[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1360-1369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2012, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the 
     energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Murkowski amendment No. 2953, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Murkowski (for Cassidy/Markey) amendment No. 2954 (to 
     amendment No. 2953), to provide for certain increases in, and 
     limitations on, the drawdown and sales of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve.
       Murkowski amendment No. 2963 (to amendment No. 2953), to 
     modify a provision relating to bulk-power system reliability 
     impact statements.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their 
designees.
  The assistant Democratic leader.


                     Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what happened in Flint, MI, is incredible. 
In the 21st century, in the most developed country on Earth, to think 
that 100,000 people were exposed to contaminated water, to think that 
9,000 or 10,000 children were exposed to lead poisoning--it was not a 
natural disaster but the results are disastrous. It was a disaster 
created by those who were in charge of managing the city of Flint.
  The governmental agencies and those who worked for them made what 
they considered to be the right budgetary decisions, but they certainly 
made the wrong decisions when it came to the health and the well-being 
of the poor people who were victimized by their wrongdoing. Every time 
I hear the story, the same question comes to my mind: Who is going to 
jail for poisoning 9,000 children? Think about the circumstances here. 
A knowing decision by a city manager to switch to a water supply which 
was contaminated endangered the health of thousands of children, tens 
of thousands of citizens. If that is not the grounds for at least 
investigation, I don't what is.
  So the Senators from Michigan, Senator Peters, Senator Stabenow, have 
come to the floor of the Senate and said to America: Will you help 
Flint, MI? It is right that they do so. I have been fortunate to serve 
in the House and Senate for many years. I cannot tell you how many 
times Senators from States all across the Nation have asked that same 
question: Will you help us in Louisiana? Will you help us in Alabama? 
Will you help us in Texas?
  There is hardly a State that has not come to the floor of the Senate 
asking for help. Yet, for reasons I cannot explain, the Republican 
majority in the Senate is resisting this idea. Almost 100,000 people 
were forced to live without access to clean water in their homes. They 
could not turn on their faucets in the morning to make breakfast or to 
take a shower, as all of us do. They started their day by waiting in 
long lines for bottled water to feed and bathe their kids, to take 
showers, and to stay healthy. They started rationing the water.
  The elderly and disabled who could not make it to a pickup location 
for bottled water, they were left with the option of continuing to use 
water they know was poisoning their bodies. This is a disaster by any 
definition. I cannot understand why there is not more understanding and 
empathy from my colleagues when it comes to Flint, MI. It could happen 
anywhere. If it happened, would you hesitate for a moment as a Member 
of the Senate to ask for help?
  Nine thousand children exposed to lead poisoning has been called an 
earmark by the critics of our Senators from Michigan. They said it is 
just special interest legislation to try to help these victims. That is 
hard to imagine, that it could reach that level in criticizing this 
effort. Just like those who suffered from tornadoes and hurricanes, 
these families did nothing to deserve it. Just as the Federal 
Government always helps when Americans are hit by disasters, we should 
do it in Flint.
  There were no complaints last May when the Federal Government 
declared an emergency and reached out to the residents of Texas to help 
them rebuild their lives after a tornado hit. So I am wondering if the 
Republican Presidential candidate from Texas is willing to step up, the 
junior Senator from Texas, and ask for the same level of Federal 
assistance for Flint, MI, that he asked for his own State.
  This crisis is not the fault of the kids, the pregnant women who 
still call Flint home. Their only crime was living in a city that was 
so poorly mismanaged by the Michigan State government. Their only 
crime, if there was one, was being the victims of cheap, dirty water. 
These kids and pregnant women are the most vulnerable when it comes to 
lead contamination. We are not going to know for years the extent of 
the damage, but we know there will be damage.
  Many of them live in homes that have been found to have 10 times the 
EPA limits for lead in drinking water. The Senator from Michigan, Ms. 
Stabenow, yesterday told us that some of the lead samples reached the 
level of toxic dumps, so far beyond the level that is acceptable for 
human consumption. This means a generation of Flint kids are in danger 
of suffering brain damage, developmental delays, and behavior issues 
for the rest of their lives.
  To add insult to injuries, when mothers came to the State nurse to 
fight for their children, they were met with apathy. Listen to what 
they were told:

       It's just a few IQ points. . . . It's not the end of the 
     world.

  This is supposedly a quote from a State nurse. The Flint water crisis 
truly is a tragedy. We need to step forward. It does not just mean 
funding. It reminds us of the importance of clean drinking water that 
we all take for granted. When I think of all of the efforts on the 
floor of the Senate to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency 
and to remove their authority to deal with issues involving clean 
water, it is hard to imagine that they could envision what happened in 
Flint, because having access to clean water should not be determined by 
your ZIP Code or your government. I hope my Republican colleagues will 
work with us on a bipartisan basis, the way we always do it when it 
comes to disasters that hurt innocent people.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 1361]]

