[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 21 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S637-S646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2012, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the
energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Murkowski amendment No. 2953, in the nature of a
substitute.
Murkowski (for Cassidy/Markey) amendment No. 2954 (to
amendment No. 2953), to provide for certain increases in, and
limitations on, the drawdown and sales of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
Murkowski amendment No. 2963 (to amendment No. 2953), to
modify a provision relating to bulk-power system reliability
impact statements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30
a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their
designees.
The assistant Democratic leader.
Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what happened in Flint, MI, is incredible.
In the 21st century, in the most developed country on Earth, to think
that 100,000 people were exposed to contaminated water, to think that
9,000 or 10,000 children were exposed to lead poisoning--it was not a
natural disaster but the results are disastrous. It was a disaster
created by those who were in charge of managing the city of Flint.
The governmental agencies and those who worked for them made what
they considered to be the right budgetary decisions, but they certainly
made the wrong decisions when it came to the health and the well-being
of the poor people who were victimized by their wrongdoing. Every time
I hear the story, the same question comes to my mind: Who is going to
jail for poisoning 9,000 children? Think about the circumstances here.
A knowing decision by a city manager to switch to a water supply which
was contaminated endangered the health of thousands of children, tens
of thousands of citizens. If that is not the grounds for at least
investigation, I don't what is.
So the Senators from Michigan, Senator Peters, Senator Stabenow, have
come to the floor of the Senate and said to America: Will you help
Flint, MI? It is right that they do so. I have been fortunate to serve
in the House and Senate for many years. I cannot tell you how many
times Senators from States all across the Nation have asked that same
question: Will you help us in Louisiana? Will you help us in Alabama?
Will you help us in Texas?
There is hardly a State that has not come to the floor of the Senate
asking for help. Yet, for reasons I cannot explain, the Republican
majority in the Senate is resisting this idea. Almost 100,000 people
were forced to live without access to clean water in their homes. They
could not turn on their faucets in the morning to make breakfast or to
take a shower, as all of us do. They started their day by waiting in
long lines for bottled water to feed and bathe their kids, to take
showers, and to stay healthy. They started rationing the water.
The elderly and disabled who could not make it to a pickup location
for bottled water, they were left with the option of continuing to use
water they know was poisoning their bodies. This is a disaster by any
definition. I cannot understand why there is not more understanding and
empathy from my colleagues when it comes to Flint, MI. It could happen
anywhere. If it happened, would you hesitate for a moment as a Member
of the Senate to ask for help?
Nine thousand children exposed to lead poisoning has been called an
earmark by the critics of our Senators from Michigan. They said it is
just special interest legislation to try to help these victims. That is
hard to imagine, that it could reach that level in criticizing this
effort. Just like those who suffered from tornadoes and hurricanes,
these families did nothing to deserve it. Just as the Federal
Government always helps when Americans are hit by disasters, we should
do it in Flint.
There were no complaints last May when the Federal Government
declared an emergency and reached out to the residents of Texas to help
them rebuild their lives after a tornado hit. So I am wondering if the
Republican Presidential candidate from Texas is willing to step up, the
junior Senator from Texas, and ask for the same level of Federal
assistance for Flint, MI, that he asked for his own State.
This crisis is not the fault of the kids, the pregnant women who
still call Flint home. Their only crime was living in a city that was
so poorly mismanaged by the Michigan State government. Their only
crime, if there was one, was being the victims of cheap, dirty water.
These kids and pregnant women are the most vulnerable when it comes to
lead contamination. We are not going to know for years the extent of
the damage, but we know there will be damage.
Many of them live in homes that have been found to have 10 times the
EPA limits for lead in drinking water. The Senator from Michigan, Ms.
Stabenow, yesterday told us that some of the lead samples reached the
level of toxic dumps, so far beyond the level
[[Page S638]]
that is acceptable for human consumption. This means a generation of
Flint kids are in danger of suffering brain damage, developmental
delays, and behavior issues for the rest of their lives.
To add insult to injuries, when mothers came to the State nurse to
fight for their children, they were met with apathy. Listen to what
they were told:
It's just a few IQ points. . . . It's not the end of the
world.
This is supposedly a quote from a State nurse. The Flint water crisis
truly is a tragedy. We need to step forward. It does not just mean
funding. It reminds us of the importance of clean drinking water that
we all take for granted. When I think of all of the efforts on the
floor of the Senate to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency
and to remove their authority to deal with issues involving clean
water, it is hard to imagine that they could envision what happened in
Flint, because having access to clean water should not be determined by
your ZIP Code or your government. I hope my Republican colleagues will
work with us on a bipartisan basis, the way we always do it when it
comes to disasters that hurt innocent people.
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. STABENOW. 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. STABENOW. Mr. President, as all of our colleagues know, we have
been working very hard to come together around a reasonable path to
provide some support and assistance to the people of Flint, MI, who got
up this morning--if they took a shower, it was with bottled water. If
they were getting breakfast for their children, if a mom was mixing
baby food formula, it was with bottled water.
That has gone on now, for some people, 18 months or more. I mean,
originally, they were told the water was safe, and they were drinking
it and then found incredibly high lead levels in their children. Now it
is bottled water. We have businesses downtown who have gone to the
expense of creating their own water systems that are totally safe, but
no one will come. Doors are closing.
We have small businesses in neighborhoods--we have a revitalization
effort in downtown Flint that has been really quite extraordinary. The
chamber, a wide variety of organizations, the University of Michigan-
Flint, a whole range of groups investing in downtown Flint.
This is all collapsing because of the fact that people are afraid to
come and to drink the water or to eat food mixed with the water, even
though our businesses downtown are doing things to rectify this right
now. The citizens of Flint, rightly, are in a position where they have
been told that the water was safe to drink. They gave it to their
children. It wasn't. They are poisoned.
Now they are in a situation where they have great despair and great
anger. I share in both of those feelings, a multitude of feelings, as
does my friend and colleague Senator Peters. We are joined together in
our commitment on a whole range of efforts to be able to help the
children and families of Flint. There was one report--by the way, this
is what the water looks like--brown, smells.
There was one story on the news of a house where they went to talk
with folks and looked at the lead levels. It was above toxic waste dump
levels. I talked to a mom who talked about--and I heard another mom as
well, being interviewed, saying: You know, I took my children off of
what we call pop in Michigan, other people call it soda, Coke, Pepsi,
because I was told that was not healthy for my children. So when my
children were playing last summer, I told them to drink water to
hydrate because I did not want them getting the extra sugar, the
ingredients from pop. Now I know I was poisoning my children.
I can only imagine what that mom feels right now. We have a lot of
infrastructure problems around the country, no question. We have
colleagues on both sides of the aisle working together on various
proposals that I support to deal long term with infrastructure.
