[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6093-S6097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 5325, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5325) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2017, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Cochran) amendment No. 5082, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       McConnell amendment No. 5083 (to amendment No. 5082), to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 5084 (to amendment No. 5083), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 5085 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 5082), to change the enactment 
     date.
       McConnell amendment No. 5086 (to amendment No. 5085), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions, McConnell amendment No. 
     5087, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 5088 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 5087), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 5089 (to amendment No. 5088), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the 
pending business, but I have to just comment based on what the 
Democratic leader has said. Apparently, he has so little confidence in 
his party's nominee for President that he insists on coming to the 
floor every day that we are in session, trying to assist her by making 
arguments either she cannot make or that she has not made. We do have 
pending business that is very important and which I know he would agree 
is important, and that is to keep the government running past the end 
of this fiscal year, which ends on Friday.
  That actually is the subject that I came here to talk about. We are 
continuing to work on a continuing resolution to fund the government 
through the end of the fiscal year. The fact of the matter is that we 
would not find ourselves in this distasteful position were it not for 
the filibusters of our Democratic colleagues who try to use the 
leverage and have effectively used the leverage to shut down the normal 
functioning of the appropriations process in order to gain some 
leverage to spend more money, notwithstanding the fact that we are $19 
trillion in debt. They simply shifted from one excuse to another in 
order to refuse to do their job, which is actually to work in a 
bipartisan way through the appropriations process to fund the 
functioning of the government at agreed-to spending levels.
  So we are now staring at a Friday deadline to keep the government 
open. Of course, this was their design all along--to drag their feet, 
delay, and turn from one excuse to another in order to keep from 
actually working in a bipartisan way to appropriate the money to fund 
the government so the government would continue to function. We could 
have finished this job a long time ago, but our Democratic colleagues 
simply made it clear that they wouldn't lose any sleep even as we get 
closer and closer to the funding deadline.
  This is actually the narrative they hoped for all along. They want to 
talk about shutdowns or potential shutdowns that they, in fact, could 
cause, not because of anything that we have done on this side of the 
aisle.
  The Appropriations Committee, chaired by Senator Cochran, and the 
Appropriations subcommittees have voted out on a bipartisan basis all 
12 appropriations bills, and they have done their work. Many of them 
have passed unanimously. Most of them have passed overwhelmingly with 
bipartisan support, which is very encouraging. So our Democratic 
colleagues have had a lot of participation and a lot of influence, as I 
know they would want, in the priorities of the Federal Government as 
reflected in the appropriations bill. Of course, that wasn't good 
enough, and that didn't meet their underlying need, which is to try to 
gain any advantage they possibly can when it comes to spending levels 
or in the upcoming November 8 election, which very much appears to be 
on the Democratic leader's mind as he continues to come to the floor 
and talk about the Presidential race rather than the pending business.
  Of course, now we know that we are running out of time. So the 
majority leader, Senator McConnell, has now proposed to call their 
bluff. They said they wanted a clean continuing resolution. As a matter 
of fact, the Democratic leader said last week that if a clean 
continuing resolution were brought to a vote, we could ``leave in 10 
minutes.'' That is what the Democratic leader said last week. But as of 
yesterday, we know he changed his tune. He said a clean CR wasn't near 
enough. He said: ``We want more.''
  We will soon have a chance to vote on that clean continuing 
resolution after lunch. This is the continuing resolution that the 
Democratic leader said we could pass and leave in 10 minutes. This 
continuing resolution funds the government at levels this Chamber has 
already agreed to. There are no riders or anything that the Democrats 
can claim as controversial. It is a simple continuation of funding at 
current levels under the same terms that the President has already 
signed into law last December. It also includes resources for 
bipartisan priorities like veterans programs, flood control, fighting 
the opioid epidemic that is devastating communities across our country, 
and dealing with prevention of the Zika virus--something the Democrats 
said they wanted money for since last May. Well, this is it. This is 
the $1.1 billion agreed to on a bipartisan basis. But this is when they 
shift their argument to something else.

[[Page S6094]]

  We remember that during the summer, our Democratic colleagues were 
quick to call for action on Zika funding. Ironically, they filibustered 
a bill that would have provided that funding, but when push came to 
shove, they flat out refused to act to give communities the funding 
they need to fight this real health crisis.
