[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 29, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4685-S4690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 2328, which 
the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany S. 2328, a bill to reauthorize 
     and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
     bill.
       McConnell motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
     bill, with McConnell amendment No. 4865, to change the 
     enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 4866 (to amendment No. 4865) of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to refer the House message on the bill to 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with 
     instructions, McConnell amendment No. 4867, to change the 
     enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 4868 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 4867), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 4869 (to amendment No. 4868), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until the 
cloture vote will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.

[[Page S4686]]

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do we 
have before the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 36 minutes remaining prior to the 
vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. There is 18 minutes a side, I understand?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is that divided on position on the bill or on a partisan 
basis?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Between the two leaders or their designees.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you.
  I see the Senator from Oklahoma seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Illinois.


                    Water Resources Development Act

  Mr. INHOFE. First, Mr. President, I have been told I will have our 
time that I may use, and I appreciate that very much.
  This morning we heard from the ranking member--from both sides. I am 
going to bring up something here that everyone agrees on, and that is 
with the things we do in our committee--we passed our highway bill, and 
we passed the TSCA bill. Right now, I wish to talk about the WRDA bill 
that is coming up.
  I am on the floor today to express urgency to the often-neglected 
issues surrounding our Nation's water resources and water 
infrastructure.
  In my nearly five decades in elected office, I have watched the 
impacts of Congress prioritizing and failing to prioritize our Nation's 
water system.
  In 1986, Congress enacted the cornerstone WRDA legislation that set 
cost-share standards and created the harbor maintenance trust fund and 
the island waterways trust fund. Following this bill, it was intended 
for Congress to reauthorize WRDA every 2 years. ``WRDA'' means ``Water 
Resources Development Act.''
  When we talk about what happened in 1986, not many people are aware 
of the fact that my State of Oklahoma is actually navigable. We have an 
inland waterway.
  It was our intention at that time to have this bill every 2 years 
because it is just as significant as the highway bill. But then the 
trend came to a halt. Between 2007 and 2014, the WRDA bill--Congress 
went 7 years without a WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act. 
We got back on track 2 years ago. This is important because now we are 
getting back on track to get into the 2-year cycle.
  Our coastal ports are grossly behind in their deepening projects to 
accommodate post-Panamax vessels. As you can see on this chart, the 
levees and flood walls are inadequate and well below the necessary 
level of protection. Our water infrastructure has become so deplorable 
that communities don't have the necessary resources to provide clean, 
safe drinking water, as you can see on this chart.
  This is not a partisan problem; this is a national crisis. A lot of 
the things we are going to be talking about around this place--and we 
will see it today--are partisan. This is not.
  The last WRDA took on the major reforms, and now, 2 years later, it 
is time for another WRDA to help clear up the logjam of Corps 
projects--the Corps of Engineers--and address concerns with aging 
infrastructure. Too often we take for granted how water resources and 
how water infrastructure projects affect our daily lives.
  Some will argue--unlike the highway bill--that the WRDA bill is not 
considered a must-pass bill, that there is no shutdown of a program. 
However, I would argue that the WRDA bill is a must-pass bill.
  Without WRDA, the 27 chiefs' reports included in the bill for port-
deepening, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration will get put 
back on the shelf, and their construction will be delayed even further 
and it will cost much more money later on to make that happen.
  Look at the aging infrastructure, the lead pipes. We saw what 
happened in Michigan, and we are addressing these things, these kinds 
of problems.
  I have a letter addressed to Leader McConnell and Majority Whip 
Cornyn, with 31 signatures from my fellow Republicans, asking 
Republican leadership to bring WRDA 2016 to the floor in the next few 
weeks.
  I know my colleague Senator Graham supports WRDA. He has been 
fighting to authorize the deepening of the Charleston Harbor for 
several years now, as you can see on the chart. Any further delay in 
this project is going to cause unwarranted economic loss to his State 
and the Nation as we prepare for the increased use of the post-Panamax 
vessels that we are all aware are on their way.
  The same could be said for several of my other colleagues who have a 
vested interest in their projects. In this bill, port-deepening 
projects in Florida, Alaska, Maine, and Texas would be better 
positioned for those States to capitalize on increased import and 
export projections over the next 20 years.
  Flood projects in Kansas and Missouri would provide communities in 
their State the necessary assurance that homes and businesses will not 
be flooded by the next storm.
  Ecosystem restoration projects in Florida, Illinois, and Wisconsin 
would stimulate recreational and commercial economies otherwise left 
behind, as we can see here. That is Florida on our chart.
  Senators Vitter and Cassidy also support the passage of WRDA. Their 
State has experienced more catastrophic disaster from storms and 
flooding in the past decade than any other. They, too, have a project 
proposed for flood protection that had been studied for nearly 40 
years. You can study something to death and never get anything done. If 
this project had been prioritized and constructed in the early 2000s as 
we intended, then St. John Parish in Louisiana and the surrounding 
communities would not have endured $600 million in damage from 
Hurricane Isaac in 2012.
  That is just a snapshot of what has been included in the WRDA bill.
  Water resources and water infrastructure projects are integral to our 
everyday lives--as we see in the next chart, the levees to protect our 
communities from floodwaters; ports and waterways that move American 
goods and services to a global marketplace.
  In addition to the traditional water resources projects and the 
provisions that have dominated WRDA bills in the past, Senator Boxer 
and I decided to go one step further and address the pressing water 
infrastructure crisis facing this Nation. As we put this bill together 
and we held hearings on critical water resources and infrastructure, we 
heard how communities are struggling to meet ever-growing clean water 
and safe drinking water mandates that are needed for flexibility and 
for targeted assistance.