But this is way beyond that. This is an entire city of 100,000 people
who have poisoned water because of decisions that none of them made. We
can talk later about whose fault it is. There is certainly culpability
and accountability. But right now we are focused on helping the people
who had nothing to do with creating this. It is 100,000 people. The
entire system has lead in it. Some levels are thousands of points
higher than is acceptable. No lead is acceptable, but some of it is
higher than a toxic waste belt.
So we are on the floor asking to help the children of Flint by doing
what we do all the time. We just step up as Americans and help a
community rebuild their water system. There is a lot more to do. We are
so grateful for colleagues who have reached out to say we want to help
in a variety of ways--with their education needs, nutrition needs, and
health care needs,--but the basic issue is fixing the water system so
that the people of Flint have the dignity that we have of knowing that
when they turn on the faucet there is going to be clean water.
You have probably seen the picture, but in this example in Time
magazine, this is a child whose mom was bathing her children, and there
are rashes. We have seen rashes, sores, hair falling out, and lead
levels because a community drinking water system has been decimated.
Americans responded across the country by sending bottled water, and
people are very grateful for that. But we also know Americans support
and join us by saying bottled water is not enough. This baby cannot be
bathed in bottled water every day for years and years and years.
I had one citizen say to me: Ma'am, I can't take a shower in bottled
water. We have to support fixing the infrastructure. We do that all the
time.
So what we have done--and I appreciate the chair of the Energy
Committee working with us. She spent a lot of time--as has the ranking
member, who has been ferocious in her support, for which we are so
grateful--trying to work this out. Originally, we thought we had a path
forward. Then there were procedural issues that came up. Yesterday we
thought we had another path forward that would give us bipartisan
support on a solution that we could get done and passed here. Then that
was paused. I am not exactly sure why that happened, but that was
paused.
So today we are asking for colleagues to give us some more time. We
have very key people in this Chamber who are now stepping up to give us
additional ideas on how we could get this fixed. We can do this quickly
if there is the will to do that. So we are asking colleagues to give us
more time.
As we know, the cloture vote in front of us today is to basically
shut off amendments and go to the next step in third reading. What we
are saying is give us some time. There are other issues that need to be
resolved as well, certainly issues with working men and women around
Davis-Bacon laws. There are other issues. We know that we can come to a
resolution if there is the political will and a little more time, so
that it is not just some bogus proposal. We have had things thrown out
that don't solve the problem. We are not looking for something that
just gives somebody political cover. We have resisted a lot of folks
who would love just to make this a political issue. These children
should not be a political football.
I think Members of this body know that Senator Peters and I are
people who want to get things done. We work across the aisle every
single day. If we wanted to blow this up as a political issue, believe
me, there would be a different way to do it, and the story writes
itself.
We are asking people to care and see these children like you see your
own children. These children, these families have been ignored and not
seen. We see them. Their faces are burned in my memory. We are asking
colleagues to see them, to hold them with as much value as you would
children in your own family and in the States that you represent. That
is what we are asking--nothing more, nothing less.
We have not proposed that the Federal Government take full
responsibility on cost--far from it. In fact, we have been told by
colleagues that we have not proposed enough. We have
[[Page S639]]
been willing, in fact, to come to an agreement on something that is
less than half of what we originally asked for.
But these children deserve the dignity of knowing we will step up and
help them. Too many of these children--9,000 of them under the age of 6
and a whole lot of many more thousands above the age of 6--are going to
be set back and not have the opportunity to be all they can be. How
many scientists, doctors, business people, and teachers are we going to
lose because of lead poisoning in this community?
It doesn't go away. I have learned more than I have ever wanted to
know about lead. I didn't know that once it enters the body, it never
goes away. So the children who are poisoned are going to have to live
with this, and the best we can do is mitigate it through nutrition and
through other strategies. But they deserve to know that we are going to
fix this, and we can't begin to deal with it unless the water system
works. That is all we are asking for.
Today, because we know there is a path, people of good will have been
trying to get it done. We need a little more time. I think these
children deserve a little more time. I think these families deserve a
little more time.
Let us get this together. If we vote next week, next Tuesday, we will
be OK. How many kids, how many bottles of water--how many bottles will
be used between now and next Tuesday by the people of Flint?
We can take a couple of extra days to do something that will
dramatically change the opportunity for our future in a city that is as
important as any other city in our country. So that is what we are
asking for. We are grateful that our colleagues are standing with us--
our colleagues on our side of the aisle--to give us more time.
We are hoping that the leadership will decide to give us that time so
that we can say to this child: We see you, we hear you, we care about
you, and we are doing our part in the Senate to make things better.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to oppose the upcoming cloture vote on the Energy
Policy Modernization Act. This is not because I think this is a bad
bill. In fact, I know this bill is the result of months of hard work on
both sides of the aisle, and it contains many provisions that will move
our economy forward.
I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member
Cantwell, including their willingness to include bipartisan legislation
that I offered with Senators Alexander and Stabenow to support the
development of next-generation clean vehicle technologies. While I
sincerely hope that we are able to advance this bill out of the Senate,
it is simply too soon to cut off debate and invoke cloture.
Senator Stabenow, Senator Cantwell, and I have been negotiating with
our Republican colleagues to secure critical assistance for the city of
Flint, MI, whose residents are continuing to suffer from a manmade
disaster. Nearly 2 years ago, an unelected emergency manager appointed
by Michigan's Governor changed the city of Flint's water to a source of
the Flint River in an attempt to save money while the city prepared to
transition to a new regional water authority.
After switching away from clean water sourced from the Detroit water
department, Flint residents began to receive improperly treated Flint
River water, long known to be contaminated and potentially very
corrosive. Brown or yellow water poured from Flint faucets that tasted
and smelled terrible. This water wasn't just disgusting, it turned out
to be poisonous. This corrosive water leached lead from aging but
previously stable infrastructure.
A generation of children in Flint are now at risk for the severe
effects of lead exposure, which can cause long-term development
problems, nervous system damage, and decreased bone and muscle growth.
Even though Flint is no longer pulling its water from the contaminated
river and is back to drawing safe Lake Huron water, the recently
damaged pipes and infrastructure contaminate the water before it pours
from the tap.
Flint residents are unable to use their showers and need to wash
themselves with baby wipes. Some walk as far as 2 miles to pick up
bottled water to drink--the same bottled water they use to cook and to
brush their teeth. This is simply not sustainable.
Flint needs the support of all levels of government to overhaul its
damaged water infrastructure and help the children of Flint, who will
be dealing with the health effects of lead exposure for decades to
come.
What makes America so exceptional is its resiliency and the unity of
our people in the face of a tragedy or a crisis. While Flint has faced
decades of economic hardship, it is now facing a full-blown crisis, and
now is the time for all of us to pull together.
On Monday, I heard from a woman who was on the verge of tears as she
discussed her fears of the health conditions that her children face.
