaken by upheaval in the global oil market without much recourse 
and our ability to respond would be dramatically lessened. And 4.4 
million barrels per day is less than the oil that transships the Suez 
Canal and its accompanying pipeline. It is a fraction of the oil that 
goes through the Strait of Malacca or Strait of Hormuz which moves 15 
to 17 million barrels per day.
  This my central point. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a 
tremendous national security asset, and we need it because the world is 
just simply more turbulent. I have been told: Look at what is happening 
domestically. We are importing less and producing more; therefore, we 
don't really need all of this. We don't need this safety net. We cannot 
immunize ourselves from global events and just suggest that somehow or 
other we need it less. It is like you go to the doctor and get a clean 
bill of health and you go home and you say: OK. Now I don't need life 
insurance or health insurance because the doctor just said I am fine. 
You know what. The world is not fine, and we know that. At a time when 
spare capacity is low and the global threat environment is heightened, 
selling 101 million barrels of America's strategic reserve to pay for 
legislation that makes almost no contribution to improving our energy 
security, I think, is just a foolish error of historic proportions.
  I will restate what we would be doing if we moved forward with the 
pay-for as has been outlined. We would be conducting the largest sale 
in the history of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve since it was created 
in 1975. It would be greater than all of the previous emergency 
drawdowns combined. We are going into hurricane season. We don't know 
what may be coming at us in the Middle East. Yet we are proposing to 
pay for a short-term fix to the highway trust fund with a buyout of 
unprecedented proportions.
  Last time I was on the floor, I said this is like cashing out your 
homeowner's insurance to pave your driveway. It is not the right pay-
for.
  Again, I, too, want to make sure we do right by our transportation 
infrastructure. It is important. It is about jobs and the strength of 
our economy, but we are also obligated to make sure the decisions we 
make in this Senate--in this Congress--are there to provide for our 
security as a nation.
  I want to know that if we need these ready resources, we haven't 
moved precipitously to sell them off. The last time I checked this 
morning, the price of oil was at about $50 a barrel. Is this really a 
good time to sell at $50 a barrel?
  I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention. I think those of us 
who have been following this issue with great interest are concerned 
and are conflicted because we want to make sure we do right by our 
highway systems, but I also want to make sure we do right by our 
national energy security, and selling off 101 million barrels of 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve is foolhardy.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________