  By the way, if people are wondering right now why we are dividing the 
time before voting on a bill, I was going to make this presentation 
yesterday, but the Senator from New Jersey dominated the floor so that 
was not possible.
  Our witness representing rural water, Mr. Robert Moore from Madill, 
OK, recommended that we target the grant assistance program addressing 
issues of greatest necessity. These programs include assistance for 
small and disadvantaged communities.
  This is something that is particularly of concern in my State of 
Oklahoma. We are a rural State. We have many small communities, and we 
have the unfunded mandates come down from Washington, and we just can't 
handle those. This is the one program that helps States like my State 
of Oklahoma.
  We have also empowered local communities to meet EPA mandates on a 
schedule that is doable and affordable for the community and that 
allows the community to prioritize addressing the greatest health 
threats first. That is good. That allows the communities to make these 
determinations.
  In addition to providing disaster relief for Flint, MI, we have also 
capitalized the new Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act 
Program, which can provide secured loans for water and wastewater. That 
is actually called WIFIA. I think we are all familiar with that 
program.
  Without being able to get this done, none of these good things are 
going to happen. We have in this bill $70 million for this new program 
that delivers as much as $4.2 billion in secured loans. We are talking 
about the WIFIA Program. This is a fiscally responsible way

[[Page S4687]]

to partner with the States and provide Federal assistance. So when we 
are concerned about Flint, MI, there are other problems in other areas 
that meet the same criteria.
  We heard how new technologies can help address droughts and other 
water supply needs, like the issues we face in the Red River in 
Oklahoma. S. 2848 addresses this issue by promoting new technologies 
and the transfer of desalination technologies from other countries 
facing the same problems. Passing WRDA 2016 would guarantee the Federal 
Government's principal commitment to resilient water resources and 
water infrastructure and strong commerce.
  This is a major bill. We are all concerned. We are all very familiar 
with what we did in this committee. I often say the Environment and 
Public Works Committee is a committee that actually does things, and we 
did. We did the highway bill, we did the TSCA bill on chemicals, and 
this is the WRDA bill coming up.
  From the outset, Senator Boxer and I have worked closely with Senate 
Republicans and Democrats to make sure that all Members were heard and 
no one was left behind. We have done this successfully on several 
occasions, as I mentioned--the FAST Act and TSCA--and we have delivered 
for every Member of this body. We have done the same thing with the 
WRDA bill, and that is what we are talking about doing now.
  We listened to your concerns, we engaged your constituents and your 
project sponsors in your respective States, as well as the users of our 
waterways and transportation infrastructure. The message was clear and 
uniform: Get back to regular order and build upon the reforms in the 
WRDA bill of 2014. We went 7 years without doing what we were supposed 
to be doing every 2 years, and now we are back on schedule to do that--
to empower the Army Corps and local host sponsors to help keep our 
water resources infrastructure strong and functioning.
  Let me close by saying that not passing this bill would result in 
nearly $6 billion in navigation and flood control projects being 
unnecessarily delayed or never constructed. There would also be no 
critical reforms to the Army Corps of Engineers and their policies, no 
essential affordability reforms for the communities' clean water 
infrastructure mandates, no new assistance for innovative approaches to 
clean water and drinking water needs to address drought and water 
supply issues, no resolution of the national lead emergencies, like in 
Flint, MI, and no dam rehabilitation programs.
  So today, I am asking the leadership and my fellow Republicans to 
seize this valuable opportunity and bring the WRDA bill of 2016 to the 
floor. I know we want to do our appropriations bills, but we need to 
sandwich this in. We want it to get to the floor and passed before the 
July recess. Time is really of essence.
  We are putting the managers' amendment together now. I encourage all 
Members to bring to me and to Barbara Boxer their concerns and their 
amendments so they can have the proper consideration on this bill. If 
you bring them down, we can do that. We are going to be ready to do 
this very significant bill. It will take a lot of cooperation by a lot 