Yesterday I met another mom from Flint who brought a baby bottle
filled with brown water that she poured from her tap--and brought it to
Washington--to show my colleagues and Congress just how immediate a
public health threat this public crisis is. This image that appeared on
the cover of Time magazine is clearly a haunting cry for help.
I ask my colleagues to look into those eyes and to hear that cry, to
see that cry for help. I believe that if any of my colleagues saw this
tragedy such as we are seeing in our home State--Senator Stabenow and
I--they would be standing here doing everything in their power to
deliver assistance. Whether the crisis is natural or manmade, it simply
doesn't matter. This is a crisis.
It is also important to know that this crisis has raised questions
about the safety of our Nation's infrastructure. It is possible that
other communities could be affected.
While other communities may not suffer a crisis like Flint, across
the country communities are learning about the vulnerabilities of their
own water supply and what may happen in the future.
I should also reiterate that the proposal Senator Stabenow and I have
been negotiating would provide funding for any State that has had an
emergency declaration related to lead or other contamination in public
drinking water systems. So it is not just about Flint. This is about
any community that is suffering from contamination of their drinking
water.
While we often talk about crumbling roads or bridges, hundreds, if
not thousands of American cities, towns, and villages have aging water
infrastructure and lead pipes.
Should one of our colleague's communities experience a similar crisis
in in the coming months, this funding we are fighting for today will be
available to them as well.
Now is the time for action and to help the families of Flint. I hope
that we can reach a resolution on our negotiations with our Republican
colleagues, but we are not quite there yet. I urge all of my colleagues
to oppose cloture on this bill until we have a deal.
Whether in Flint or elsewhere in America, we have a responsibility to
care for our children. We must repair the trust Flint residents have
lost in the ability of government officials to protect them and provide
the most basic of all services.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in our efforts to help Flint
recover from this unnecessary, manmade disaster.
Standing up for the children of this country is not a Republican or a
Democratic issue, and I hope that today we show the American people
that we can come together at times of crisis. This is common ground on
which we can stand together and stand up for the people and children of
Flint.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I see that the distinguished Senator
from Alaska has come to the floor as the manager of the bill. I have a
statement I wish to give, but I didn't know if she needed to say
something.
Mr. President, I rise today to add my heartfelt and impassioned voice
to call for action to help the people who live in Flint, MI, with this
emergency situation. We have to be in it to deal with the emergency
today and the long haul for tomorrow.
[[Page S640]]
This is of catastrophic, almost Armageddon, proportion. An American
city has been poisoned because of a situation that has been self-
induced and self-inflicted. What is happening in Flint, MI, is
appalling. It is a tragedy, it is a disgrace, and it will be for a long
time. We need to fix the pipes right away, but the fixing of human
beings is going to take a long, long time.
Let's get real. We are now bogged down in parliamentary inertia. We
are now bogged down in Washington wonky budgetary talk: Where are the
offsets?
What is this? What is this? Are we human beings? We take an oath to
defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but
sometimes an enemy is a tragedy. It can come from--God knows--a
hurricane or tornado, and we rush in to help. If this had been a
terrorist attack, oh, my gosh, we would be willing to go to war to
defend America. Well, we need to go to the edge of our chair to help
Flint. My gosh.
The Senators from Michigan are looking for $400 million. That is no
small amount of money, but I bring to my colleague's attention that it
is the price of four F-35s--four F-35s that are supposed to protect
America. Good for that. But right now I think the people of Michigan
would say they would like to have the help they need. If we are talking
about a threat to the people, the threat is here.
Now, where are we? We have to deal with this. I am the vice chair of
the Appropriations Committee. I say to my colleagues: Guess what, gang.
All this budgetary stuff, all the battles with sequester and so on--we
have only $800 million for safe drinking water, less than $1 billion.
Flint today is asking for $400 million. We know it is a down payment. I
say to my colleagues from Michigan, this could happen to any State. It
could happen to any State because our infrastructure is not only aging
in place, it is becoming dysfunctional in place and it is becoming
dangerous in place--$800 million.
Senators Stabenow and Peters have already shared horror stories.
Gosh, they have done a great job speaking up for the people. I really
compliment their advocacy. But we are all Flint. We are all Flint. The
facts will speak for themselves as we talk about how the Flint water is
contaminated because its pipes are permanently damaged. I understand
that replacing Flint's corroded water infrastructure will cost anywhere
from $700 million to $1.5 billion--approximately 500 miles of old iron
pipe and thousands of lead service lines.
It is an untold, big cost, but I am going to speak about the
children. I am going to speak about the people. My gosh, what are you
going through? I don't know how you can run a family. Well, you can't
run a family on bottled water. You can't run a business on bottled
water. You can't run a city on bottled water. I don't know how you
wash. I don't know how you take care of your children. I wouldn't go
anywhere in Flint unless I personally prepared my food or washed my
clothes or saw what I was doing. I would be scared to death. I bet
those parents are too. And what are we afraid of? We need to get there.
Now I am going to talk about the children and the human cost. I say
to my colleagues, both from Michigan and here, Senator Cardin and I
know a lot about lead poisoning. We have been through really difficult
problems in Baltimore because of lead paint poisoning and the legacy of
paint used during World War II. We know what it does. It lowers IQs. It
causes significant developmental delays. There are behavioral issues,
including attention deficit disorder. It is a lifetime; that little boy
or girl at 6 years old, God willing that they live to their 80s, they
are going to carry this in their blood unless there are incredible
medical breakthroughs for the rest of their lives. Senator Stabenow and
I have discussed possible medical breakthroughs, but, gosh, we have to
get on it. We have to get on it. Again, the effects of poisoning could
take a lifetime.
What I know about lead paint in Baltimore goes back to my days in
city council where the paint was poisonous. They were coming into Johns
Hopkins and the University of Maryland Medical Center, kids just so
sick. I remember the story about a little boy who was so weak that on
his way to school he lay down in the middle of the street. He was so
depleted because of the consequences of lead paint.
That is why I support the Stabenow amendment to provide $800 million
in loans and grants and also to provide about $20 million to HHS to
bring together the best thinking to have the best responses to the
human infrastructure.
I have worked on this issue for a long time, going back to Senator
Kit Bond, my pal and partner when we had the old VA-HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee. Senator Bond was a real champion on this. There can be a
bipartisan solution. Let's make it an American solution. This isn't
about ``you,'' and it is not about ``Democrats.'' It is about ``us.''
As vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, I certainly want to
work with my colleagues on how we can do this. But let's get the lead
out of the pipes, let's get the lead out of the water, let's get the
lead out of the way the Senate has functioned and move to make a down
payment on this.
Mr. President, I really want us to understand we have to solve this
problem.