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as all of our colleagues know, we have 
been working very hard to come together around a reasonable path to 
provide some support and assistance to the people of Flint, MI, who got 
up this morning--if they took a shower, it was with bottled water. If 
they were getting breakfast for their children, if a mom was mixing 
baby food formula, it was with bottled water.
  That has gone on now, for some people, 18 months or more. I mean, 
originally, they were told the water was safe, and they were drinking 
it and then found incredibly high lead levels in their children. Now it 
is bottled water. We have businesses downtown who have gone to the 
expense of creating their own water systems that are totally safe, but 
no one will come. Doors are closing.
  We have small businesses in neighborhoods--we have a revitalization 
effort in downtown Flint that has been really quite extraordinary. The 
chamber, a wide variety of organizations, the University of Michigan-
Flint, a whole range of groups investing in downtown Flint.
  This is all collapsing because of the fact that people are afraid to 
come and to drink the water or to eat food mixed with the water, even 
though our businesses downtown are doing things to rectify this right 
now. The citizens of Flint, rightly, are in a position where they have 
been told that the water was safe to drink. They gave it to their 
children. It wasn't. They are poisoned.
  Now they are in a situation where they have great despair and great 
anger. I share in both of those feelings, a multitude of feelings, as 
does my friend and colleague Senator Peters. We are joined together in 
our commitment on a whole range of efforts to be able to help the 
children and families of Flint. There was one report--by the way, this 
is what the water looks like--brown, smells.
  There was one story on the news of a house where they went to talk 
with folks and looked at the lead levels. It was above toxic waste dump 
levels. I talked to a mom who talked about--and I heard another mom as 
well, being interviewed, saying: You know, I took my children off of 
what we call pop in Michigan, other people call it soda, Coke, Pepsi, 
because I was told that was not healthy for my children. So when my 
children were playing last summer, I told them to drink water to 
hydrate because I did not want them getting the extra sugar, the 
ingredients from pop. Now I know I was poisoning my children.
  I can only imagine what that mom feels right now. We have a lot of 
infrastructure problems around the country, no question. We have 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle working together on various 
proposals that I support to deal long term with infrastructure.
  But this is way beyond that. This is an entire city of 100,000 people 
who have poisoned water because of decisions that none of them made. We 
can talk later about whose fault it is. There is certainly culpability 
and accountability. But right now we are focused on helping the people 
who had nothing to do with creating this. It is 100,000 people. The 
entire system has lead in it. Some levels are thousands of points 
higher than is acceptable. No lead is acceptable, but some of it is 
higher than a toxic waste belt.
  So we are on the floor asking to help the children of Flint by doing 
what we do all the time. We just step up as Americans and help a 
community rebuild their water system. There is a lot more to do. We are 
so grateful for colleagues who have reached out to say we want to help 
in a variety of ways--with their education needs, nutrition needs, and 
health care needs,--but the basic issue is fixing the water system so 
that the people of Flint have the dignity that we have of knowing that 
when they turn on the faucet there is going to be clean water.
  You have probably seen the picture, but in this example in Time 
magazine, this is a child whose mom was bathing her children, and there 
are rashes. We have seen rashes, sores, hair falling out, and lead 
levels because a community drinking water system has been decimated.
  Americans responded across the country by sending bottled water, and 
people are very grateful for that. But we also know Americans support 
and join us by saying bottled water is not enough. This baby cannot be 
bathed in bottled water every day for years and years and years.
  I had one citizen say to me: Ma'am, I can't take a shower in bottled 
water. We have to support fixing the infrastructure. We do that all the 
time.
  So what we have done--and I appreciate the chair of the Energy 
Committee working with us. She spent a lot of time--as has the ranking 
member, who has been ferocious in her support, for which we are so 
grateful--trying to work this out. Originally, we thought we had a path 
forward. Then there were procedural issues that came up. Yesterday we 
thought we had another path forward that would give us bipartisan 
support on a solution that we could get done and passed here. Then that 
was paused. I am not exactly sure why that happened, but that was 
paused.
  So today we are asking for colleagues to give us some more time. We 
have very key people in this Chamber who are now stepping up to give us 
additional ideas on how we could get this fixed. We can do this quickly 
if there is the will to do that. So we are asking colleagues to give us 
more time.
  As we know, the cloture vote in front of us today is to basically 
shut off amendments and go to the next step in third reading. What we 
are saying is give us some time. There are other issues that need to be 
resolved as well, certainly issues with working men and women around 
Davis-Bacon laws. There are other issues. We know that we can come to a 
resolution if there is the political will and a little more time, so 
that it is not just some bogus proposal. We have had things thrown out 
that don't solve the problem. We are not looking for something that 
just gives somebody political cover. We have resisted a lot of folks 
who would love just to make this a political issue. These children 
should not be a political football.
  I think Members of this body know that Senator Peters and I are 
people who want to get things done. We work across the aisle every 
single day. If we wanted to blow this up as a political issue, believe 
me, there would be a different way to do it, and the story writes 
itself.
  We are asking people to care and see these children like you see your 
own children. These children, these families have been ignored and not 
seen. We see them. Their faces are burned in my memory. We are asking 
colleagues to see them, to hold them with as much value as you would 
children in your own family and in the States that you represent. That 
is what we are asking--nothing more, nothing less.
  We have not proposed that the Federal Government take full 
responsibility on cost--far from it. In fact, we have been told by 
colleagues that we have not proposed enough. We have been willing, in 
fact, to come to an agreement on something that is less than half of 
what we originally asked for.
  But these children deserve the dignity of knowing we will step up and 
help them. Too many of these children--9,000 of them under the age of 6 
and a whole lot of many more thousands above the age of 6--are going to 
be set back and not have the opportunity to be all they can be. How 
many scientists, doctors, business people, and teachers are we going to 
lose because of lead poisoning in this community?
  It doesn't go away. I have learned more than I have ever wanted to 
know about lead. I didn't know that once it enters the body, it never 
goes away. So the children who are poisoned are going to have to live 
with this, and the best we can do is mitigate it through nutrition and 
through other strategies.

[[Page 1362]]

But they deserve to know that we are going to fix this, and we can't 
begin to deal with it unless the water system works. That is all we are 
asking for.
  Today, because we know there is a path, people of good will have been 
trying to get it done. We need a little more time. I think these 
children deserve a little more time. I think these families deserve a 
little more time.
  Let us get this together. If we vote next week, next Tuesday, we will 
be OK. How many kids, how many bottles of water--how many bottles will 
be used between now and next Tuesday by the people of Flint?
  We can take a couple of extra days to do something that will 
dramatically change the opportunity for our future in a city that is as 
important as any other city in our country. So that is what we are 
asking for. We are grateful that our colleagues are standing with us--
our colleagues on our side of the aisle--to give us more time.
  We are hoping that the leadership will decide to give us that time so 
that we can say to this child: We see you, we hear you, we care about 
you, and we are doing our part in the Senate to make things better.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to oppose the upcoming cloture vote on the Energy 
Policy Modernization Act. This is not because I think this is a bad 
bill. In fact, I know this bill is the result of months of hard work on 
both sides of the aisle, and it contains many provisions that will move 
our economy forward.
  I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member 
Cantwell, including their willingness to include bipartisan legislation 
that I offered with Senators Alexander and Stabenow to support the 
development of next-generation clean vehicle technologies. While I 
sincerely hope that we are able to advance this bill out of the Senate, 
it is simply too soon to cut off debate and invoke cloture.
  Senator Stabenow, Senator Cantwell, and I have been negotiating with 
our Republican colleagues to secure critical assistance for the city of 
Flint, MI, whose residents are continuing to suffer from a manmade 
disaster. Nearly 2 years ago, an unelected emergency manager appointed 
by Michigan's Governor changed the city of Flint's water to a source of 
the Flint River in an attempt to save money while the city prepared to 
transition to a new regional water authority.
  After switching away from clean water sourced from the Detroit water 
department, Flint residents began to receive improperly treated Flint 
River water, long known to be contaminated and potentially very 
corrosive. Brown or yellow water poured from Flint faucets that tasted 
and smelled terrible. This water wasn't just disgusting, it turned out 
to be poisonous. This corrosive water leached lead from aging but 
previously stable infrastructure.
  A generation of children in Flint are now at risk for the severe 
effects of lead exposure, which can cause long-term development 
problems, nervous system damage, and decreased bone and muscle growth. 
Even though Flint is no longer pulling its water from the contaminated 
river and is back to drawing safe Lake Huron water, the recently 
damaged pipes and infrastructure contaminate the water before it pours 
from the tap.
  Flint residents are unable to use their showers and need to wash 
themselves with baby wipes. Some walk as far as 2 miles to pick up 
bottled water to drink--the same bottled water they use to cook and to 
brush their teeth. This is simply not sustainable.
  Flint needs the support of all levels of government to overhaul its 
damaged water infrastructure and help the children of Flint, who will 
be dealing with the health effects of lead exposure for decades to 
come.
  What makes America so exceptional is its resiliency and the unity of 
our people in the face of a tragedy or a crisis. While Flint has faced 
decades of economic hardship, it is now facing a full-blown crisis, and 
now is the time for all of us to pull together.
  On Monday, I heard from a woman who was on the verge of tears as she 
discussed her fears of the health conditions that her children face.
  Yesterday I met another mom from Flint who brought a baby bottle 
filled with brown water that she poured from her tap--and brought it to 
Washington--to show my colleagues and Congress just how immediate a 
public health threat this public crisis is. This image that appeared on 
the cover of Time magazine is clearly a haunting cry for help.
  I ask my colleagues to look into those eyes and to hear that cry, to 
see that cry for help. I believe that if any of my colleagues saw this 
tragedy such as we are seeing in our home State--Senator Stabenow and 
I--they would be standing here doing everything in their power to 
deliver assistance. Whether the crisis is natural or manmade, it simply 
doesn't matter. This is a crisis.
  It is also important to know that this crisis has raised questions 
about the safety of our Nation's infrastructure. It is possible that 
other communities could be affected.
  While other communities may not suffer a crisis like Flint, across 
the country communities are learning about the vulnerabilities of their 
own water supply and what may happen in the future.
  I should also reiterate that the proposal Senator Stabenow and I have 
been negotiating would provide funding for any State that has had an 
emergency declaration related to lead or other contamination in public 
drinking water systems. So it is not just about Flint. This is about 
any community that is suffering from contamination of their drinking 
water.
  While we often talk about crumbling roads or bridges, hundreds, if 
not thousands of American cities, towns, and villages have aging water 
infrastructure and lead pipes.
  Should one of our colleague's communities experience a similar crisis 
in in the coming months, this funding we are fighting for today will be 
available to them as well.
  Now is the time for action and to help the families of Flint. I hope 
that we can reach a resolution on our negotiations with our Republican 
colleagues, but we are not quite there yet. I urge all of my colleagues 
to oppose cloture on this bill until we have a deal.
  Whether in Flint or elsewhere in America, we have a responsibility to 
care for our children. We must repair the trust Flint residents have 
lost in the ability of government officials to protect them and provide 
the most basic of all services.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in our efforts to help Flint 
recover from this unnecessary, manmade disaster.
  Standing up for the children of this country is not a Republican or a 
Democratic issue, and I hope that today we show the American people 
that we can come together at times of crisis. This is common ground on 
which we can stand together and stand up for the people and children of 
Flint.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I see that the distinguished Senator 
from Alaska has come to the floor as the manager of the bill. I have a 
statement I wish to give, but I didn't know if she needed to say 
something.
  Mr. President, I rise today to add my heartfelt and impassioned voice 
to call for action to help the people who live in Flint, MI, with this 
emergency situation. We have to be in it to deal with the emergency 
today and the long haul for tomorrow.
  This is of catastrophic, almost Armageddon, proportion. An American 
city has been poisoned because of a situation that has been self-
induced and self-inflicted. What is happening in Flint, MI, is 
appalling. It is a tragedy, it is a disgrace, and it will be for a long 
time. We need to fix the pipes right away, but the fixing of human 
beings is going to take a long, long time.
  Let's get real. We are now bogged down in parliamentary inertia. We 
are now bogged down in Washington wonky budgetary talk: Where are the 
offsets?