of people. It is something we are supposed to be doing in this country.
  People are impatient this morning, so I am going to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, on this debate we are about to pursue, I 
ask unanimous consent that 9 minutes be given to the opponents and 8 
minutes to the supporters of this legislation. I would like to take 5 
minutes now, reserving 5 minutes for Senator Menendez, and give my 
colleague from Illinois 8 minutes to control for people who are 
supportive of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues 
to not vote for cloture on this measure and to give the Senate a chance 
to work its will.
  Many people know this legislation is being brought over from the 
House. I appreciate the good relationship I have with my colleague from 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I would love the 
opportunity to have their input into this legislation, as many of my 
colleagues would, with just a simple amendment process. That is being 
denied here today if we, basically, invoke cloture.
  Everybody has admitted this is a flawed bill. There is not one person 
who has done a presentation on this that hasn't admitted it is a flawed 
product from the House of Representatives. So why not take a little 
time today and improve that bill? Why not let the Senate work its will, 
as we do on so many issues--because we have the time? As I think my 
colleague from New Jersey will prove, we are definitely going to be 
here for a few days doing nothing. So, why not, instead of sitting here 
doing nothing, take the chance to improve a bill that, by all accounts, 
is flawed?
  Also, there is so much discussion that somehow July 1 is a magic 
date. Well, actually, July 11 is the next scheduled legal hearing on 
this, and that is plenty of time for the Senate to weigh in on a few 
ways to improve this legislation and to make sure we are not suspending 
the constitution of Puerto Rico in the process.
  There are many questionable issues about the structure of this bill. 
I certainly prefer a structure that is clean and simple, understood by 
my colleagues, and is going to lead to success by all of us. Why do I 
say that? Because the continued wrangling over the debt in Puerto Rico 
by a process that will be challenged on its constitutionality means 
that Puerto Rico will continue to be bled, the United States Government 
will continue to be bled, and we will not get a resolution of this 
issue.
  The appointments clause requires that these officers, who are being 
appointed under the authority of Federal law, be appointed by the 
President and confirmed by the Senate. But, if this bill is enacted, we 
will have board members who have significant authority over Federal law 
and they are not appointed by the President and they are not confirmed 
by the Senate. So it is going to be challenged constitutionally.
  Why is this important? Because there are hedge funds out there that 
took Argentina's debt and it took almost a decade to get a resolution 
because they could win in court. We want a process here in legislation 
in which all of the debt is part of a discussion, and in which people 
can offer solutions as to how to get out of this situation by giving 
bankruptcy to Puerto Rico.
  Also, there are questions about this board and who they are? Besides 
the fact that they are likely to be challenged in court as 
unconstitutional, I brought up the point last night that they can 
actually receive gifts. Gifts from whom? What gifts? What can the board 
receive? Is it cars? Is it equipment? Is it airplanes? What is it they 
can receive?
  So we are here now to say: Let's take the time, instead, to make sure 
we are going through this process and improving the bill in the Senate. 
I think this is something my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can 
appreciate. What is hard to appreciate is that this small group of 
people are being given some very large powers.
  This group of people--just a simple majority of four of them--
appointed by the two leaders of the Senate and the House, can approve 
the fiscal plan for Puerto Rico, approve the budget for Puerto Rico, 
set aside an act of law by the Puerto Rican Legislature, and disapprove 
or approve and expedite permitting of projects. So, this is a lot of 
power. If you don't think someone is going to challenge the 
constitutionality of this, I guarantee you they are going to challenge 
it. In the meantime, we will have legal wrangling and a continued 
process.
  I urge my colleagues to vote 'No' on this legislation. Give the 
Senate a chance to work its will and make sure we are protecting the 
U.S. taxpayers on the amount of debt we will be seeing with this 
legislation if we don't move forward in an orderly fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the measure have 8 minutes