I will conclude with this. I just want to say something to the
mothers of America: We need you right now. The mothers of Flint need
you. The mothers of Flint need you. The fathers of Flint need you. The
mothers and fathers of Flint need you. If you are a mother or father
anywhere, you could be a mother or father in Flint. Let's organize
ourselves in the most effective way to solve this problem, and let's
begin to heal the critical infrastructure so we begin to prevent this
from happening in any other American city.
Mr. President, today I wish to support an amendment filed by my
friend and colleague Senator Collins that would require the Department
of Energy to identify a mitigation strategy to help protect our
critical infrastructure in the electric sector from a catastrophic
cyber attack. When it comes to our national security, there is no such
thing as partisanship, and we have to work together on a bipartisan
basis to ensure our Nation is safe and protected. We need to act, and
we need to act in the defense of the United States of America. The
Senate has a great opportunity today to pass an amendment to help
protect and defend our Nation's critical infrastructure from a
devastating cyber attack.
What do I mean by critical infrastructure? It is our electric power
grid, our financial services, our water supplies, those things that are
the bread and butter of keeping America, its business, and its families
going. These are entities that are vital to the safety, health, and
economic well-being of the American people; so we need to do our part
to help keep our critical infrastructure hardened and resilient against
attack.
You don't have to be a science fiction enthusiast to understand how
devastating an attack that disabled our power grid would be--millions
without power. I am not worried that we will have to put away our
iPhones; I am worried about vulnerable populations lacking heat in the
dead of winter, about emergency responders who can't get calls, and
about patients who need power for lifesaving medical devices.
The possibility of an attack on our power grid is not far-fetched. We
know that there are already attacks going on in our energy sector. The
committee report accompanying this bill notes that one-third of
reported cyber attacks involve the energy sector.
But not only do I worry about an attack, I equally worry about our
inertia, where we do nothing. I bring to the attention of the Senate
that Jim Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, testified that
the No. 1 cyber concern he has is an attack on our Nation's critical
infrastructure, saying the greatest threat facing our country was in
the cyber domain. His testimony is backed up by several intrusions into
the industrial control systems of critical infrastructure, which are
the computers that control operations of industrial processes,
including energy plants. Just a couple of weeks ago, Marty Edwards, who
runs the Department of Homeland Security's Industrial Control Systems
Cyber Emergency Response Team, warned that he had seen an increase in
attacks over the past year, saying systems are vulnerable because they
are exposed to the Internet.
[[Page S641]]
Admiral Rogers, the Director of the National Security Agency, with
responsibility for cyber space, testified in a hearing this summer that
our country was at a ``5 or 6'' in preparedness for a cyber attack
against our critical infrastructure.
In November 2015, Richard Ledgett, the Deputy Director of the NSA,
was asked if foreign actors already have the capability to shut down
key U.S. infrastructure during a CNN interview, such as the financial
sector, national gas distribution and energy sector, transportation
network, and air traffic control system. His response was
``Absolutely.''
We don't want a digital Pearl Harbor. We can act now. We can act when
it is within our power to protect, defend, and deter these attacks.
That is what I want. I want us to have a sense of urgency. If we wait
for another major cyber attack, we risk overreacting, overregulating,
overspending, and over-legislating. The time to act is now.
This amendment would take the commonsense approach of requiring the
Federal agencies responsible for the cyber security of the electric
grid to review those entities that matter most and to propose actions
that can reduce the risk of a catastrophic attack that could cause
thousands of deaths or a catastrophic blow to our economy and national
defense.
Congress has missed opportunities to improve our Nation's cyber
preparedness, and we need to take action before a ``cyber 9/11''
occurs. Right now, our adversaries are watching us, and it looks like
we are doing nothing--that when all is said and done, more gets said
than gets done.
Our adversaries don't have to spy on us. They can just look at the
Senate floor and say, ``What the heck are they doing?'' You know what
they are going to do? They are going to look at us and say, ``There
they go again.'' Our own inability to pass legislation, our own
partisan gridlock and deadlock emboldens our predatory enemies who know
we have done nothing to strengthen vulnerable critical infrastructure
by putting in place those hardened, resilient systems and policies to
protect, defend, and deter.
A cyber attack has the same intent as a traditional terrorist
attack--to create chaos, to create civil instability, and to create
economic catastrophe. Just think about a cyber attack in which our grid
goes down. Think of a blackout in New York. Think of a blackout in
Baltimore. When the Senate, at my urging, did the cyber exercise on
what an attack would look like on our critical infrastructure, it
showed what would happen. The stoplights go down, the lights go out in
the hospitals, and the respirators go off. Business shuts down.
Commerce shuts down, and 9-1-1 shuts down. America would be shut down,
and we would be powerless and impotent to put it back on in any quick
and expeditious manner.
This happened in Ukraine in December 2015. Ukrainians lost power in
what the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Ukrainian authorities
assessed was a cyber attack. The attack caused a blackout for tens of
thousands of people, and industry experts identified this as the first-
known power outage caused by a cyber attack. This is no longer a
theoretical risk; it is here, and it is real.
Think of the chaos of no electricity. We will all go through
blackouts. Snowzilla roared through the east coast last week leaving
hundreds of thousands without power. No matter how delayed Pepco, BG&E,
and Dominion were at responding, they got it back on.
But what happens if they can't get it back on? What happens if they
can't get it back on for weeks or longer? Remember, the attack is to
humiliate, intimidate, and cripple. Humiliate? Making us look
powerless. Intimidate? To show there is this power that can cripple our
functioning as a society. I find it chilling.
I have been immersed in cyber issues since I was elected to the
Senate. Our cyber warriors at the National Security Agency are in
Maryland, and I have been working with the NSA to ensure signals
intelligence was a national security focus even before cyber was a
method of warfare. In my role on the Intelligence Committee, I served
on the Cyber Working Group, which developed findings to guide Congress
on getting cyber governance right, protecting civil liberties, and
improving the cyber workforce.
As vice chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, I have insisted
on a robust cyber budget and fought to increase our cyber security
investments in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus to keep us safe, putting
funds in the Federal checkbook for critical cyber security agencies on
the order of $12 billion. These include the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, which investigates cyber crime; the Department of
Homeland Security, which safeguards critical infrastructure in cyber
space; the Department of Defense, or DoD, which defends our homeland,
national interests, and DoD networks against cyber attacks and includes
intelligence and cyber agencies, like the National Security Agency,
U.S. Cyber Command, the Central Intelligence Agency, and Intelligence
Advanced Research Projects Activity, which are coming up with the new
ideas to keep our country safe; the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, which works with the private sector to develop standards
for cyber security technology; and the National Science Foundation,
which researches ways to secure our Nation. These funds are critical to
building the workforce and providing the technology and resources to
make our cyber security smarter, safer, and more secure.
Good people in this body have been working on both sides of the aisle
for some time now. So I conclude my remarks by saying to my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle: Let's do what we need to do to protect and
defend the United States of America and adopt this amendment now.