[[Page 1363]]

  What is this? What is this? Are we human beings? We take an oath to 
defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but 
sometimes an enemy is a tragedy. It can come from--God knows--a 
hurricane or tornado, and we rush in to help. If this had been a 
terrorist attack, oh, my gosh, we would be willing to go to war to 
defend America. Well, we need to go to the edge of our chair to help 
Flint. My gosh.
  The Senators from Michigan are looking for $400 million. That is no 
small amount of money, but I bring to my colleague's attention that it 
is the price of four F-35s--four F-35s that are supposed to protect 
America. Good for that. But right now I think the people of Michigan 
would say they would like to have the help they need. If we are talking 
about a threat to the people, the threat is here.
  Now, where are we? We have to deal with this. I am the vice chair of 
the Appropriations Committee. I say to my colleagues: Guess what, gang. 
All this budgetary stuff, all the battles with sequester and so on--we 
have only $800 million for safe drinking water, less than $1 billion. 
Flint today is asking for $400 million. We know it is a down payment. I 
say to my colleagues from Michigan, this could happen to any State. It 
could happen to any State because our infrastructure is not only aging 
in place, it is becoming dysfunctional in place and it is becoming 
dangerous in place--$800 million.
  Senators Stabenow and Peters have already shared horror stories. 
Gosh, they have done a great job speaking up for the people. I really 
compliment their advocacy. But we are all Flint. We are all Flint. The 
facts will speak for themselves as we talk about how the Flint water is 
contaminated because its pipes are permanently damaged. I understand 
that replacing Flint's corroded water infrastructure will cost anywhere 
from $700 million to $1.5 billion--approximately 500 miles of old iron 
pipe and thousands of lead service lines.
  It is an untold, big cost, but I am going to speak about the 
children. I am going to speak about the people. My gosh, what are you 
going through? I don't know how you can run a family. Well, you can't 
run a family on bottled water. You can't run a business on bottled 
water. You can't run a city on bottled water. I don't know how you 
wash. I don't know how you take care of your children. I wouldn't go 
anywhere in Flint unless I personally prepared my food or washed my 
clothes or saw what I was doing. I would be scared to death. I bet 
those parents are too. And what are we afraid of? We need to get there.
  Now I am going to talk about the children and the human cost. I say 
to my colleagues, both from Michigan and here, Senator Cardin and I 
know a lot about lead poisoning. We have been through really difficult 
problems in Baltimore because of lead paint poisoning and the legacy of 
paint used during World War II. We know what it does. It lowers IQs. It 
causes significant developmental delays. There are behavioral issues, 
including attention deficit disorder. It is a lifetime; that little boy 
or girl at 6 years old, God willing that they live to their 80s, they 
are going to carry this in their blood unless there are incredible 
medical breakthroughs for the rest of their lives. Senator Stabenow and 
I have discussed possible medical breakthroughs, but, gosh, we have to 
get on it. We have to get on it. Again, the effects of poisoning could 
take a lifetime.
  What I know about lead paint in Baltimore goes back to my days in 
city council where the paint was poisonous. They were coming into Johns 
Hopkins and the University of Maryland Medical Center, kids just so 
sick. I remember the story about a little boy who was so weak that on 
his way to school he lay down in the middle of the street. He was so 
depleted because of the consequences of lead paint.
  That is why I support the Stabenow amendment to provide $800 million 
in loans and grants and also to provide about $20 million to HHS to 
bring together the best thinking to have the best responses to the 
human infrastructure.
  I have worked on this issue for a long time, going back to Senator 
Kit Bond, my pal and partner when we had the old VA-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee. Senator Bond was a real champion on this. There can be a 
bipartisan solution. Let's make it an American solution. This isn't 
about ``you,'' and it is not about ``Democrats.'' It is about ``us.''
  As vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, I certainly want to 
work with my colleagues on how we can do this. But let's get the lead 
out of the pipes, let's get the lead out of the water, let's get the 
lead out of the way the Senate has functioned and move to make a down 
payment on this.
  Mr. President, I really want us to understand we have to solve this 
problem.
  I will conclude with this. I just want to say something to the 
mothers of America: We need you right now. The mothers of Flint need 
you. The mothers of Flint need you. The fathers of Flint need you. The 
mothers and fathers of Flint need you. If you are a mother or father 
anywhere, you could be a mother or father in Flint. Let's organize 
ourselves in the most effective way to solve this problem, and let's 
begin to heal the critical infrastructure so we begin to prevent this 
from happening in any other American city.
  Mr. President, today I wish to support an amendment filed by my 
friend and colleague Senator Collins that would require the Department 
of Energy to identify a mitigation strategy to help protect our 
critical infrastructure in the electric sector from a catastrophic 
cyber attack. When it comes to our national security, there is no such 
thing as partisanship, and we have to work together on a bipartisan 
basis to ensure our Nation is safe and protected. We need to act, and 
we need to act in the defense of the United States of America. The 
Senate has a great opportunity today to pass an amendment to help 
protect and defend our Nation's critical infrastructure from a 
devastating cyber attack.
  What do I mean by critical infrastructure? It is our electric power 
grid, our financial services, our water supplies, those things that are 
the bread and butter of keeping America, its business, and its families 
going. These are entities that are vital to the safety, health, and 
economic well-being of the American people; so we need to do our part 
to help keep our critical infrastructure hardened and resilient against 
attack.
  You don't have to be a science fiction enthusiast to understand how 
devastating an attack that disabled our power grid would be--millions 
without power. I am not worried that we will have to put away our 
iPhones; I am worried about vulnerable populations lacking heat in the 
dead of winter, about emergency responders who can't get calls, and 
about patients who need power for lifesaving medical devices.
  The possibility of an attack on our power grid is not far-fetched. We 
know that there are already attacks going on in our energy sector. The 
committee report accompanying this bill notes that one-third of 
reported cyber attacks involve the energy sector.
  But not only do I worry about an attack, I equally worry about our 
inertia, where we do nothing. I bring to the attention of the Senate 
that Jim Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, testified that 
the No. 1 cyber concern he has is an attack on our Nation's critical 
infrastructure, saying the greatest threat facing our country was in 
the cyber domain. His testimony is backed up by several intrusions into 
the industrial control systems of critical infrastructure, which are 
the computers that control operations of industrial processes, 
including energy plants. Just a couple of weeks ago, Marty Edwards, who 
runs the Department of Homeland Security's Industrial Control Systems 
Cyber Emergency Response Team, warned that he had seen an increase in 
attacks over the past year, saying systems are vulnerable because they 
are exposed to the Internet.
  Admiral Rogers, the Director of the National Security Agency, with 
responsibility for cyber space, testified in a hearing this summer that 
our country was at a ``5 or 6'' in preparedness for a cyber attack 
against our critical infrastructure.

