[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6108-S6112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017--Continued
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 Senate amendment
No. 5082 to H.R. 5325, an act making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2017, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Mike Rounds, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn,
Daniel Coats, Roger F. Wicker, Thom Tillis, John
Barrasso, Lamar Alexander, John Hoeven, Pat Roberts,
Orrin G. Hatch, Susan M. Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Steve
Daines, Tom Cotton.
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
amendment No. 5082, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, to H.R. 5325, 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 45, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Manchin
McCain
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--55
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cruz
Daines
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Inhofe
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
55.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Cloture Motion
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 5325, an
act making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other
purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Mike Rounds, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn,
Daniel Coats, Thom Tillis, Roger F. Wicker, John
Barrasso, Lamar Alexander, John Hoeven, Pat Roberts,
Orrin G. Hatch, Susan M. Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Steve
Daines, Tom Cotton.
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 H.R.
5325, an act making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]
YEAS--40
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
McCain
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--59
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Inhofe
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Cotton
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are
59.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just say to my colleagues that Senate
Republicans are prepared to pass a clean CR-Zika bill. We hope that
important flood relief will be a part of it. We will continue working
on this important matter.
We are now going to an important security briefing, and I will have
more to say about the matter later today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2555
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 446, S. 2555. I
further ask that the Thune amendment be agreed to; that the committee-
reported substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill,
as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Bob Dole,
whom we all knew and still know and who is a wonderful man, said: ``As
we all learn around here, if you don't keep your word, it doesn't make
much difference what agenda you try to advance.''
So it is very difficult for me to allow Senator Thune's bill to
advance today. I have great respect for him, and that is without any
question.
I am still waiting, though, on Republicans to keep a promise they
made nearly 18 months ago on the Senate floor. They came to me and
said: It is so important to John Kyl, whom I also
[[Page S6109]]
like, from neighboring Arizona. They had somebody whom they wanted to
put on a very important commission. I didn't want to do it because I
thought it was fair that we had somebody to pair with him. That is what
we do around here. That is what Senator McConnell has done, and I
respect that.
But I said: Give me your word, and we will go ahead and do this.
No problem, I got their word--Senator McConnell and Senator Thune.
They said they would do it as soon as the new Congress started. That is
almost 2 years ago, and this woman is in limbo. There is an extremely
important vote now before the Commission dealing with top boxes on
television sets, and she has not been confirmed in that job.
It is wrong.
I brokered that agreement between McConnell and Thune. I didn't want
it. It wasn't my idea--it was theirs--to confirm Republican
Commissioner Michael Riley, the Kyl person, to a 5-year term in the
FCC.
In return, I repeat, Senators Thune and McConnell assured me they
would confirm Jessica Rosenworcel--I have been working on that name for
2 years--to a new term when they were in the majority. They got in the
majority just a few months after that. This was in December.
She spent many years in public service. No one questions her
qualifications. The Senate confirmed her unanimously in 2012. Her
credentials and integrity are unquestionable. There is no doubt that
she will continue to serve the FCC well.
Yet Republicans have refused to keep their promise and hold a vote on
her nomination. That is breaking someone's word. As Bob Dole said: ``As
we all learn around here, if you don't keep your word, it doesn't make
much difference what agenda you try to advance.''
John Thune, from the great State of South Dakota, knows that when
Senators make agreements, they should be honored. The American people
also expect Congress to do its job. They are not doing their job
because of what we are facing every day with Republicans.
Here is something from one of the major newspapers in America, the
Washington Post. I will only read part of it:
With no budget resolution or regular appropriations bills
ready to go, Congress is now merely trying to extend current
funding levels for a few more months. This would allow
legislators to return to the campaign trail and delay the
hard decisions until after Election Day.
So far they still haven't even been able to execute that
second-rate plan, though, because legislators have repeatedly
tried to tuck poison-pill provisions into this must-pass
bill.
The result is that with a little more than a month before
the election, Congress is again flirting with a shutdown. And
a year into the worldwide Zika epidemic, Congress still
hasn't successfully appropriated a cent toward the crisis,
nor has it passed any funding to help families affected by
emergencies in Louisiana or Flint, Mich.
It can't get anyone confirmed, either.