Working together, we can make our Nation safer and stronger and show
the American people we can cooperate to get an important job done.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Energy
Policy Modernization Act that we have been considering on the Senate
floor.
This bill has a lot of good things in it. It includes provisions to
support a wide array of energy technologies, from improving
conventional energy sources to promoting renewables to advancing long-
overdue policies to increase energy efficiency. It supports energy
infrastructure, which is critical for energy exporting States like
Montana. It includes specific provisions that I have worked on to
promote geothermal development, and I thank Chairman Murkowski and
Ranking Member Cantwell for including them. In the course of this
debate, we have adopted amendments to boost research and development
overall and to clarify policies to recognize the value of energy
development from forest biomass. I am also hopeful we will also be able
to add provisions from the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development
Act that I have championed for years.
Furthermore, this bill includes permanent reauthorization of the land
and water conservation fund with my making public lands public
provision to increase access to our public lands for hunters, fishers,
and others who want to enjoy them. Although it does not provide the
money to fully fund the LWCF, a permanent authorization would help us
avoid letting the fund lapse, as it did last fall for over 2 months. It
also invests in our national parks as we celebrate the centennial year
of the Park Service. Though I may not agree with everything in the
bill, these provisions I have highlighted are tremendously important to
Montana.
But we are also in the midst of a developing environmental
catastrophe. The people of Flint, MI, including as many as 9,000
children, have been exposed to lead-contaminated water for a prolonged
period due to decisions made by the State of Michigan in the interest
of saving money. A generation of kids in this community could see
lifelong effects from a completely avoidable and manmade disaster. As
we know all too well in Montana, clean water is far more valuable than
money. It is completely unacceptable that this has happened.
In Montana, there are places where we are still living with the
legacy of environmental pollution. In Butte, Anaconda, Libby, and
elsewhere, long-term cleanups continue from mining development,
industrial activities, and the tragedy of widespread asbestos use.
[[Page S642]]
The human health costs of these disasters have been tremendous. We must
not stand by and watch another community and more kids be affected by
manmade disasters without stepping in to help. If we have a chance to
stop this particular catastrophe before it gets any worse, we ought to.
We have to.
And that is why I am disappointed that we are not currently able to
provide meaningful and immediate assistance to help fix the pipes and
address broader impacts. I hope we can figure out how to pass this
bill. Let's stay on this bill, let's find a way to do right by folks in
Flint, and let's pass this bill.
Amendment No. 3140, As Modified
Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a bipartisan amendment
offered by Senator Collins that was adopted this week. I support this
amendment to help bolster forest biomass in our renewable energy
portfolio and provide consistency across Federal programs. Our Nation
has long depended on the flow of wood and fiber from our forests. Now,
we are recognizing the role of forest biomass in lowering our carbon
emissions and increasing our energy independence. When harvested
sustainably, the carbon benefits of forest biomass can be great. Carbon
emitted to the atmosphere from forest biomass is eventually removed
again with forest growth, and this cycle can happen again and again.
Forest biomass is also good for jobs, particularly in rural
communities. Recognizing the carbon benefits of forest biomass can
increase its value. This will help keep our Nation's forests healthy by
making it economically feasible to conduct forest health treatments and
reduce hazardous fuels that threaten our communities. It will also help
the timber industry by allowing them to use more wood that would
otherwise be wasted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Energy Committee has worked really
hard over the past year to develop the broad bipartisan energy
legislation that is before us. Members in both parties focused on areas
of common ground, worked across the aisle, and developed legislation
that ultimately earned the support of more than 80 percent of their
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Here is what some of our Democratic friends have had to say about the
broad bipartisan Energy Policy Modernization Act.
The junior Senator from New Mexico said this bill ``is critical to
protecting'' his State's ``treasured public lands and outdoor
heritage.''
The junior Senator from Minnesota pointed out that ``several key
measures'' he wrote are in this bill and that this bill represents ``a
good step'' forward.
The junior Senator from Hawaii noted that her proposals in the bill
``will bolster energy reliability and security'' in her State.
The senior Senator from West Virginia said he was able to include
``critical measures'' in the bill to help coal jobs and low-cost
electricity in his State. ``It is critical for America to establish an
all-of-the-above energy portfolio that includes all of our domestic
resources,'' he said, and, ``I truly believe that this bipartisan bill
will bring us one step closer to achieving U.S. energy independence.''
That is the senior Senator from West Virginia, a Democrat.
The top Democrat on the Energy Committee said:
If we want to continue to compete in th[e] global economy,
we must continue to improve energy productivity and that is
exactly what this bill does. The Energy Policy Modernization
Act will help ensure that the nation is eliminating energy
wastage and making improvements in new technologies that will
improve our competitiveness for the 21st century.
That was the ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee. She worked
hard with Senator Murkowski on the Energy Committee to develop this
bill, and they have worked together to manage it here on the floor as
well. Under their leadership, more than 30 amendments from both
Democrats and Republicans have already been adopted.
For example, one of our Democratic friends offered an amendment that
he said would ``strengthen this bipartisan energy bill and help us move
towards a 21st century economy.'' The Senate adopted it.
Another of our Democratic friends said his amendment would ``empower
us with knowledge'' and help us ``make informed decisions to protect
consumers, key sectors of our economy and our energy security.'' The
Senate adopted that amendment too.
There is a lot for both parties to like in this bill. The Energy
Policy Modernization Act is the result of a year's worth of
constructive and collaborative work. So let's not risk that progress.
Let's keep working together and vote today to advance this measure. If
we want to help Americans produce more energy, let's vote to advance
the measure. If we want to help Americans pay less for energy, let's
vote to advance it. If we want to help Americans save energy, let's
vote to advance it. And if we want to help bolster our country's long-
term national security, one more time, let's vote to advance it.
I would note one more thing the top Democrat on the Energy Committee
recently said: ``Sometimes we can be cynical about this place and what
we can get done; then, all of a sudden, we have a great opportunity to
move something forward.''
She continued:
This is a milestone for the Senate. The fact that we are
considering energy policy legislation on the Senate floor in
a bipartisan bill, or any bill, for the first time since 2007
is a tremendous milestone.
That is the ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee.
So let's bring this bill to the finish line. Let's vote to bring
America's energy policies in line with today's demands so we can
prepare for tomorrow's opportunities too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I also want to, as I did before, commend
those working on this bill, and I share the majority leader's feeling
that a lot of positive progress has been made. We are just not done
yet. So while I commend, and have commended, the chair and the ranking
member, we have important issues and an energy bill that deals with
energy, water, and all kinds of issues. Certainly addressing what is
happening in Flint, MI, with the catastrophe is appropriate. We just
want to know that we have an agreement--not vote, but an agreement--to
get this done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my
colleagues raising attention to the issue in Flint, MI. I think we have
had good, constructive discussions, not only very intensely yesterday,
but working with the two Senators from Michigan on this issue for
several months right now. As the Senator said, the discussions are
still ongoing, and I want to speak to where we are in that process.