[[Page 1364]]

  In November 2015, Richard Ledgett, the Deputy Director of the NSA, 
was asked if foreign actors already have the capability to shut down 
key U.S. infrastructure during a CNN interview, such as the financial 
sector, national gas distribution and energy sector, transportation 
network, and air traffic control system. His response was 
``Absolutely.''
  We don't want a digital Pearl Harbor. We can act now. We can act when 
it is within our power to protect, defend, and deter these attacks. 
That is what I want. I want us to have a sense of urgency. If we wait 
for another major cyber attack, we risk overreacting, overregulating, 
overspending, and over-legislating. The time to act is now.
  This amendment would take the commonsense approach of requiring the 
Federal agencies responsible for the cyber security of the electric 
grid to review those entities that matter most and to propose actions 
that can reduce the risk of a catastrophic attack that could cause 
thousands of deaths or a catastrophic blow to our economy and national 
defense.
  Congress has missed opportunities to improve our Nation's cyber 
preparedness, and we need to take action before a ``cyber 9/11'' 
occurs. Right now, our adversaries are watching us, and it looks like 
we are doing nothing--that when all is said and done, more gets said 
than gets done.
  Our adversaries don't have to spy on us. They can just look at the 
Senate floor and say, ``What the heck are they doing?'' You know what 
they are going to do? They are going to look at us and say, ``There 
they go again.'' Our own inability to pass legislation, our own 
partisan gridlock and deadlock emboldens our predatory enemies who know 
we have done nothing to strengthen vulnerable critical infrastructure 
by putting in place those hardened, resilient systems and policies to 
protect, defend, and deter.
  A cyber attack has the same intent as a traditional terrorist 
attack--to create chaos, to create civil instability, and to create 
economic catastrophe. Just think about a cyber attack in which our grid 
goes down. Think of a blackout in New York. Think of a blackout in 
Baltimore. When the Senate, at my urging, did the cyber exercise on 
what an attack would look like on our critical infrastructure, it 
showed what would happen. The stoplights go down, the lights go out in 
the hospitals, and the respirators go off. Business shuts down. 
Commerce shuts down, and 9-1-1 shuts down. America would be shut down, 
and we would be powerless and impotent to put it back on in any quick 
and expeditious manner.
  This happened in Ukraine in December 2015. Ukrainians lost power in 
what the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Ukrainian authorities 
assessed was a cyber attack. The attack caused a blackout for tens of 
thousands of people, and industry experts identified this as the first-
known power outage caused by a cyber attack. This is no longer a 
theoretical risk; it is here, and it is real.
  Think of the chaos of no electricity. We will all go through 
blackouts. Snowzilla roared through the east coast last week leaving 
hundreds of thousands without power. No matter how delayed Pepco, BG&E, 
and Dominion were at responding, they got it back on.
  But what happens if they can't get it back on? What happens if they 
can't get it back on for weeks or longer? Remember, the attack is to 
humiliate, intimidate, and cripple. Humiliate? Making us look 
powerless. Intimidate? To show there is this power that can cripple our 
functioning as a society. I find it chilling.
  I have been immersed in cyber issues since I was elected to the 
Senate. Our cyber warriors at the National Security Agency are in 
Maryland, and I have been working with the NSA to ensure signals 
intelligence was a national security focus even before cyber was a 
method of warfare. In my role on the Intelligence Committee, I served 
on the Cyber Working Group, which developed findings to guide Congress 
on getting cyber governance right, protecting civil liberties, and 
improving the cyber workforce.
  As vice chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, I have insisted 
on a robust cyber budget and fought to increase our cyber security 
investments in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus to keep us safe, putting 
funds in the Federal checkbook for critical cyber security agencies on 
the order of $12 billion. These include the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, which investigates cyber crime; the Department of 
Homeland Security, which safeguards critical infrastructure in cyber 
space; the Department of Defense, or DoD, which defends our homeland, 
national interests, and DoD networks against cyber attacks and includes 
intelligence and cyber agencies, like the National Security Agency, 
U.S. Cyber Command, the Central Intelligence Agency, and Intelligence 
Advanced Research Projects Activity, which are coming up with the new 
ideas to keep our country safe; the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, which works with the private sector to develop standards 
for cyber security technology; and the National Science Foundation, 
which researches ways to secure our Nation. These funds are critical to 
building the workforce and providing the technology and resources to 
make our cyber security smarter, safer, and more secure.
  Good people in this body have been working on both sides of the aisle 
for some time now. So I conclude my remarks by saying to my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle: Let's do what we need to do to protect and 
defend the United States of America and adopt this amendment now. 
Working together, we can make our Nation safer and stronger and show 
the American people we can cooperate to get an important job done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Energy 
Policy Modernization Act that we have been considering on the Senate 
floor.
  This bill has a lot of good things in it. It includes provisions to 
support a wide array of energy technologies, from improving 
conventional energy sources to promoting renewables to advancing long-
overdue policies to increase energy efficiency. It supports energy 
infrastructure, which is critical for energy exporting States like 
Montana. It includes specific provisions that I have worked on to 
promote geothermal development, and I thank Chairman Murkowski and 
Ranking Member Cantwell for including them. In the course of this 
debate, we have adopted amendments to boost research and development 
overall and to clarify policies to recognize the value of energy 
development from forest biomass. I am also hopeful we will also be able 
to add provisions from the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development 
Act that I have championed for years.
  Furthermore, this bill includes permanent reauthorization of the land 
and water conservation fund with my making public lands public 
provision to increase access to our public lands for hunters, fishers, 
and others who want to enjoy them. Although it does not provide the 
money to fully fund the LWCF, a permanent authorization would help us 
avoid letting the fund lapse, as it did last fall for over 2 months. It 
also invests in our national parks as we celebrate the centennial year 
of the Park Service. Though I may not agree with everything in the 
bill, these provisions I have highlighted are tremendously important to 
Montana.
  But we are also in the midst of a developing environmental 
catastrophe. The people of Flint, MI, including as many as 9,000 
children, have been exposed to lead-contaminated water for a prolonged 
period due to decisions made by the State of Michigan in the interest 
of saving money. A generation of kids in this community could see 
lifelong effects from a completely avoidable and manmade disaster. As 
we know all too well in Montana, clean water is far more valuable than 
money. It is completely unacceptable that this has happened.
  In Montana, there are places where we are still living with the 
legacy of environmental pollution. In Butte, Anaconda, Libby, and 
elsewhere, long-term cleanups continue from mining