[[Page S4688]]

remaining, and the opponents have approximately 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am going to speak, and I know my colleague and friend 
from New Jersey is here and opposes the measure. I have been given 8 
minutes, and I don't know how much of that time I will use. I will try 
to leave whatever is left for his use. I know he spoke yesterday, but I 
am sure he wants to speak again this morning. I will yield whatever is 
left.
  The other remaining time, as I understand, is controlled by the other 
side.
  Ms. CANTWELL. In the unanimous consent request I locked in 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for a clarification. Is there still 5 minutes 
remaining for the Senator from New Jersey?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington consumed 5 of 9 
minutes, leaving 4 minutes remaining for the opponents of the bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I don't use my entire time, I will yield the remainder 
to the Senator from New Jersey for those with opposing positions.
  Mr. President, many times on the floor of the Senate we are faced 
with difficult, sometimes impossible choices. At the end of the day, 
you wish you could sit down and write a solution that you believe would 
achieve its purpose and do it in the most responsible manner. Many 
times we don't get that luxury, and this is an example.
  Puerto Rico is in a unique relationship with the United States. Some 
have said this agreement is in the nature of a colonial imposition on 
the island of Puerto Rico. As the laws currently stand, Puerto Rico 
cannot save itself. It is $70 billion in debt, and those who hold the 
debt--the bond holders--are demanding payment.
  The Puerto Rican economy is struggling to survive and struggling to 
make a $2 billion payment on that debt by July 1. Under these emergency 
circumstances, there is only one place to turn. It is not an imposing 
colonial power; it is the United States of America that has been in 
partnership with Puerto Rico in the past and should be for its future.
  We are trying to find a reasonable way through this that will appeal 
to both political parties. Of course, the political parties see this 
differently. A Democratic solution to this looks a lot different than a 
Republican solution. What we have before us is a compromise. It is a 
measure that was entered into with the cooperation, collaboration, and 
bargaining between the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the White 
House, and Republican leaders. So it is a mixed bag politically that 
comes to us today.
  I support it, although I would be the first to tell you there are 
parts of it I find absolutely objectionable. Bringing in the notion 
that they are going to put their economy on solid footing by reducing 
the minimum wage is laughable, as far as I am concerned. If you lower 
that minimum wage to an unconscionable level, more and more people will 
leave Puerto Rico--which they can legally do--and come to the United 
States, where the minimum wage is significantly larger than that 
proposed by the Republicans. The same thing is true when it comes to 
overtime pay.
  I struggle with the powers of this oversight board, but I understand 
that time and again in history, when entities like New York City and 
other places are facing virtual bankruptcy, an oversight board has been 
the vehicle to bring them to stability. I think this oversight board is 
loaded--even though it is 4 to 3--loaded on the other side, but I hope 
they will in good conscience come up with approaches that are 
acceptable.
  What is the alternative if we vote no? We will hear a lot of Members 
say: Let's just vote against this and put an end to it. The alternative 
if we vote no is to give the bondholders, those who are holding the 
debt of Puerto Rico, all the cards July 1--all the cards. They can then 
go to court and force their hand for payment on these debts. And Puerto 
Rico, which is struggling to provide basic services, will have even 
more money taken away from them. What is a disastrous situation will 
become disastrously worse if we vote no and do nothing. This oversight 
board, for all its flaws, has the power to stop that from happening--
has the power to enter into voluntary negotiations on the debt of 
Puerto Rico, and if they can't reach a voluntary agreement, they have 
the power to go to court for restructuring all of the debt that faces 
the island. Now that is significant. I hope it doesn't reach that 
point. I hope there is a voluntary negotiation. But to say we are going 
to protest the creation of this board by voting against the creation of 
the board and this outcome I have described is to throw this poor 
island and the people who live there into chaos.
  I received a telephone call from the archbishop of Chicago, Blase 
Cupich. I respect him very much. He called me on several issues, but he 
said: The real purpose for my call is to tell you the archbishop of San 
Juan, Puerto Rico, has reached out to me and told me of the desperate 
situation they are facing in Puerto Rico today. About 150 schools have 
closed. There is no money to buy gasoline for the buses to take the 
children to schools. Many of the medical services are down to zero. One 
doctor a day is leaving Puerto Rico, and they can't afford to lose any. 
Currently, at the major hospital, Centro Medico, there is a serious 
question as to whether children who are trying to survive cancer will 
have the drugs they need for a fighting chance. That is how desperate 
it is. He went further to say the air ambulance service on Puerto Rico, 
which transports the most gravely ill people to medical care, is now 
not flying. They can't afford to. People have to pay in cash for 
dialysis services.
  This is a disastrous situation, and the notion that we can vote no 
today and not accept the consequences, which will be terrible for 
Puerto Rico, is not a fair analysis of this problem. Yes, I would have 
written a different bill. Yes, I would have constructed a different 
oversight board, but the choice now is not between some ideal or some 
better approach. The choice is before us. The choice is yes or no, and 
a ``no'' vote is one that is going to imperil this island and make the 
poor people living there face even worse hardship. How can that be a 
good outcome? How can we bargain for the possibility that several 
months from now there may be a better constructive oversight board? I 
think the responsible thing to do is to move forward.
  Don't take my word for it alone. I represent the State of Illinois 
and am proud to do it. My connection to Puerto Rico is through 100,000 
Puerto Ricans who live in my State. I have worked with them. I have met 
with them.
  This morning, I received a letter from Pedro Pierluisi, who is the 
Member of Congress from Puerto Rico. He goes on to write:

       As Puerto Rico's sole elected representative in Congress, I 
     write to respectfully request that you vote in favor of S. 
     2328. . . . On June 9th, the House approved PROMESA in a 
     strong bipartisan vote, an all-too-rare event that I hope 
     will be replicated in the Senate this week.

  He goes on to talk about the imperfections in this bill, which we all 
know. But he then goes on to talk about the hardships that the island 
of Puerto Rico is facing and will face if this bill is not passed. We 
have received the same request from the Governor of Puerto Rico. To 
ignore these people and to ignore the people who live there and the 
perils they face, I don't believe is a responsible course of action. I 
think we have to move forward in a positive fashion. That is why I am 
going to support this measure today and urge my colleagues to do the 
same. It passed with a strong bipartisan vote in the House, as the 
resident Congressman has related in his letter. It is an indication 
that as imperfect as this agreement may be, it is the best we can come 
up with in this terrible and perilous situation facing the island of 
Puerto Rico.
  I urge my colleagues today to vote yes on cloture, vote yes on final 
passage of this bill. Give Puerto Rico a fighting chance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose invoking cloture on this measure 
because the House version of this bill is flawed, and the Senate should 
have the opportunity to improve it.
  Puerto Rico is drowning in more than $70 billion of debt, equal to 
nearly 70 percent of the island's GDP. This is a serious situation 
deeply affecting the 3.5 million Americans who call the island home. 
And let us be clear: these Americans need their country's help. But the 
current PROMESA Act is not the answer, and here are two reasons why.

[[Page S4689]]