I would like to start my comments this morning by recognizing that we
are very close to the time that has been set for this first cloture
vote on this broad bipartisan bill.
As we approach it, I want to follow on the majority leader's comments
in terms of reminding Members of what we have incorporated within this
measure, to reiterate the strong bipartisan support that our bill has
drawn, and to lay out what I believe is our best path to final passage.
This Energy Policy Modernization Act, as I have mentioned, is more
than a year's worth of hard work by those of us who serve on the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee, it has been the result of Member-to-
Member conversations, listening sessions, legislative hearings,
bipartisan negotiations, and then we had a marathon 3-day markup in
July. At the end of that markup, we moved it out by a vote of 18-to-4.
It was pretty strong support--10 Republicans and 8 Democrats in favor.
The reason the bill passed out of the committee on such a strong
bipartisan basis was not just because of our commitment to good
process. We matched that with an equal commitment to good policy. I
think that is important to recognize. It was processed, but it was also
policy.
We worked together to include the priorities from Members of both
sides of the aisle as well as from within the committee and outside of
the committee. We agreed to include a bill to streamline LNG exports
that was written by Senator Barrasso and 17 other bipartisan Members.
We agreed to include a major efficiency bill headed up
[[Page S643]]
by Senators Portman and Shaheen and 13 other bipartisan Members. We
agreed to improve our mineral security, an effort that I have led with
Senators Risch, Heller and Crapo. We agreed to promote the use of
hydropower, a clean renewable resource that is favored by almost
everybody in this Chamber. We agreed to expedite the permitting of
natural gas pipelines without sacrificing any environmental review or
public participation. This was an effort that was led by Senator
Capito.
We agreed to a new oil and gas permitting pilot program, one of
several ideas that Senator Hoeven contributed. We took up a proposal
from Senator Collins to boost the efficiency of schools. We agreed to
approve our Nation's cyber security based on legislation from Senator
Risch and Senator Heinrich. We also made innovation a key priority to
promote the development of new technologies. As part of that, we agreed
to reauthorize many of the energy-related portions of the America
COMPETES Act, thanks to the leadership of Senator Alexander. We agreed
to take commonsense steps to promote geothermal energy, which is a key
issue to Senator Wyden, certainly myself, and so many others. We agreed
to promote vehicle innovation based on a bipartisan measure from
Senator Alexander and our friends from Michigan, Senator Peters,
Senator Stabenow. We agreed to reauthorize the coal R&D program at the
Department of Energy based on yet another bipartisan proposal from
Senators Manchin, Capito, and Portman.
In the context of our broader bill--and only in the context of the
broader bill--we also agreed to reauthorize and reform the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. What we came away with was a good, timely
bipartisan measure that has a very real chance of being the first
Energy bill to be signed into law in over 8 years. It is a measure that
will help America produce more energy. It will help Americans save
money, and it will help ensure that the energy can be transported from
where it is produced to where it is needed. It will bolster our
Nation's status as the best innovator in the world, something we should
all aim to support. It will boost our economy, especially our
manufacturers, and it will cement our status as a global energy
superpower.
As I said, it does all of this without raising taxes, without
imposing any new mandates, and without adding to the Federal deficit. I
think because of all of that, that is why you have seen the good,
strong support for this measure. That was our base bill. That was where
we started. When we came to the floor, it got better. Our starting
point at the Senate floor was good and strong. Since we have taken up
the debate for a week now, we have continued to work in a very open,
very bipartisan, sometimes a little bit lengthy and tedious process,
but it works.
We committed to an open amendment process and most Members have held
back on, whether you call them gotchas or gimmes or poison pills, but
there has been a great deal of cooperation. We voted on 38 amendments
now. We have accepted 32 of the 38. We have added even more good ideas
from even more Members to an already bipartisan bill.
I will recount a few of the things we have done with that. We agreed
to boost our Nation's efforts to develop advanced nuclear technologies.
This was a great amendment led by Senators Crapo, Whitehouse, Risch,
Booker, Hatch, Kirk, and Durbin. We voiced our strong support for
carbon capture and utilization storage technologies thanks to an idea
from Senators Heitkamp, Capito, Booker, Whitehouse, Manchin, Blunt, and
Franken. We have reaffirmed the need for consistent Federal policies
that recognize the carbon neutrality of forest biomass. This was an
effort that was championed by Senators Collins, Klobuchar, Ayotte,
King, Franken, Daines, Crapo, and Risch.
You do not often see these large groups of Senators coming together
in a way that we have seen on this bill. Some would look at the names I
read off and say: I did not know that they had anything to work on. But
these issues have brought them together. This truly has been a team
effort, with Members reaching out to one another, lining up behind each
other's ideas, working with Senator Cantwell and me to ensure their
adoption.
The best proof of that is simple review of our bill. Right now the
Energy Policy Modernization Act includes priorities sponsored or
cosponsored by at least 62 Members of the Senate. When was the last
time we saw that level of cooperation and collaboration? Think about
it. More than three-fifths of the Senate has contributed something to
this Energy bill, and we are not done processing amendments yet. My
staff and the staff of Senator Cantwell have been comparing notes about
the feedback we have been getting outside the Chamber. What we found is
that from the very time we started working through the committee
process to our time on the Senate floor, a very wide range of
individuals, businesses, groups have come out and supported the bill or
certainly pieces of it. We have had provisions endorsed by major
associations whose membership account for hundreds of companies and
millions of American workers. This includes the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, American Chemistry Council, National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, the Alliance of Automobile. We have also heard from labor
groups--North America's Building Trades Union, the United Autoworkers,
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. They have all weighed in with
support for ideas that are included within the bill.
We have a huge coalition from the Alliance to Save Energy to Seattle
City Light that has welcomed the work we are doing on efficiency. I
have gotten good, strong support from Alaskans from our Department of
Natural Resources, the Alaska Power Association, the Bristol Bay Native
Corporation, Cordova Electric Cooperative, and a whole lot more. As you
might expect, we have also received great encouragement from the people
who keep the lights on, who keep our fuel affordable, who help produce
the materials that make modern life that much more enjoyable--whether
it is the National Mining Association, American Exploration & Mining,
the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, American Public Power
Association, Edison Electric, and others.
The reality is, those who have weighed in, in support of this measure
are too many to name this morning, but that is a good problem to have
when you are legislating that you have run out of time in outlining the
coalitions that have come together in support.
So that I do not get into any trouble this morning, I want to be
clear that many of the groups and the entities I have listed have
endorsed parts of the bill, not all of it. I am not suggesting that
everyone who likes our work to streamline LNG Exports is automatically
supportive of what we are doing to clean up the U.S. Code. That is
entirely fair. Not everything in this is going to appeal to everyone.
In a lot of ways, that is how things work in a place like the Senate.