[[Page 1365]]

development, industrial activities, and the tragedy of widespread 
asbestos use. The human health costs of these disasters have been 
tremendous. We must not stand by and watch another community and more 
kids be affected by manmade disasters without stepping in to help. If 
we have a chance to stop this particular catastrophe before it gets any 
worse, we ought to. We have to.
  And that is why I am disappointed that we are not currently able to 
provide meaningful and immediate assistance to help fix the pipes and 
address broader impacts. I hope we can figure out how to pass this 
bill. Let's stay on this bill, let's find a way to do right by folks in 
Flint, and let's pass this bill.


                    Amendment No. 3140, As Modified

  Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a bipartisan amendment 
offered by Senator Collins that was adopted this week. I support this 
amendment to help bolster forest biomass in our renewable energy 
portfolio and provide consistency across Federal programs. Our Nation 
has long depended on the flow of wood and fiber from our forests. Now, 
we are recognizing the role of forest biomass in lowering our carbon 
emissions and increasing our energy independence. When harvested 
sustainably, the carbon benefits of forest biomass can be great. Carbon 
emitted to the atmosphere from forest biomass is eventually removed 
again with forest growth, and this cycle can happen again and again.
  Forest biomass is also good for jobs, particularly in rural 
communities. Recognizing the carbon benefits of forest biomass can 
increase its value. This will help keep our Nation's forests healthy by 
making it economically feasible to conduct forest health treatments and 
reduce hazardous fuels that threaten our communities. It will also help 
the timber industry by allowing them to use more wood that would 
otherwise be wasted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Energy Committee has worked really 
hard over the past year to develop the broad bipartisan energy 
legislation that is before us. Members in both parties focused on areas 
of common ground, worked across the aisle, and developed legislation 
that ultimately earned the support of more than 80 percent of their 
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Here is what some of our Democratic friends have had to say about the 
broad bipartisan Energy Policy Modernization Act.
  The junior Senator from New Mexico said this bill ``is critical to 
protecting'' his State's ``treasured public lands and outdoor 
heritage.''
  The junior Senator from Minnesota pointed out that ``several key 
measures'' he wrote are in this bill and that this bill represents ``a 
good step'' forward.
  The junior Senator from Hawaii noted that her proposals in the bill 
``will bolster energy reliability and security'' in her State.
  The senior Senator from West Virginia said he was able to include 
``critical measures'' in the bill to help coal jobs and low-cost 
electricity in his State. ``It is critical for America to establish an 
all-of-the-above energy portfolio that includes all of our domestic 
resources,'' he said, and, ``I truly believe that this bipartisan bill 
will bring us one step closer to achieving U.S. energy independence.'' 
That is the senior Senator from West Virginia, a Democrat.
  The top Democrat on the Energy Committee said:

       If we want to continue to compete in th[e] global economy, 
     we must continue to improve energy productivity and that is 
     exactly what this bill does. The Energy Policy Modernization 
     Act will help ensure that the nation is eliminating energy 
     wastage and making improvements in new technologies that will 
     improve our competitiveness for the 21st century.

  That was the ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee. She worked 
hard with Senator Murkowski on the Energy Committee to develop this 
bill, and they have worked together to manage it here on the floor as 
well. Under their leadership, more than 30 amendments from both 
Democrats and Republicans have already been adopted.
  For example, one of our Democratic friends offered an amendment that 
he said would ``strengthen this bipartisan energy bill and help us move 
towards a 21st century economy.'' The Senate adopted it.
  Another of our Democratic friends said his amendment would ``empower 
us with knowledge'' and help us ``make informed decisions to protect 
consumers, key sectors of our economy and our energy security.'' The 
Senate adopted that amendment too.
  There is a lot for both parties to like in this bill. The Energy 
Policy Modernization Act is the result of a year's worth of 
constructive and collaborative work. So let's not risk that progress. 
Let's keep working together and vote today to advance this measure. If 
we want to help Americans produce more energy, let's vote to advance 
the measure. If we want to help Americans pay less for energy, let's 
vote to advance it. If we want to help Americans save energy, let's 
vote to advance it. And if we want to help bolster our country's long-
term national security, one more time, let's vote to advance it.
  I would note one more thing the top Democrat on the Energy Committee 
recently said: ``Sometimes we can be cynical about this place and what 
we can get done; then, all of a sudden, we have a great opportunity to 
move something forward.''
  She continued:

       This is a milestone for the Senate. The fact that we are 
     considering energy policy legislation on the Senate floor in 
     a bipartisan bill, or any bill, for the first time since 2007 
     is a tremendous milestone.