  We know from what has happened in Florida, where they have had 
domestic infections of people from the mosquitoes carrying the Zika 
virus in Florida, that it is just a matter of time before this will 
spread to other parts of the United States, including warmer weather 
States like mine, in Texas.
  I have spent some time in Houston, TX, with the mosquito and vector 
control folks at the Harris County Health Department, where they are 
monitoring these mosquitoes on a daily basis to see whether there are 
signs of the Zika virus in those mosquitoes. Thankfully, there is none 
yet, but they are identifying West Nile virus and other mosquito-borne 
diseases, and thank goodness for the work and leadership they are 
showing at the local level. It would be nice if the Nation's 
congressional leaders would demonstrate similar leadership getting our 
job done, getting the money to the people who need it and can put it to 
good use.
  I have shown the picture of the devastating birth defects caused by 
the Zika virus in women of childbearing age. It is devastating. How our 
colleagues across the aisle can continue to block this funding in 
giving the money that could actually help address this potential health 
crisis is beyond me. We have given them what they wanted, and they 
refuse to take yes for an answer. They still talk a lot about it and 
the urgent need to get it done, while dragging their feet the whole 
way.
  The Democratic leader even said at the beginning of this month that 
we need to handle the Zika threat first and foremost. Well, I guess 
that is why he continues to delay a vote on the continuing resolution 
and why they continue to do what they say they are going to do. They 
are going to block the cloture vote this afternoon, again, because now 
they have changed the subject.
  Well, this is their chance to act, to send resources to fight the 
virus in communities across the country. I am glad the senior Senator 
from Florida, a Member of the Democratic caucus, has already said that 
he will support this clean CR, in light of the public health threat 
Zika poses to his constituents in Florida. He clearly has his 
priorities straight. It is not politics first and foremost. It is 
public health. I hope more of his colleagues follow his lead and vote 
to get on this continuing resolution so we can get our work done and so 
the money can go to those communities like those in his State and in my 
State that need it most.
  Some of our Democratic colleagues say they don't like the continuing 
resolution because it doesn't allow for funding for the water problems 
in Flint, MI. But I have to say that this is just another manufactured 
excuse. It ignores reality. We just passed overwhelmingly the Water 
Resources Development Act with more than 90 votes in this Chamber. That 
bill provides funding for the crisis in Flint, MI. The House is taking 
up their version of the bill this week. The chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, has made 
it clear he is committed to sending this Water Resources Development 
Act, including funding for Flint, to the President for his signature. 
So that excuse doesn't hold any water either.
  Our Democratic friends may say: Well, that is not included in the 
House bill. That is true. But with the commitment of the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
Senator Boxer, who work so well together, there is no way in the world 
that a conference report is going to come back to the Senate without 
that Flint, MI, money in the bill. So that excuse doesn't hold water 
either.
  Once again, I guess because they think it helps them somehow 
politically, our Democratic friends are marching this country closer 
and closer to a shutdown. They have been slow-walking the process, 
starting months ago when they refused to consider and even pass 
bipartisan appropriations bills. As I said earlier, these were bills 
passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. Why in the world would 
they do that, I guess, perhaps is the question before us. Well, a 
Member of their leadership implied in yesterday's Washington Post that 
it is purely for political purposes.
  I am not naive. I understand politics is part of this process, but 
clearly the priority of our colleagues across the aisle is not to do 
their job and to address the funding needs for the Federal Government, 
including the Zika crisis or even to deal in a bipartisan way with the 
very issue they have identified, the Flint, MI, issue that is going to 
get that money to the community.
  In the article I mentioned in the Washington Post, the senior Senator 
from Montana, who heads the Democratic campaign committee, gave us just 
a momentary glimpse into our Democratic friends' playbook this election 
cycle. He said that in order to win more seats in the U.S. Senate, 
Democratic candidates need to show that ``Republicans really haven't 
done anything.''