Not everyone likes every provision of this bill. I do not like every
provision of this bill. Not everyone is getting everything they want.
It is pretty tough to find a situation where you get 100 percent of
everything you would want. This is not the bill I would have written on
my own, but it is the bill we have written together first as a
committee of 22 and now as a Senate working together.
Our work has produced a good bill, a good bill worth debating, worth
advancing, and worth passing. That brings us to the point where we are
with the cloture vote we will soon take. This vote is on the first of
two cloture motions we will need to approve before we can move to final
passage.
There are two votes. There is one on the substitute amendment, and
there is one on the underlying bill. This means this vote we will see
very shortly is a means to advance debate, not to conclude it, on our
Energy Policy Modernization Energy Act. It is also a choice. I think it
is important to lay out clearly to Members where we are, what we are
voting on this morning.
By voting for cloture, Members will be ensuring that we remain on
this bill for at least another 30 hours of legislative activity. You
will be voting to continue this process, to continue this debate, and
to continue processing amendments whether by voice, as we have done so
many of them, or by rollcall vote that we hope to set up. You will also
be giving us the time we need
[[Page S644]]
to focus on matters that are simply not settled yet.
As we have heard from our colleagues from Michigan, there are some
matters they wish to have resolved that are not yet settled, but this
allows us that time to do that but to do this in a way that is going to
be acceptable to the majority of our Members. The reality is, if you
are not comfortable with where we are 30 hours from now, you can still
vote against the next cloture motion that comes up. That is one choice,
and that is going to be my choice. Here is the other: If you vote
against cloture, you will be effectively voting not to prolong debate
but to move us off this bipartisan bill. You will be voting to
effectively be giving up on so much of what we have done, a year of
process, agreement on almost 50 Energy bills that we have incorporated
into this base bill, and the strong approval of 32 separate amendments
and counting that we have advanced through the floor.
I believe you will be voting to give up our best opportunity--
certainly our most immediate opportunity--to address the issue to help
the people of Flint, MI, and in other parts of the country that may
have similar issues. Every time I leave the Senate floor--at least this
past week--I am swarmed by reporters who want to know what is going on,
what is the latest discussion. What is going to happen with Flint? Is
Flint going to bring this bill down?
This morning I want to speak directly to this to let Members know
what has gone on because we were not out here on the floor all day
yesterday hashing things back and forth. We have been discussing very
earnestly, and I believe very constructively, what our options are, how
we can find a path forward that will yield a result, not just send a
message but yield a result to help the people in Flint, MI.
The first thing I will say is that I share the concern, the
heartbreak for what the people of Flint, MI, have faced and are facing.
It is a crisis. It is a tragedy. It is heartbreakingly avoidable.
Unfortunately, we look at how we got here, and it is a failure of
local, State, and Federal Governments to regulate and monitor that
city's water supply.
What has happened in Flint has hurt people. It is hurting children.
It has damaged property. It has left families in a horrible
predicament, through no fault of their own, where they cannot drink
their tapwater, they cannot bathe their children. There is plenty of
blame to go around here. I know my colleagues from Michigan would agree
with me, but our job in the U.S. Senate is not to play this blame game.
It is to own up to what that Federal role is because I believe there is
that Federal role, and then on that basis do what we can to help and
make sure that our response is proportionate to that role. So why then
consider all of this in the context of an energy bill, you might ask,
and it is a fair and legitimate question. Well, it is because this is
the first piece of legislation that is on the floor since the extent of
the crisis in Flint became clear to us.
Senator Stabenow and I began discussions about the situation in Flint
in very early December as we were trying to move through an omnibus
bill to see if there was not something we might be able to address
through the appropriations bill. Since that time, again, more has been
learned, and we are here today with legislation that gives us an
opportunity to consider it.
I did not shy away from this discussion, as hard it was. I did not
say: Hey, that is going to be a poison pill. I cannot deal with it. I
said: Let us try to figure this out because if we do not address the
situation, it is not going to go away. We have a role here. Let us
figure out what that responsibility is, and let us engage in this
conversation.
Senator Cantwell and I have been fully engaged, most directly with
the Senators in Michigan, trying to find a responsible path forward.
The negotiations have been earnest, in good faith, and ongoing, but I
think that there has been a little bit of confusion about the status of
the negotiations. I want to outline where I believe we are right now.
We have made headway on Federal assistance--something that we know
cannot be borne by our Energy bill alone. We have found programs that
could be good fits to provide aid.
We also recognize that this is not Flint's burden alone, but there
are other communities in other States, including my State, that face
similar crises as a result of government failures. We hear about them
as Members and talk about these situations. I believe the Senator from
Maryland used the phrase ``We are all Flint.'' I think we all have
situations--maybe not to the crisis proportion that they have in
Michigan right now, where they needed a Presidential declaration, but
we all recognize that we all have issues that are troubling us a great
deal when it comes to how we provide safe drinking water for our
families.
Our problem is not about whether we should offset the cost of this
assistance; it is how we do so in a manner that does not destroy the
underlying Energy bill and does not violate the Constitution or the
rules we have here in the Senate. I made myself very clear when we
began, at the outset of the debate on this measure, that we have to
make sure we do not have scoring issues with CBO, and we have to make
sure there are no blue slip issues because that would kill the bill,
and then where would we be? Then nobody would win in that scenario. In
that scenario we would end up with no energy bill and nothing to
address the situation in Flint.
This morning I filed a second-degree amendment to provide support for
the people of Flint. My amendment will make up to $550 million
available, including $50 million which will be made immediately
available for the people of Flint. What we are seeking to do here is
bridge the gap between what has been proposed and what I believe the
Senate can agree to. It requires that 90 percent of the money we
provide be paid back over time. Its cost is fully offset with a pay-for
that we have been working on back and forth with CBO and are confident
that they will accept. It includes provisions--and we have been working
with the Senators from Michigan on this issue--as they relate to EPA
notification and a loan forgiveness, language that I think has been in
different iterations of measures that have been going forward. I am
told that the House is looking at that as well.
That is where we are at this time as we are going into a cloture
motion. I believe we have made progress. We are working constructively
to help the people of Flint, and what this second-degree amendment
would do is make $550 million available to them. It has been
challenging. We have done a lot of hard work to get to this point, but
I think we owe it to every American, whether you are in Flint or
somewhere else, to do that work and overcome that challenge.
We have gotten to where we are in the discussion. Again, we have the
cloture motion going forward. We have been trying to make good
progress. We have been trying to conduct an open and fair amendment
process. We want to process more amendments this morning so that we can
move to complete the bill.
Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to call up the following amendments and make them pending, and
that is Stabenow amendment No. 3129; Murkowski second-degree on Flint,
amendment No. 3282; Cantwell amendment No. 3242; Flake amendment No.