  That is the ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee.
  So let's bring this bill to the finish line. Let's vote to bring 
America's energy policies in line with today's demands so we can 
prepare for tomorrow's opportunities too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I also want to, as I did before, commend 
those working on this bill, and I share the majority leader's feeling 
that a lot of positive progress has been made. We are just not done 
yet. So while I commend, and have commended, the chair and the ranking 
member, we have important issues and an energy bill that deals with 
energy, water, and all kinds of issues. Certainly addressing what is 
happening in Flint, MI, with the catastrophe is appropriate. We just 
want to know that we have an agreement--not vote, but an agreement--to 
get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my 
colleagues raising attention to the issue in Flint, MI. I think we have 
had good, constructive discussions, not only very intensely yesterday, 
but working with the two Senators from Michigan on this issue for 
several months right now. As the Senator said, the discussions are 
still ongoing, and I want to speak to where we are in that process.
  I would like to start my comments this morning by recognizing that we 
are very close to the time that has been set for this first cloture 
vote on this broad bipartisan bill.
  As we approach it, I want to follow on the majority leader's comments 
in terms of reminding Members of what we have incorporated within this 
measure, to reiterate the strong bipartisan support that our bill has 
drawn, and to lay out what I believe is our best path to final passage.
  This Energy Policy Modernization Act, as I have mentioned, is more 
than a year's worth of hard work by those of us who serve on the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, it has been the result of Member-to-
Member conversations, listening sessions, legislative hearings, 
bipartisan negotiations, and then we had a marathon 3-day markup in 
July. At the end of that markup, we moved it out by a vote of 18-to-4. 
It was pretty strong support--10 Republicans and 8 Democrats in favor.
  The reason the bill passed out of the committee on such a strong 
bipartisan basis was not just because of our commitment to good 
process. We matched

[[Page 1366]]

that with an equal commitment to good policy. I think that is important 
to recognize. It was processed, but it was also policy.
  We worked together to include the priorities from Members of both 
sides of the aisle as well as from within the committee and outside of 
the committee. We agreed to include a bill to streamline LNG exports 
that was written by Senator Barrasso and 17 other bipartisan Members. 
We agreed to include a major efficiency bill headed up by Senators 
Portman and Shaheen and 13 other bipartisan Members. We agreed to 
improve our mineral security, an effort that I have led with Senators 
Risch, Heller and Crapo. We agreed to promote the use of hydropower, a 
clean renewable resource that is favored by almost everybody in this 
Chamber. We agreed to expedite the permitting of natural gas pipelines 
without sacrificing any environmental review or public participation. 
This was an effort that was led by Senator Capito.
  We agreed to a new oil and gas permitting pilot program, one of 
several ideas that Senator Hoeven contributed. We took up a proposal 
from Senator Collins to boost the efficiency of schools. We agreed to 
approve our Nation's cyber security based on legislation from Senator 
Risch and Senator Heinrich. We also made innovation a key priority to 
promote the development of new technologies. As part of that, we agreed 
to reauthorize many of the energy-related portions of the America 
COMPETES Act, thanks to the leadership of Senator Alexander. We agreed 
to take commonsense steps to promote geothermal energy, which is a key 
issue to Senator Wyden, certainly myself, and so many others. We agreed 
to promote vehicle innovation based on a bipartisan measure from 
Senator Alexander and our friends from Michigan, Senator Peters, 
Senator Stabenow. We agreed to reauthorize the coal R&D program at the 
Department of Energy based on yet another bipartisan proposal from 
Senators Manchin, Capito, and Portman.
  In the context of our broader bill--and only in the context of the 
broader bill--we also agreed to reauthorize and reform the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. What we came away with was a good, timely 
bipartisan measure that has a very real chance of being the first 
Energy bill to be signed into law in over 8 years. It is a measure that 
will help America produce more energy. It will help Americans save 
money, and it will help ensure that the energy can be transported from 
where it is produced to where it is needed. It will bolster our 
Nation's status as the best innovator in the world, something we should 
all aim to support. It will boost our economy, especially our 
manufacturers, and it will cement our status as a global energy 
superpower.
  As I said, it does all of this without raising taxes, without 
imposing any new mandates, and without adding to the Federal deficit. I 
think because of all of that, that is why you have seen the good, 
strong support for this measure. That was our base bill. That was where 
we started. When we came to the floor, it got better. Our starting 
point at the Senate floor was good and strong. Since we have taken up 
the debate for a week now, we have continued to work in a very open, 
very bipartisan, sometimes a little bit lengthy and tedious process, 
but it works.
  We committed to an open amendment process and most Members have held 
back on, whether you call them gotchas or gimmes or poison pills, but 
there has been a great deal of cooperation. We voted on 38 amendments 
now. We have accepted 32 of the 38. We have added even more good ideas 
from even more Members to an already bipartisan bill.
  I will recount a few of the things we have done with that. We agreed 
to boost our Nation's efforts to develop advanced nuclear technologies. 
This was a great amendment led by Senators Crapo, Whitehouse, Risch, 
Booker, Hatch, Kirk, and Durbin. We voiced our strong support for 
carbon capture and utilization storage technologies thanks to an idea 
from Senators Heitkamp, Capito, Booker, Whitehouse, Manchin, Blunt, and 
Franken. We have reaffirmed the need for consistent Federal policies 
that recognize the carbon neutrality of forest biomass. This was an 
effort that was championed by Senators Collins, Klobuchar, Ayotte, 
King, Franken, Daines, Crapo, and Risch.
  You do not often see these large groups of Senators coming together 
in a way that we have seen on this bill. Some would look at the names I 
read off and say: I did not know that they had anything to work on. But 
these issues have brought them together. This truly has been a team 
effort, with Members reaching out to one another, lining up behind each 
other's ideas, working with Senator Cantwell and me to ensure their 
adoption.
  The best proof of that is simple review of our bill. Right now the 
Energy Policy Modernization Act includes priorities sponsored or 
cosponsored by at least 62 Members of the Senate. When was the last 
time we saw that level of cooperation and collaboration? Think about 
it. More than three-fifths of the Senate has contributed something to 
this Energy bill, and we are not done processing amendments yet. My 
staff and the staff of Senator Cantwell have been comparing notes about 
the feedback we have been getting outside the Chamber. What we found is 
that from the very time we started working through the committee 
process to our time on the Senate floor, a very wide range of 
individuals, businesses, groups have come out and supported the bill or 
certainly pieces of it. We have had provisions endorsed by major 
associations whose membership account for hundreds of companies and 
millions of American workers. This includes the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, American Chemistry Council, National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association, the Alliance of Automobile. We have also heard from labor 
groups--North America's Building Trades Union, the United Autoworkers, 
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. They have all weighed in with 
support for ideas that are included within the bill.
  We have a huge coalition from the Alliance to Save Energy to Seattle 
City Light that has welcomed the work we are doing on efficiency. I 
have gotten good, strong support from Alaskans from our Department of 
Natural Resources, the Alaska Power Association, the Bristol Bay Native 
Corporation, Cordova Electric Cooperative, and a whole lot more. As you 
might expect, we have also received great encouragement from the people 
who keep the lights on, who keep our fuel affordable, who help produce 
the materials that make modern life that much more enjoyable--whether 
it is the National Mining Association, American Exploration & Mining, 
the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, American Public Power 
Association, Edison Electric, and others.
  The reality is, those who have weighed in, in support of this measure 
are too many to name this morning, but that is a good problem to have 
when you are legislating that you have run out of time in outlining the 
coalitions that have come together in support.
  So that I do not get into any trouble this morning, I want to be 
clear that many of the groups and the entities I have listed have 
endorsed parts of the bill, not all of it. I am not suggesting that 
everyone who likes our work to streamline LNG Exports is automatically 
supportive of what we are doing to clean up the U.S. Code. That is 
entirely fair. Not everything in this is going to appeal to everyone.
  In a lot of ways, that is how things work in a place like the Senate. 
Not everyone likes every provision of this bill. I do not like every 
provision of this bill. Not everyone is getting everything they want. 
It is pretty tough to find a situation where you get 100 percent of 
everything you would want. This is not the bill I would have written on 
my own, but it is the bill we have written together first as a 
committee of 22 and now as a Senate working together.
  Our work has produced a good bill, a good bill worth debating, worth 
advancing, and worth passing. That brings us to the point where we are 
with the cloture vote we will soon take. This vote is on the first of 
two