  That was the campaign chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
Committee, saying in order for them to win seats, they have to show 
that under Republican leadership nothing has been done. The facts would 
show otherwise. This reminds me of the story of a propaganda technique 
where, if you tell a big enough falsehood and you tell it over and over 
and over, there are some people who are actually going to believe it.
  Facts are a stubborn thing. Democrats are marching us down a path 
that leads to a shutdown in order to gain some sort of political 
advantage. What a terrible thing to do to this country, to be brought 
to the brink purely for some perceived, temporary political game.
  The facts are, under the leadership of Senator McConnell as the 
majority leader and under a Republican majority, the Senate has been 
brought back to regular order, which means we are actually doing the 
people's business. Committee chairmen have had the freedom to flesh out 
legislation on a bipartisan basis and craft good policy solutions for 
the American people, rather than have bills cooked up in the Democratic 
leaders' conference room that have never seen the light of day in any 
committee and certainly were not bipartisan. That was the record when 
the Democratic leader was majority leader during the last Congress.
  We have had more votes on more bills so individual Senators could 
offer specific ideas on how to make legislation better, and the results 
speak for themselves. It is a long list, but the Senate has passed much 
needed overhauls of our education system and our transportation system, 
both on a bipartisan basis. We have passed bipartisan bills to help 
root out the dangers to our society from opioid addiction, heroin 
addiction, and human trafficking. We passed foreign policy measures 
that have made our country safer, including a bill to impose stronger 
sanctions on North Korea.
  Again, it is a long list. Last week, we passed the Water Resources 
Development Act I was referring to earlier, thanks to the leadership of 
a Republican, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, and a Democrat, the 
senior Senator from California. That is the way this process is 
supposed to work.
  The point is, until very recently, this Congress has been marked by a 
willingness of folks on both sides of the aisle to work through the 
issues and to find a path forward that would represent the best 
solution for the people we represent, the American people.
  According to the senior Senator from Montana--in what appears to be 
an act of desperation--that doesn't make for good campaign strategy in 
the days leading up to the election, apparently, and now they want to 
try to sell this propaganda, this gigantic falsehood repeated over and 
over so people, at some point, at some level, begin to believe it. They 
want to paint this Congress as ineffective under Republican control.
  When our friends on the other side of the aisle put the ``d'' in 
dysfunction during the 113th Congress, that is why the Republicans won 
the majority in the 2014 election, among other things, because 
Democratic incumbents running for reelection in 2014 had no record of 
accomplishment they could point to. That strategy backfired on

[[Page S6095]]

our Democratic colleagues. You would think they would have learned 
something from that experience.
  For example, they had the incumbent Senator from Alaska go home to 
Alaska and ask to be returned to the Senate. He could not point to a 
single amendment on a single bill he actually sponsored that received a 
rollcall vote in the Senate. That is pretty hard to explain, especially 
when you are in the majority, but that is what happened. You would 
think our colleagues would have learned something from that.
  What do they gain by edging our country toward a government shutdown 
this Friday? I don't see how it helps anyone, but that is why we are 
here today, staring at a deadline and trying to hammer out a stopgap 
spending bill--and this only gets us to December 9.
  Again, the reason we find ourselves having to do this is because they 
have simply shut down the Senate appropriations process, forcing us 
into a position that no one who actually has any interest in performing 
the duties of their job actually likes. This is not the way the Senate 
is supposed to work, but this is the hand we have been dealt because of 
their obstruction.
  I would hope more Democrats would join the senior Senator from 
Florida and take yes for an answer when it comes to funding the 
government, when it comes to dealing with Zika, the potential Zika 
crisis in our country.
  I hope our colleagues on the other side will reconsider their 
decision to block the vote this afternoon. We are ready to move forward 
with the solution our Democratic colleagues have called for, a clean 
continuing resolution, but again it is like Charlie Brown and the 
football. Do you remember that cartoon? Every time Lucy would put the 
football out, she would pull it back at the last minute and Charlie 
Brown would end up on his back.
  All we need is a partner who will work with us. I encourage some of 
our friends across the aisle to reconsider their position.


               Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

  Mr. President, late on Friday afternoon, the President fulfilled his 
promise to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
  I have a hard time understanding the President's rationale. This 
legislation was approved unanimously in the Senate and in the House. 