Merrick Garland, President Obama's Supreme Court pick,
famously can't get a hearing, but he's hardly the only
nominee being snubbed. The Republican-led Senate has
confirmed just 22 federal judges this Congress, putting it on
pace for the lowest number of confirmed judges . . . [in
almost 70 years] according to the Alliance for Justice. For
context, the Senate had confirmed more than three times as
many judges by this point in the final Congresses of previous
two-term presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald
Reagan. In all these cases, mind you, presidents had also
faced Senates controlled by the opposing party.
But it is not just that.
Continuing:
This Congress, the Senate has confirmed the fewest civilian
nominees in modern history. . . . As of mid-September, just
248 nominees had been confirmed. That's, again, half the
average. . . .
It is a shame that we are at a point here where I have to come to the
floor--I have been in Congress for 34 years--and talk about people not
keeping their word. Let somebody deny what was done.
It is unfair, and I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to
complete my remarks with respect to this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the minority has
again chosen to put partisan politics ahead of passing
noncontroversial, bipartisan, pro-growth legislation.
My understanding is that their sole objection to passing the MOBILE
NOW Act is the wholly unrelated nomination of FCC Commissioner Jessica
Rosenworcel. I know that the distinguished minority leader is
frustrated that Commissioner Rosenworcel has not yet been confirmed to
another term. On the floor previously, he also said that I have done
everything possible within my authority as chairman of the Commerce
Committee to advance her nomination through the process, and that is
correct.
We had her hearing. We voted her out of the committee. Scheduling the
floor is not something that I control.
What I don't understand, however, is why Senate Democrats believe
that blocking the MOBILE NOW Act and other bipartisan bills that come
out of my committee will help her cause. We invited Commissioner
Rosenworcel to testify at one of our hearings leading up to the bill.
Ironically, many of her ideas are reflected in this legislation.
The bill also reflects the priorities and hard work of so many
Commerce Committee Democrats. In particular, two of the most important
additions to the bill were Senator Schatz's Promoting Unlicensed
Spectrum Act and Senator Klobuchar's ``dig once bill,'' or the
Streamlining and Investing in Broadband Infrastructure Act.
If the MOBILE NOW Act is not passed by the Senate soon, their
legislative efforts will have been made in vain. While I respect how
important it is to Senator Reid and to other Democrats that
Commissioner Rosenworcel be confirmed this year, there is simply no
reason for that effort to jeopardize the good-faith effort that
Senators on both sides of the aisle did to create this bill. These two
issues have been inexplicably linked, but they need not be.
I urge my colleagues to separate these unrelated matters and to pass
the MOBILE NOW Act now without further delay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. How do you feel about the American people? How do you feel
about how they are being treated, with case after case hung up in the
Supreme Court?
We cannot even get a hearing on Merrick Garland. Why? Because they
know the appearance he will make will be a good one. After a public
hearing, they will be even more embarrassed by not voting for this man.
Even though a couple of Senators didn't keep their word--and it
wasn't just me and them. We have staff here who would be willing to
vouch for what I just said. Even if it weren't two Senators not keeping
their word, at the very least, shouldn't they be concerned about the
Supreme Court, what is not going on there?
So I have no reservations whatsoever. It is unfair to come and ask
for legislation to pass when we have a Supreme Court that is stymied
and is working shorthanded. It is incredible that justice is not being
served well in our great country.
As indicated in this article of which I read only part, Congress is
dysfunctional.
As I mentioned this morning, my Republican friend, the leader, said
that, well, he can't understand what is going on. There seems to be
some dysfunction here.
Talk about dysfunction, during the time Lyndon Johnson was leader, we
had one or perhaps two filibusters. The second was arguable. As for me,
for my first 8 years, there were 644 filibusters--how is that for
dysfunction--led by the Republican minority, trying to embarrass Barack
Obama and bring this country to its knees. So I do not apologize to
anybody for objecting to this legislation. He can bring it out every
other day, and I will object to it every other minute, every other
hour. It is wrong that Republicans are treating the American people the
way they are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I realize that many of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle just voted against the short funding
resolution because it doesn't include critical funding for Flint.
Unfortunately, I believe
[[Page S6110]]
this is a misguided strategy. Now, I voted against it but on the basis
of something that can be corrected, having to do with the funding of
the increased number of troops that we will have in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
But I must be clear that the $300 million Flint package that passed
this body several weeks ago will become law by the end of the year. It
is a mistake to take the country to the brink of a shutdown over an
issue when we already have a bipartisan agreement on the solution.