[[Page 1367]]

cloture motions we will need to approve before we can move to final 
passage.
  There are two votes. There is one on the substitute amendment, and 
there is one on the underlying bill. This means this vote we will see 
very shortly is a means to advance debate, not to conclude it, on our 
Energy Policy Modernization Energy Act. It is also a choice. I think it 
is important to lay out clearly to Members where we are, what we are 
voting on this morning.
  By voting for cloture, Members will be ensuring that we remain on 
this bill for at least another 30 hours of legislative activity. You 
will be voting to continue this process, to continue this debate, and 
to continue processing amendments whether by voice, as we have done so 
many of them, or by rollcall vote that we hope to set up. You will also 
be giving us the time we need to focus on matters that are simply not 
settled yet.
  As we have heard from our colleagues from Michigan, there are some 
matters they wish to have resolved that are not yet settled, but this 
allows us that time to do that but to do this in a way that is going to 
be acceptable to the majority of our Members. The reality is, if you 
are not comfortable with where we are 30 hours from now, you can still 
vote against the next cloture motion that comes up. That is one choice, 
and that is going to be my choice. Here is the other: If you vote 
against cloture, you will be effectively voting not to prolong debate 
but to move us off this bipartisan bill. You will be voting to 
effectively be giving up on so much of what we have done, a year of 
process, agreement on almost 50 Energy bills that we have incorporated 
into this base bill, and the strong approval of 32 separate amendments 
and counting that we have advanced through the floor.
  I believe you will be voting to give up our best opportunity--
certainly our most immediate opportunity--to address the issue to help 
the people of Flint, MI, and in other parts of the country that may 
have similar issues. Every time I leave the Senate floor--at least this 
past week--I am swarmed by reporters who want to know what is going on, 
what is the latest discussion. What is going to happen with Flint? Is 
Flint going to bring this bill down?
  This morning I want to speak directly to this to let Members know 
what has gone on because we were not out here on the floor all day 
yesterday hashing things back and forth. We have been discussing very 
earnestly, and I believe very constructively, what our options are, how 
we can find a path forward that will yield a result, not just send a 
message but yield a result to help the people in Flint, MI.
  The first thing I will say is that I share the concern, the 
heartbreak for what the people of Flint, MI, have faced and are facing. 
It is a crisis. It is a tragedy. It is heartbreakingly avoidable. 
Unfortunately, we look at how we got here, and it is a failure of 
local, State, and Federal Governments to regulate and monitor that 
city's water supply.
  What has happened in Flint has hurt people. It is hurting children. 
It has damaged property. It has left families in a horrible 
predicament, through no fault of their own, where they cannot drink 
their tapwater, they cannot bathe their children. There is plenty of 
blame to go around here. I know my colleagues from Michigan would agree 
with me, but our job in the U.S. Senate is not to play this blame game. 
It is to own up to what that Federal role is because I believe there is 
that Federal role, and then on that basis do what we can to help and 
make sure that our response is proportionate to that role. So why then 
consider all of this in the context of an energy bill, you might ask, 
and it is a fair and legitimate question. Well, it is because this is 
the first piece of legislation that is on the floor since the extent of 
the crisis in Flint became clear to us.
  Senator Stabenow and I began discussions about the situation in Flint 
in very early December as we were trying to move through an omnibus 
bill to see if there was not something we might be able to address 
through the appropriations bill. Since that time, again, more has been 
learned, and we are here today with legislation that gives us an 
opportunity to consider it.
  I did not shy away from this discussion, as hard it was. I did not 
say: Hey, that is going to be a poison pill. I cannot deal with it. I 
said: Let us try to figure this out because if we do not address the 
situation, it is not going to go away. We have a role here. Let us 
figure out what that responsibility is, and let us engage in this 
conversation.
  Senator Cantwell and I have been fully engaged, most directly with 
the Senators in Michigan, trying to find a responsible path forward. 
The negotiations have been earnest, in good faith, and ongoing, but I 
think that there has been a little bit of confusion about the status of 
the negotiations. I want to outline where I believe we are right now.
  We have made headway on Federal assistance--something that we know 
cannot be borne by our Energy bill alone. We have found programs that 
could be good fits to provide aid.
  We also recognize that this is not Flint's burden alone, but there 
are other communities in other States, including my State, that face 
similar crises as a result of government failures. We hear about them 
as Members and talk about these situations. I believe the Senator from 
Maryland used the phrase ``We are all Flint.'' I think we all have 
situations--maybe not to the crisis proportion that they have in 
Michigan right now, where they needed a Presidential declaration, but 
we all recognize that we all have issues that are troubling us a great 
deal when it comes to how we provide safe drinking water for our 
families.
  Our problem is not about whether we should offset the cost of this 
assistance; it is how we do so in a manner that does not destroy the 
underlying Energy bill and does not violate the Constitution or the 
rules we have here in the Senate. I made myself very clear when we 
began, at the outset of the debate on this measure, that we have to 
make sure we do not have scoring issues with CBO, and we have to make 
sure there are no blue slip issues because that would kill the bill, 
and then where would we be? Then nobody would win in that scenario. In 
that scenario we would end up with no energy bill and nothing to 
address the situation in Flint.
  This morning I filed a second-degree amendment to provide support for 
the people of Flint. My amendment will make up to $550 million 
available, including $50 million which will be made immediately 
available for the people of Flint. What we are seeking to do here is 
bridge the gap between what has been proposed and what I believe the 
Senate can agree to. It requires that 90 percent of the money we 
provide be paid back over time. Its cost is fully offset with a pay-for 
that we have been working on back and forth with CBO and are confident 
that they will accept. It includes provisions--and we have been working 
with the Senators from Michigan on this issue--as they relate to EPA 
notification and a loan forgiveness, language that I think has been in 
different iterations of measures that have been going forward. I am 
told that the House is looking at that as well.
  That is where we are at this time as we are going into a cloture 
motion. I believe we have made progress. We are working constructively 
to help the people of Flint, and what this second-degree amendment 
would do is make $550 million available to them. It has been 
challenging. We have done a lot of hard work to get to this point, but 
I think we owe it to every American, whether you are in Flint or 
somewhere else, to do that work and overcome that challenge.
  We have gotten to where we are in the discussion. Again, we have the 
cloture motion going forward. We have been trying to make good 
progress. We have been trying to conduct an open and fair amendment 
process. We want to process more amendments this morning so that we can 
move to complete the bill.
  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to call up the following amendments and make them pending, and 
that is Stabenow amendment No. 3129; Murkowski second-degree on Flint, 
amendment No. 3282; Cantwell amendment