That doesn't happen very often, where Democrats and Republicans, where 
Senators and House Members, unanimously support a piece of legislation, 
but tomorrow afternoon we will vote on an override of that veto. 
President Obama made clear in his message that he doesn't understand 
how limited and narrow in scope this legislation is. As a matter of 
fact, he misrepresents what this legislation actually does, which is an 
extension of current law, and it is well within the bounds of 
historical practice and modern court guidance under the Foreign 
Sovereign Immunities Act.
  The victims of terrorism in this country need an ability to seek 
justice in a court of law. That is all this bill is about. It doesn't 
identify a single country, and it doesn't purport to decide the merits 
of the case. All it says is, yes, you can present your case to a judge 
and a jury in a court of law. Why the President would object to that is 
lost on me.
  This legislation will help victims of terrorism on U.S. soil seek 
compensation. By doing so, it will potentially deter other terrorist 
acts. If there are consequences associated with sponsoring terrorist 
attacks on American soil, don't you think this might have some modest 
deterrence effect, including our counterterrorism measures that our 
national security forces are engaged in?
  This also sends an important message that the United States takes 
care of its own and that we will never tolerate terrorism and we will 
never ever shy away from the pursuit of justice for Americans.
  I realize there are some of our colleagues who say: Well, Saudi 
Arabia or some other country might be upset with us.
  Frankly, I could care less. We are here to represent the American 
people, not some foreign country. The fact is, our colleagues--our 
friends in Saudi Arabia, to the extent that we have aligned interests, 
we work well together and that will continue despite this veto 
override. To simply say because some foreign country or some King or 
some Prince of some other country doesn't like legislation so the 
President is going to veto it is simply unacceptable, when clearly the 
American interest here is for these victims of terrorism to find 
recourse in our courts of law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, while the Republican whip is still on the 
floor, I believe there is an agreement, at 10:45, Republicans will have 
control of the floor.
  I have waited patiently while the Senator from Texas has given his 
speech. I ask unanimous consent to allow me 10 minutes to speak on the 
floor before the Republicans claim their time.
  Mr. CORNYN. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, why are we facing a continuing resolution to fund the 
government of the United States of America? Because our budget expires 
on October 1.
  It is a new budget. We are supposed to pass spending bills, 
appropriations bills, budget bills that will cover this next 12 months 
of the fiscal year, and we have failed. The Senate Appropriations 
Committee, which I am proud to serve on, has done its job on a 
bipartisan basis. In fact, we have reported out all 12 spending bills 
but had very little luck on the floor of the Senate moving those bills 
forward. The first one we took up was the military construction bill, 
which passed with good support, and was sent over to the House of 
Representatives. They loaded it up with every political issue they 
could think of for this campaign season, and that bill started 
floundering at that point. That is why, at this moment in time, we need 
to pass a continuing resolution. This is no way to run a government 
but, to be honest with you, both political parties have been guilty of 
finding themselves in this mess before, where we have had to buy a 
little extra time into the fiscal year in order to agree on the budget 
for the remainder of that year.
  What the President said to the Republican leaders of the House and 
Senate last week is, if you want to do this continuing resolution bill, 
just keep the government running until you can agree on all the 
appropriations bills, give me a continuing resolution bill until 
December 9, and--if you would--please acknowledge that we are facing a 
public health crisis with the Zika virus. The President raised that 
issue because in February of this year, 7 months ago, he notified 
Congress this was going to happen; that we were going to see these 
mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus infecting people in Puerto Rico and 
in the United States and endangering mothers who were carrying babies. 
In February, the President asked for Congress to give $1.9 billion to 
eradicate the mosquitoes, to lessen the danger, and, equally important, 
to develop a vaccine. This is a vaccine which frankly, when it is 
developed, all of us will want to take, one that protects all of us 
from Zika virus infection in the future.
  What did the Republican-controlled Congress do with the President's 
emergency public health crisis request for Zika? Nothing. They ignored 
it until May of this year, when the Senate finally passed, with 89 
votes, Democrats and Republicans together--it was not $1.9 billion but 
$1.1 billion to deal with the Zika virus, this emergency public health 
crisis. It took 3 months. It should have taken 3 days.