3055; Flake amendment No. 3050; Murkowski-Cantwell amendment No. 3234;
Isakson amendment No. 3202; Markey amendment No. 3232; and Cassidy
amendment No. 3192.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I first
want to thank the chair. She lists a lot of bipartisan efforts that
have gone on. I know a lot of work has been done, but nowhere in that
list have the needs of the folks of Flint been addressed, including the
children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state her objection.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we want to get this solved and not just
have votes that go down.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the chairman of
the Energy Committee will yield for a question.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Certainly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
[[Page S645]]
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the chairman of the Energy Committee has
done tremendous work with the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, to try
to find some way to address the legitimate concerns we all share and
have with what has happened in Flint, but I want to clarify some basic
facts. I wish to ask for a comment or answer from the distinguished
Senator from Alaska.
Isn't it true that there is not yet a comprehensive assessment and
plan in place by the State of Michigan or Flint as to how they might
even spend this money at this point to address their concerns about
lead in the water supply in Flint?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that there is an assessment and
analysis that is due out, I believe, toward the end of next week. The
State has been working aggressively to determine the costs, as well as
how they would move forward with an action plan. That is my
understanding.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Since there is no plan announced yet, or in place, it
strikes me as putting the cart before the horse to say that the Senate
ought to vote on a $600 million emergency appropriations deal to pay
for a plan that has not yet been created or disclosed to the American
people.
I ask the Senator through the Chair, isn't it a fact that the State
itself has already appropriated $40 million to deal with this issue on
an emergency basis and the Obama administration has made available
another $80 million through the EPA that is available to the State of
Michigan to help Flint deal with this problem, so a total of roughly
$120 million has already been made available?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I cannot speak to the accuracy of exactly how much has
been made available to the State. It is my understanding that the State
has received, through the EPA, the State's annual receipts from the
EPA's clean water fund. I do not know if that is specific to Flint or
whether that is the State's share, as the State of Texas receives and
the State of Alaska receives. It is my understanding that the President
did make that announcement.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator to yield for a
question so we can share the information?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator is out of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alaska if she would
yield for one last question on topic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
Mr. CORNYN. Isn't it true that the Senators from Michigan made this
demand for a $600 million earmark before a plan was actually put
together by the State of Michigan or the city of Flint--either to
analyze the problem or what the solution might look like and how much
it might cost--and that the Senator from Alaska, in her capacity as the
bill manager, has made an effort to come up with some compromises? In
fact, I believe the Senator from Alaska mentioned a compromise that
would include upfront funds of $50 million plus a loan, in effect, that
would be paid back over time.
I ask the Senator, doesn't it make sense--because there is no plan in
place and because there is money already available for Flint and
Michigan to begin to address this problem--for us to take our time and
handle any additional requests for funding from Flint or Michigan
through the regular appropriations process? I believe the Senator is
the chair of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over these issues,
and I am just wondering whether that wouldn't be a more orderly,
responsible process than a $600 million earmark before a plan is even
in place.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Well, to answer the Senator's question, I have been
working aggressively and constructively with the Senators from Michigan
to try to figure out how we can provide for a level of response. I do
not doubt the anxiety and urgency the people in Flint must feel. This
is a difficult situation to be in, and it is not a situation that any
of us would want any of our constituents to be in. I think there is an
imperative from those who are seeking this assistance that--given that
there is a Federal role, how can we help to facilitate the appropriate
response on the Federal side? If there is a way to help expedite
funding to move toward a solution, I think that is appropriate.
I think the Senator's question is, Are we jumping ahead here if we do
not know how much? I think it is fair to say that the original
estimates were based on the disaster declaration the State had
requested. I think it is going to be critical that we understand what
the costs will be, and hopefully we will learn about that next week. I
know they have been working aggressively to determine that.
We also need to know what the spend plan is because we saw what
happened with the stimulus. You can almost get too much money--if that
is possible--going in, and you cannot spend it in the way it is best
needed. I think we want to be thoughtful and responsible stewards of
the taxpayers' dollars in recognizing that, and I think we want to also
recognize that the role we have ought to be a proportionate role, and
how we can be working to advance that is something we have been
attempting to do.
Ms. STABENOW. Will the chair yield for a question?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. In a moment.
The solution I have put down this morning is one that I think
recognizes that there is assistance that is needed, and this is where
the opportunity to access loans through the WIFIA Program that will be
available not only to the State of Michigan but to other States should
they be in a similar situation--so that avoids the earmark. Because I,
too, want to make sure we have a situation where we do not allow this
to continue in Michigan, but we also do not want to see it in other
States as well. So we do that through opportunities for loans through
WIFIA. But the direct assistance, which would be $50 million in
addition to whatever may be out there already from the EPA and through
the State, I think is a reasonable approach. Again, it is one that is
legitimately paid for, and I think that is an important part of our
responsibility here, as well as to make sure we not only address the
urgency of the situation but also the responsibility we have not only
to the people of Flint but to all of our constituencies.
Mr. President, if I could just conclude, and then I will yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
Ms. STABENOW. Will the distinguished leader yield for a question? I
have been asking for the opportunity to ask a question, and I ask
unanimous consent to ask a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Is the chair aware that the dollars we have asked for
require a comprehensive plan from the State and that at this point only
$28 million--most going to health--has been allocated to the State?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Through the Chair, I am aware that what you have
required, as well as what we have been working on jointly, does require
an action plan that describes the spend-down and how that would be
allocated. It is my understanding that it will be very helpful to have
that analysis from the State. That will be forthcoming--hopefully, next
week.
Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to continue the discussion.
I thank the Chair.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No.
2953, the substitute amendment to S. 2012, an original bill
to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the
United States, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Mike
Crapo, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Steve Daines,
Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Pat Roberts, John Hoeven,
Shelley Moore Capito, John Thune, James E. Risch, Lamar
Alexander, John McCain, Rob Portman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
[[Page S646]]
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 2953, as amended, offered by the Senator from Alaska, Ms.
Murkowski, to S. 2012, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Manchin
McCain
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--50
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cotton
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--3
Cruz
Rubio
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
50. One Senator responded ``present.''
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
218, S. 2012, an original bill to provide for the
modernization of the energy policy of the United States, and
for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Mike
Crapo, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Steve Daines,
Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Pat Roberts, John Hoeven,
Shelley Moore Capito, John Thune, James E. Risch, Lamar
Alexander, John McCain, Rob Portman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S.
2012, an original bill to provide for the modernization of the energy
policy of the United States, and for other purposes, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Manchin
McCain
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Roberts
Rounds
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Wicker
NAYS--54
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cotton
Crapo
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Peters
Reed
Reid
Risch
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Cruz
Rubio
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are
54.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I wish to say to my colleagues that
Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell are going to continue to work
over the weekend on the path forward. Hopefully, we will be able to
salvage this important bipartisan legislation in the next few days.
In the meantime, the next vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.
____________________