When the national press opened the eyes of America to the lead water
contamination crisis affecting Flint, MI--a city of roughly 100,000
people--I told my staff it was time to get to work, to see what went
wrong and what could be done. We are so close to making this a reality.
I urge my colleagues to not create a standoff on the CR when we are
taking care of the people of Flint and communities around the country,
which is very important. We did this in our WRDA bill.
I know that Leader McConnell spoke with Speaker Ryan and Minority
Leader Pelosi this morning and assured them that he is dead serious
about ensuring the Flint package becomes law once we return from the
break. Let me remind you that on September 15, when the Senate passed
WRDA 2016 with an overwhelming 95-to-3 vote, I pledged to not let
politics or any lameduck session jeopardize the emergency relief in
WRDA and to get this signed into law by the end of the year.
I have been standing with my colleagues in Michigan from the very
beginning in support of our fiscally responsible solutions to help not
only the Flint community but also other communities facing drinking
water emergencies and water infrastructure challenges and solutions
that the Republican majority Senate has supported strongly.
The Senate-passed WRDA bill not only provides the critical support
that Flint needs but also would help to prevent future water and
wastewater infrastructure crises across the Nation. WRDA is the right
vehicle. I am committed to getting this bill to the President's desk
with Senator Boxer and my good friend Senator Stabenow by the end of
the year.
I know that many on the other side of the aisle are skeptical of our
resolve, in particular, because of the uncertainty about the WRDA bill
moving through the House this week without the Senate Flint compromise
attached. It is important to understand that, unlike the Senate,
different committees in the House have jurisdiction over the Corps of
Engineers and the Safe Drinking Water Act. On our side, on the
Republican side, they are both in the committee that I chair, and
Senator Boxer is the ranking minority member.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has
jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers. However, it is the House
Energy and Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The House WRDA bill only includes issues that are
under the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. That is why the House WRDA bill does not include Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments, like the Flint package. Once the House
sends us their T&I version of the WRDA bill tomorrow, hopefully,
Senator Boxer and I will immediately attach the Senate Flint compromise
as we conference with the House for a final bill. The Republican House
leadership has already assured me this is the plan.
So it is time for us to stop playing politics with the CR on this
issue and focus our attention on making WRDA 2016 a reality. I can
assure you that Senator Boxer and I are in lockstep agreement to get
this done. People doubted us on the 5-year highway bill we passed last
year, and we showed this body that when we work together on issues such
as this, our word is as good as a guarantee, even during difficult
political gamesmanship like what is happening on the continuing
resolution.
I urge my colleagues to trust in our unique relationship and our
ability to get the Flint package and make sure it is on the President's
desk this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I trust my colleague totally. My
chairman--I trust him totally but as far as the House is concerned, no.
Trust but verify.
My friend says we have the wrong-headed strategy on objecting to the
CR. He has the right to his opinion, but we don't agree. This is the
only way we can make the case because right now the House has the WRDA
bill. All they have to do is allow a vote to cover Flint. Yesterday the
Rules Committee said no. Yesterday, Chairman Sessions of the Committee
on Rules in the House said it is an earmark, which it is not because it
does not just affect Flint. In fact, it is a program to help all cities
that have lead in the water that is poisoning the families.
So, trust? I have been around here a long time. I think Ronald Reagan
was right when he said trust but verify. Show me the language. Show me
the commitment.
I see my friend here from Louisiana. He wasn't in the Senate at the
time I was here with his predecessor, but I will say this: Senator
Inhofe and I--when there was a tragic problem in Louisiana with
Hurricane Katrina, we stepped up and we put aside any issues in our own
States to go where the suffering was. I fought so hard for Louisiana. I
fought my heart out for them to get the money they needed after
Katrina. And, actually, with the help of my colleague, we made sure
that all the Gulf States got the money from BP to rebuild.
My heart is open to every person in this country--every child in this
country, no matter where they are, whether in Louisiana, West Virginia,
California, Oklahoma, or Michigan. We are one Nation under God,
indivisible. And when we have an issue and a crisis, we need to move.
Here is where I see it a little differently than my friend. I think
it is absolutely the right strategy to keep fighting to get the help to
Flint in the CR. That is called leverage. That is called smart
politics. That is called fairness. That is called justice. At the same
time, I support my friend and colleague in trying to get an ironclad
commitment from the House leaders.