  In May, with 89 votes, we sent a bill from the Senate over to the 
House of Representatives to deal with this crisis. What did they do 
with it? Instead of passing the bipartisan bill the President 
requested, they decided to load it up with politically controversial 
issues that they thought would help them in this election cycle. Listen 
to some of the things they added to this bill, this emergency public 
health crisis bill.
  First, they put in the provision that there was a prohibition of 
funding any efforts by Planned Parenthood on family planning under this 
bill. Why? Because mothers, facing the prospect of a pregnancy and the 
possibility of an infection, would seek family planning help at Planned 
Parenthood. Two million American mothers did last year.

[[Page S6096]]

They put this provision in to defund Planned Parenthood. They knew that 
was going to be a fight. They put it in anyway. They eliminated $500 
million from the Veterans' Administration funding to process veterans' 
claims--something we desperately need. They took the authority of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to monitor the chemicals that would be 
used to kill the mosquitoes. And then, to add insult to injury, they 
put in a provision that said you could display Confederate flags in 
U.S. military cemeteries. What does that have to do with the Zika 
virus? Nothing. It was political gamesmanship. It was going nowhere. 
The President would never sign it under those circumstances, and they 
knew it.

  Now the President says: Give me a clean Zika funding bill and we will 
move forward with this continuing resolution.
  Finally, last week the Senate Republican leader gave us that clean 
bill as part of the CR, and if that were all he did, we would be 
finished, we would be home, but he kept moving forward in other areas 
of controversy. You see, there was terrible flooding in Louisiana, and 
a lot of innocent people were hurt. They lost their homes and 
businesses. It has been a custom in the Congress to rally to the aid of 
victims of disasters. I have voted for that over and over again, for 
maybe every State across the United States, because I knew the day 
would come--and it has--when Illinois would need a helping hand, and I 
wanted to be there for my colleagues.
  So we said this to the leader on the Republican side: If you want to 
help Louisiana--and I do--also help the people living in Flint, MI.
  Remember when their water supply was contaminated? There were 100,000 
people ingesting lead, when there is zero tolerance in our blood 
streams for that. The damage is obvious. Imagine 9,000 children in 
Flint poisoned with lead-contaminated water. That happened. In that 
poor city, they are still drinking water out of bottles every single 
day.
  So we said to the Republican leader: Yes, we care about Louisiana. 
You should care about Flint, MI. If you are going to help Louisiana, 
help those poor people in Flint who are facing this kind of 
contamination.
  He refused. He said: There will be money for Louisiana but no money 
for Michigan.
  Why? We think there are victims in both places, and in the past the 
Senate and Congress have risen to those tragedies and those demands. I 
have done it on a bipartisan basis. It makes no difference to me that 
we have two Republican Senators in Louisiana, and it should make no 
difference to Senator McConnell that we have two Democratic Senators in 
Michigan. Let's think about the Americans who are hurting in both 
places instead of playing political games. But no--Senator McConnell 
said: We will help Louisiana; we will provide no help to Flint, MI. 
That is unfair, and it complicates the situation.
  If that were all he did, it would be bad enough, but Senator 
McConnell has a pet project that he needs to put into this bill. Listen 
to what it is. It is a prohibition at the Securities and Exchange 
Commission that would promulgate a rule to require America's 
corporations to publicly disclose the campaign contributions they are 
making. Under Citizens United, in warped thinking at the Supreme Court, 
it was determined that corporations are persons when it comes to 
contributing money. Look what has happened--a flood of millions of 
dollars. Republicans were boasting that they raised $43 million in 
their super PAC in August, and they got $20 million last week from 
Sheldon Adelson, a rich man who lives out in Nevada. Oh, they are 
rolling in millions, but Senator McConnell is determined to keep secret 
the source of these funds, so he wants to prohibit the Securities and 
Exchange Commission from requiring corporations to simply state 
publicly that they are making these contributions. We do. If 
corporations are persons--individual persons, like myself have to make 
a disclosure of contributions that are made. Why should corporations 
have the benefit of being treated as a person to make contributions but 
not the responsibility facing persons to disclose this publicly? 
