[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.
____________________