It wasn't a good day yesterday for Flint. They turned down
Congressman Kildee's request to have a simple vote. Speaker Ryan said
this is a local issue, and so did Bill Shuster. They called it a local
issue. They do not even understand it if they call it a local issue
because there was no elected local government in Flint, MI. There were
leaders appointed by the Republican there.
My friend is so sincere, and I trust him 100 percent. I don't have to
verify a thing he says because he is a man of his word. That is it. He
knows how we feel about each other. We have never, ever, ever walked
away from each other. But the fact that he and I may be in agreement
doesn't necessarily bring along the people in the House.
My colleague says he has heard it on good authority. That is great.
Show me in writing. Show me where it is going to happen. Show me the
guarantees. Show me they are not going to load up WRDA poison pills
that my friend and I know we can't--either side--accept poison pills. I
don't see it. So right now, I think what we are doing is right.
I want to make a point. Many Republicans voted against the CR. It
could be for other reasons. But even if many more Democrats had voted
for the CR today, it would have gone down with the number of
Republicans being so large voting against it. So we have a lot of work
to do.
I would say, through the Chair, to our majority leader, Mitch
McConnell: You can add this thing in 2 minutes. You can talk about
jurisdiction. We add all kinds of things to CRs. This would be
something where we could keep in Louisiana, we could keep in everything
else, and we could add in a totally paid-for bill.
None of the other emergencies are paid for, by the by. They just go
on the debt, on the credit card, pretty much. But we have paid for
every penny of this, thanks to my friend's leadership and thanks to my
friend from Michigan, who stepped up and did away with a program in the
auto industry that was very important to her because she wanted to do
the right thing.
Here is the path forward. Our leader can look at the vote. It was
pretty sad for his clean CR, as he calls it. It is not clean. That went
down in flames. He can simply add Flint to it, and we
[[Page S6111]]
would pass it in a heartbeat. Or the House can take up and pass the
Senate WRDA bill or send us a completely ironclad statement as to time,
place, venue, and when they are going to fix the Flint issue.
I know my friend from Michigan would like to be heard, but this is
not rocket science. We have a bill fully paid for that takes care of
the whole country and is not an earmark. It passed here with 95 votes.
Let's get it done. Disentangle it from WRDA. Disentangle it from WRDA
and pass it on the CR. Disentangle it. Take care of the people. Whether
they are in Louisiana, West Virginia, Maryland, Michigan, let's take
care of the people. That is our job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe I actually had the floor anyway,
and I am glad to yield the floor, which I will do to my colleague from
Michigan. But I want to make sure I am clear in the statement I made in
that I don't disagree and that my colleague doesn't disagree with the
statements I made.
We have a commitment to do everything we can to ensure this is in the
WRDA bill. I tried to explain the difference in jurisdiction, which
makes it impossible for them to do it over there within the T&I
Committee. They have jurisdiction over WRDA but not these particular
provisions.
I have a lot of things in the CR I am really wanting to get done. I
mentioned the military end, but on the Zika funding, I have given
speeches on the floor saying how important this is because I happen to
have a grandniece in Florida who is pregnant right now. So I am really
interested in getting this thing done, and it is going to get done. It
is going to be a part of the ultimate CR.
I just wanted to say--and I listened to the statement by the ranking
member of the committee that I chair, and I don't think she disagrees
with anything I am saying in terms of our commitment to getting it
done. I understand where she is coming from, and I will yield the
floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, through the Chair, I would just like 1
minute to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I agree with my colleague. If we can get an ironclad
commitment to fix the Flint issue in WRDA and not just a vague
conversation that somebody had--that Nancy Pelosi had with Paul Ryan,
but I have to look at the public statements. The public statements are
that a big leader in the House said this is an earmark. It is not. The
Speaker over there, who is supposed to care about poor people and kids,
said it is a local issue, which it is not. They voted down a chance to
have a vote. It is not very encouraging.
I am always encouraged when my colleague from Oklahoma speaks because
he is the most positive person I have ever met. He says we are going to
get it done. And if it is up to us, it gets done. But there are other
people who don't view this issue the way he and I view this issue. All
I am saying is, as I wind down my days here, I have had a lot of
experience in expecting that I get things done.
People have said to me: Oh my God, you are right. You are so right.
You are on target. Don't worry. Well, that is all good, but show me the
money. Show me the path. Show me the ironclad path for Flint, and I
will step out of the way in a heartbeat, believe me.