  First, one of the provisions in the bill would set up a seven-member 
oversight board to oversee Puerto Rico's fiscal plan and annual 
budgets. This board would consist of four Republicans and three 
Democrats and the Governor of Puerto Rico would serve as a nonvoting 
member. This is not a fair solution. Representation must be fair, and 
the way this board is currently proposed, it is one-sided. We need to 
fix that.
  Second, this legislation could reduce the minimum wage in Puerto Rico 
from $7.25 an hour to $4.25 an hour for workers 25 years old and under. 
How can young workers needing to gain economic independence in a 
suffering economy begin their careers on solid footing making only 
$4.25 an hour? In addition, this would reduce consumer spending, 
hurting an already weak economy.
  We should be lifting all workers--from California to Puerto Rico--up, 
not letting them fall further and further behind.
  We must give Puerto Rico the tools it needs to come out of this 
disaster stronger and with a clear path forward. As it stands, I do not 
feel this bill provides the smart and necessary solutions needed to 
resolve this fiscal crisis, and therefore, I oppose invoking cloture on 
this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do 
I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has approximately 
3 minutes 40 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Is that the time that was reserved? I understand there 
was a 5-minute time reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Washington passed 
the initial reserve time used against the total reserve time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to have up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise again this morning to urge my 
colleagues to vote no on cloture. As drafted, PROMESA exacts a price 
far too high for relief that is far too uncertain.
  I came to this Chamber in September and December of last year to 
raise the alarm bells about what was happening in Puerto Rico. The 
majority held the ball and ran out the shot clock, attempting to 
silence the voice of 3.5 million U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico in 
this debate.
  So let's be clear about what this vote to end debate means. Despite 
what the proponents of the bill will argue, opposing this cloture vote 
is not a vote to allow Puerto Rico to default. Any legislation we pass 
includes a retroactive stay on litigation, meaning that any lawsuit 
filed after July 1 will be halted and any judgment unenforceable. As 
the bill states, the stay bars ``the commencement or continuation'' of 
suits to recover claims against Puerto Rico. It also bars ``enforcement 
. . . of a judgment obtained before the enactment'' of the bill. In 
addition, section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, which is incorporated by 
reference into the bill, bars the ``enforcement . . . of a judgment 
obtained before'' filing for bankruptcy, once the board files a 
bankruptcy petition on Puerto Rico's behalf. So even if the hedge funds 
win a judgment before the stay is enacted, that judgment cannot be 
enforced, and once the debt adjustment plan is confirmed, the judgment 
can be discharged.
  As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2012--the circuit that 
has jurisdiction over Puerto Rico--``Even if [an] injunction is not a 
claim [for the purpose of the bar against ``commencement or 
continuation'' of ``claims''], any action to enforce [an injunction] is 
subject to the stay and cannot proceed without relief from the stay.''
  I repeat, ``Any action to enforce [an injunction] is subject to the 
stay and cannot proceed without relief from the stay.''
  There is no doubt that time is of the essence and Congress must act 
swiftly. However, we shouldn't allow a somewhat arbitrary deadline to 
force through a fundamentally flawed bill as the retroactive stay gives 
us time to get this right. July 1 shouldn't be used as an excuse to 
abdicate our responsibilities as U.S. Senators. With this in mind, I 
remind my colleagues that a vote for cloture is a vote against even 
attempting to improve any piece of this bill.
  I know many have serious concerns over a lot of provisions in the 
bill, from the control board to the anti-worker riders, and many are 
even filing amendments to improve these aspects. A vote for cloture is 
a vote to disenfranchise 3.5 million Americans. It is a vote to 
authorize an unelected, unchecked, and all-powerful control board to 
determine Puerto Rico's destiny for a generation or more. It is a vote 
to force Puerto Rico, without their say, to go $370 million further in 
debt to pay for this omnipotent control board, which they don't even 
want. It is a vote to cut the minimum wage down to $4.25 per hour for 
young workers in Puerto Rico. It is a vote to make Puerto Ricans work 
long overtime hours, without fair compensation. It is a vote to 
jeopardize collective bargaining agreements. It is a vote to cut worker 
benefits and privatize inherently government functions. It is a vote to 
shut schools, shutter hospitals, and cut senior citizen pensions to the 
bone. It is a vote to put hedge funds ahead of the people. It is a vote 
to sell off and commercialize natural treasures that belong to the 
people of Puerto Rico, a vote to fast-track projects without a careful 
consideration of the environmental and health impacts, and, most of 
all, it is a vote against even attempting to fix these serious flaws.
  Is our memory so short that we have already forgotten the tragedy of 
Flint and the emergency board failures that caused it? Are we 
comfortable allowing this unelected, unaccountable control board to 
choose budgets over people? Are we content to allow them to veto 
regulations ensuring clean water because they don't fit the board's 
imposed fiscal plan? I certainly hope not.
  I have heard multiple times in my career that it is this bill or 
nothing, but I have and continue to reject that false dichotomy. Every 
issue before the Senate deserves and usually receives a full and open 
debate, but for far too long we have made Puerto Rico the exception--
the ``other'' that is somehow outside of the United States--treating 
our fellow Americans like subjects, not citizens: subjects not 
citizens. Let's break that cycle today. Let's have an honest debate and 
treat the 3.5 million citizens living in Puerto Rico as we would treat 
the citizens in any one of our States.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             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 assistant bill 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 the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to S. 2328, a bill to 
     reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program 
     Act, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Thad Cochran, Marco Rubio, 
           Lamar Alexander, John Hoeven, Jeff Flake, James M. 
           Inhofe, Deb Fischer, Orrin G. Hatch, Johnny Isakson, 
           Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, John Boozman, Bill Cassidy, 
           Mark Kirk, Daniel Coats.

  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 the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2328 shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo

[[Page S4690]]


     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Baldwin
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Ernst
     Grassley
     Heller
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Perdue
     Portman
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Tester
     Tillis
     Warren
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). On this vote, the yeas are 68, 
the nays are 32.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls as it is 
inconsistent with cloture.
  The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 4866

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on 
amendment No. 4866.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________