Senator McConnell wants to keep that secret, and that is why he 
included it in this legislation and made it as controversial as it is.
  A simple word to the leader on the Republican side and to the wise 
who want to leave and go home and campaign: There is a way out of here. 
Treat the people in Flint, MI, with the same respect we are treating 
the victims in Louisiana. Provide the resources for opioid funding, 
which we desperately need. Leave out this special interest provision 
protecting corporations that want to make political contributions but 
want to keep it secret so nobody knows what they are doing. Make sure 
that we finally--finally--7 months later, adequately fund the Zika 
crisis so we can deal with this and develop a vaccine to protect all of 
America.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, after weeks of bipartisan negotiations 
and significant progress made in settling our differences on a bill to 
keep the government open through December 9, Republican leadership has 
given up on negotiations and instead filed a bill that completely 
ignores the ongoing emergency in Flint, MI. For over a year, the good 
people of Flint have waited for Congress to do our job and address the 
public health emergency that has poisoned 9,000 children and left 
100,000 residents without access to clean and safe water. But once 
again, they are being told to wait. They are being told that the 
emergency their community is facing is somehow less important than 
emergencies other communities around the country are facing.
  Republicans continue to argue that the ongoing crisis in Flint and 
other cities is better addressed through the Water Resources 
Development bill or WRDA. But while the Senate WRDA bill, which we 
passed earlier this month, includes vital funding for Flint, the House 
has made no commitment to help Flint in their bill. We cannot afford to 
wait any longer. The people of Flint have waited far too long already. 
We need to address the emergency in Flint now--in this bill--just as we 
are addressing the emergency in Louisiana.
  It is unbelievable that Congress continues to hold up federal funds 
to help aid these Americans in their time of need. Almost 100,000 
people are currently living without reliable access to clean water in 
their homes and 9,000 children are suffering from lead poisoning. Just 
like those suffering from flooding and tornados, these families did 
nothing to deserve this. And just as the federal government always 
helps when Americans are hit by disasters, it should do so now.
  There were no complaints last May when the Federal government 
declared an emergency and reached out to residents of Texas to help 
them rebuild their lives after a tornado hit. So I see no reason why 
Senators should hesitate to provide funding to Flint, Michigan, to help 
deal with this public health emergency. The crisis in Flint is a 
tragedy that demands Senate action.
  Instead of turning on the tap to make breakfast or take a shower, 
like all of us did this morning, these residents start their day by 
waiting in long lines for bottled water to feed and bathe their 
children, take showers, and stay healthy. And for those elderly or 
disabled residents that cannot make it to the pick-up location, they 
are left with the option of continuing to use water that they know is 
poisoning their bodies with lead and causing numerous health issues.
  The lead contamination levels in the City mean that an entire 
generation of children are in danger of suffering from irreversible 
brain damage, lower IQ scores, developmental delays, and behavior 
issues for the rest of their lives.
  This truly is a tragedy that requires federal support.
  And what is frightening, is that Flint is not the only city battling 
with lead issues, nor is it an isolated incident. Elevated lead 
contamination levels have been reported in cities nationwide--including 
in Ohio, South Carolina, New Jersey, Mississippi, and Washington, DC. 
In my own home state of Illinois, Chicagoans have been battling with 
lead contamination in their homes for years.
  Recent articles in the Chicago Tribune have highlighted this 
struggle. In 2012, an EPA study found high levels of lead in the 
drinking water of several Chicago homes--despite the City's use of 
anticorrosive chemicals to treat the water. And since then, at least 
179

[[Page S6097]]

young children in federally-subsidized homes in Chicago have suffered 
lead poisoning stemming from exposure to lead-based paint.
  These issues have led to Illinois having some of the country's 
highest rates of children with elevated blood lead blood levels, which, 
unfortunately, have hit low-income and minority communities the 
hardest.
  Thankfully, however, lead levels in Illinois and across the nation 
have not risen to the severity of those in Flint.
  But the widespread nature of these issues does show that we need to 
get serious about investing in infrastructure programs that address the 
housing, environmental, and public health aspects of preventing lead 
contamination in American homes. That is why I was proud to join 
Senators from both sides of the aisle in supporting a bipartisan deal 
to address the ongoing lead crisis in Flint and other communities 
across the country and ensure all Americans have access to safe 
drinking water.