I encourage my friend to keep working with the Republicans, and I
will work with the Democrats. Let's get an ironclad way that assures
the people of Michigan that, finally, they are going to have some light
at the end of the tunnel.
In closing, I would say the simplest way to do it is just to add the
package to the CR. It is easy. Just do it. It doesn't have a cost, it
has all been thought out, and 95 of us have voted for it. Get it done.
For the life of me, I don't know how the majority leader can't do this
thing. Just do it. As they say in the Nike ad: Just do it.
Every religious organization in the country from the Catholics to the
Jews, to the Muslims, to everybody else has said: Yes, this is a moral
issue. Take care of these people. I had the list today. It is in the
Record.
We are all supposed to be people who care about moral issues and care
about our children. When my friend said he has a pregnant niece in
Florida, my heart skipped a beat. It is a scary time. That is why we
have to take care of the Zika issue.
At the same time, if his niece was in Flint and bathing in water that
still has lead in it, he would be just as upset. I know he cares
deeply. My friend cares deeply. If everybody cared as deeply as he
does, we would be in good shape.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank two really
great leaders on the Environment and Public Works Committee--the
chairman and ranking member. I absolutely take the chairman at his
word. I have since the beginning. Chairman Inhofe has been an
extraordinary leader on this issue and other infrastructure issues. I
believe him completely in terms of what he wants to get done, and the
same goes for our ranking member, Senator Boxer. I have no doubts
whatsoever.
Two weeks ago, when we passed the WRDA bill 95 to 3 in the Senate--
the bill that helped the people of Flint as well as other communities
that have water and lead-in-water issues--I was prepared to go and, in
fact, went to House colleagues, Democratic colleagues, and said: I
trust the chairman and ranking member. Let's get the bill going in the
House, even if Flint is not in it. Let's get it to a conference
committee and work it out because I trust them, and we will make sure
it is in the final package.
Well, the bill didn't get taken up in the House due to whatever
problems they had a week ago. Then we began to hear there was not
support for Flint in a final bill. We heard, on the one hand, from the
Speaker that the CR was not the appropriate place--that WRDA was the
appropriate place to help families in Flint. But, by the way, he said:
I don't support helping the families in Flint in WRDA. It was the same
thing with the chairman of the committee.
I know there are multiple jurisdictions. The distinguished chairman
of the committee that has jurisdiction in the House, Congressman Fred
Upton, supports the provision, and we are very grateful for his
leadership and help as well. So this is easily worked out in terms of
the jurisdictions because the people with the jurisdiction are not
objecting to this.
We have been given every signal now, coming from the Republican
majority in the House, that there is not a willingness to help. As late
as yesterday, with the Committee on Rules, there was an amendment
offered to put it in order to vote on it in the House, and it was
rejected. We were looking for some sign that was concrete, that was
real, that we can actually do this, and over and over we are getting
exactly the opposite messages. So then we find ourselves in a situation
where the one thing we do know is going to happen is the short-term
continuing resolution, and another State, other communities--Louisiana
being the principal one with flooding--are going to get help. I support
that. I have supported every disaster effort that has come before the
U.S. Senate on behalf of many, many, many other States and communities
that are not even close to Michigan because I think that is what we
should do.
So the people in Flint, MI, have been waiting and waiting and waiting
every day--bottled water--every day, trying to figure out how to get
more bottled water, and once again they are being told wait and maybe
something will happen--maybe something will happen--but Louisiana is so
important, we are going to do it now. I don't think it should matter
what your ZIP Code is or whether you have Democratic or Republican
Senators. I believe it is our requirement--our obligation--to help.
Then, to add insult to injury, we are the only disaster situation
coming forward that is fully paid for by eliminating a program. We
phase out a program I authored in 2007 that predominantly affects my
State in order to pay for help for Flint and other communities--we are
not just helping Flint but other communities with lead and water
problems because it is so important. It is about lifesaving measures,
literally, for people. It is easy to put this on the CR. It is totally
paid for. We are not cutting another program to
[[Page S6112]]
put the $500 million in for Louisiana, but the fund for Flint and other
communities is totally paid for. So it adds insult to injury to
families in Flint who have waited so long.
Again, I trust the chairman completely. What I don't trust is what I
am hearing from the House of Representatives. Given that fact and given
the fact that we have the ability to actually help them right now
through the CR, I believe we should do that.
____________________