  The Senate's bipartisan WRDA bill provides $220 million in direct 
emergency assistance to Flint and other communities facing similar 
drinking water emergencies. It provides $1.4 billion over five years to 
help small and disadvantaged communities comply with the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. The bill modernizes our State Revolving Loan Fund program 
and provides $300 million in grants for communities to replace lead 
service lines. And because we are also seeing high levels of lead in 
our schools' water, the bill authorizes $100 million for additional 
lead testing in schools.
  This bill also addresses many of the issues that I raised in the 
Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act that I introduced with Senator Menendez 
and the CLEAR Act that I introduced with Senator Cardin, two bills that 
would ensure our children are protected from the dangerous effects of 
lead in our water and our housing.
  While we still haven't figured out our differences over aid for 
communities affected by lead contamination, Democrats and Republicans 
have finally agreed to address the Zika public health emergency in this 
bill.
  In February, the President requested $1.9 billion to fight the Zika 
virus. In May, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to 
provide $1.1 billion in emergency funding to combat this virus, but 
then partisan politics took over. Republicans insisted on attaching a 
variety of controversial policy riders to the Zika bill, from 
attempting to overturn provisions of the Clean Water Act to trying to 
block money from going to Planned Parenthood health centers.
  Thankfully, 7 months after the President first made his request, 
common-sense is prevailing and Republicans have finally dropped their 
outrageous demands to load this bill up with contentious and extraneous 
items. I wish it had happened sooner. The bill before us today includes 
$1.1 billion in funding to help States and our Federal health agencies 
properly respond to the ongoing Zika epidemic. This money will be used 
for vaccine development, mosquito control, and the delivery of needed 
health care.
  What the bill before us today does NOT include are ill-conceived 
partisan poison pills. As of last week, there were more than 23,000 
reported cases of Zika in the United States and its territories, 
including more than 2,000 pregnant women. We are 7 months overdue in 
passing this emergency funding. It is my hope that pregnant women and 
children won't have to wait much longer.
  While this bill is missing vital funding for Flint, Leader McConnell 
had no problem including controversial language that limits the 
Security and Exchange Commission's ability to require disclosure of 
corporate political spending.
  In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a far-reaching decision in Citizens 
United v. Federal Election Commission. On a divided 5-4 vote, the Court 
struck down years of precedent and held that the First Amendment 
permitted corporations to spend freely from their treasuries to 
influence elections. As a result of Citizens United and the series of 
decisions that followed in its wake, special interests and wealthy, 
well-connected campaign donors have so far poured more than $2 billion 
dollars of outside spending into recent Federal elections, including 
2016 races.
  In the years since Citizens United, several of my colleagues and I 
have called for the SEC to initiate a rulemaking requiring public 
companies to disclose their political spending to shareholders. More 
than 1.2 million securities experts, institutional and individual 
investors, and members of the public have asked the SEC for a 
disclosure rule.
  Such a rulemaking would bring much needed transparency to the U.S. 
political process. Shareholders deserve to know when outside spending 
in political campaigns comes from the coffers of a company they have 
invested in.
  Unfortunately, last year, this provision limiting the SEC's 
rulemaking authority was slipped into the omnibus appropriations bill, 
which we had to pass in order to fund the government for the 2016 
fiscal year. We should not allow this rider to continue to strangle the 
SEC's authority.
  Despite weeks of bipartisan progress on a deal to fund the 
government, the Republicans have decided to move forward on a bill that 
continues to ignore the ongoing crisis in Flint and other cities like 
Chicago. Congress and the Federal government's primary responsibility 
is to protect the American people. And just as the Federal government 
always helps when Americans are hit by disasters, it should do so now.
  Like the communities in Louisiana suffering from devastating 
flooding, the people of Flint deserve our help in responding to this 
public health emergency. A deal to provide funding for Flint has 
already passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. We need 
to address the emergency in Flint NOW, in this bill. The people of 
Flint have waited long enough.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 
a.m. will be controlled by the majority.
  The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________