[[Page 1368]]

No. 3242; Flake amendment No. 3055; Flake amendment No. 3050; 
Murkowski-Cantwell amendment No. 3234; Isakson amendment No. 3202; 
Markey amendment No. 3232; and Cassidy amendment No. 3192.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I first 
want to thank the chair. She lists a lot of bipartisan efforts that 
have gone on. I know a lot of work has been done, but nowhere in that 
list have the needs of the folks of Flint been addressed, including the 
children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state her objection.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we want to get this solved and not just 
have votes that go down.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the chairman of 
the Energy Committee will yield for a question.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the chairman of the Energy Committee has 
done tremendous work with the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, to try 
to find some way to address the legitimate concerns we all share and 
have with what has happened in Flint, but I want to clarify some basic 
facts. I wish to ask for a comment or answer from the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska.
  Isn't it true that there is not yet a comprehensive assessment and 
plan in place by the State of Michigan or Flint as to how they might 
even spend this money at this point to address their concerns about 
lead in the water supply in Flint?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that there is an assessment and 
analysis that is due out, I believe, toward the end of next week. The 
State has been working aggressively to determine the costs, as well as 
how they would move forward with an action plan. That is my 
understanding.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Since there is no plan announced yet, or in place, it 
strikes me as putting the cart before the horse to say that the Senate 
ought to vote on a $600 million emergency appropriations deal to pay 
for a plan that has not yet been created or disclosed to the American 
people.
  I ask the Senator through the Chair, isn't it a fact that the State 
itself has already appropriated $40 million to deal with this issue on 
an emergency basis and the Obama administration has made available 
another $80 million through the EPA that is available to the State of 
Michigan to help Flint deal with this problem, so a total of roughly 
$120 million has already been made available?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I cannot speak to the accuracy of exactly how much has 
been made available to the State. It is my understanding that the State 
has received, through the EPA, the State's annual receipts from the 
EPA's clean water fund. I do not know if that is specific to Flint or 
whether that is the State's share, as the State of Texas receives and 
the State of Alaska receives. It is my understanding that the President 
did make that announcement.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator to yield for a 
question so we can share the information?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator is out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alaska if she would 
yield for one last question on topic.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Isn't it true that the Senators from Michigan made this 
demand for a $600 million earmark before a plan was actually put 
together by the State of Michigan or the city of Flint--either to 
analyze the problem or what the solution might look like and how much 
it might cost--and that the Senator from Alaska, in her capacity as the 
bill manager, has made an effort to come up with some compromises? In 
fact, I believe the Senator from Alaska mentioned a compromise that 
would include upfront funds of $50 million plus a loan, in effect, that 
would be paid back over time.
  I ask the Senator, doesn't it make sense--because there is no plan in 
place and because there is money already available for Flint and 
Michigan to begin to address this problem--for us to take our time and 
handle any additional requests for funding from Flint or Michigan 
through the regular appropriations process? I believe the Senator is 
the chair of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over these issues, 
and I am just wondering whether that wouldn't be a more orderly, 
responsible process than a $600 million earmark before a plan is even 
in place.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Well, to answer the Senator's question, I have been 
working aggressively and constructively with the Senators from Michigan 
to try to figure out how we can provide for a level of response. I do 
not doubt the anxiety and urgency the people in Flint must feel. This 
is a difficult situation to be in, and it is not a situation that any 
of us would want any of our constituents to be in. I think there is an 
imperative from those who are seeking this assistance that--given that 
there is a Federal role, how can we help to facilitate the appropriate 
response on the Federal side? If there is a way to help expedite 
funding to move toward a solution, I think that is appropriate.
  I think the Senator's question is, Are we jumping ahead here if we do 
not know how much? I think it is fair to say that the original 
estimates were based on the disaster declaration the State had 
requested. I think it is going to be critical that we understand what 
the costs will be, and hopefully we will learn about that next week. I 
know they have been working aggressively to determine that.
  We also need to know what the spend plan is because we saw what 
happened with the stimulus. You can almost get too much money--if that 
is possible--going in, and you cannot spend it in the way it is best 
needed. I think we want to be thoughtful and responsible stewards of 
the taxpayers' dollars in recognizing that, and I think we want to also 
recognize that the role we have ought to be a proportionate role, and 
how we can be working to advance that is something we have been 
attempting to do.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the chair yield for a question?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. In a moment.
  The solution I have put down this morning is one that I think 
recognizes that there is assistance that is needed, and this is where 
the opportunity to access loans through the WIFIA Program that will be 
available not only to the State of Michigan but to other States should 
they be in a similar situation--so that avoids the earmark. Because I, 
too, want to make sure we have a situation where we do not allow this 
to continue in Michigan, but we also do not want to see it in other 
States as well. So we do that through opportunities for loans through 
WIFIA. But the direct assistance, which would be $50 million in 
addition to whatever may be out there already from the EPA and through 
the State, I think is a reasonable approach. Again, it is one that is 
legitimately paid for, and I think that is an important part of our 
responsibility here, as well as to make sure we not only address the 
urgency of the situation but also the responsibility we have not only 
to the people of Flint but to all of our constituencies.
  Mr. President, if I could just conclude, and then I will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the distinguished leader yield for a question? I 
have been asking for the opportunity to ask a question, and I ask 
unanimous consent to ask a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Is the chair aware that the dollars we have asked for 
require a comprehensive plan from the

[[Page 1369]]

State and that at this point only $28 million--most going to health--
has been allocated to the State?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Through the Chair, I am aware that what you have 
required, as well as what we have been working on jointly, does require 
an action plan that describes the spend-down and how that would be 
allocated. It is my understanding that it will be very helpful to have 
that analysis from the State. That will be forthcoming--hopefully, next 
week.
  Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to continue the discussion.
  I thank the Chair.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 
     2953, the substitute amendment to S. 2012, an original bill 
     to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the 
     United States, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Mike 
           Crapo, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Steve Daines, 
           Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Pat Roberts, John Hoeven, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, John Thune, James E. Risch, Lamar 
           Alexander, John McCain, Rob Portman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2953, as amended, offered by the Senator from Alaska, Ms. 
Murkowski, to S. 2012, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Manchin
     McCain
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--50

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cotton
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
      Whitehouse
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
50. One Senator responded ``present.''
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     218, S. 2012, an original bill to provide for the 
     modernization of the energy policy of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Mike 
           Crapo, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Steve Daines, 
           Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Pat Roberts, John Hoeven, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, John Thune, James E. Risch, Lamar 
           Alexander, John McCain, Rob Portman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2012, an original bill to provide for the modernization of the energy 
policy of the United States, and for other purposes, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Manchin
     McCain
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
54.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I wish to say to my colleagues that 
Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell are going to continue to work 
over the weekend on the path forward. Hopefully, we will be able to 
salvage this important bipartisan legislation in the next few days.
  In the meantime, the next vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

                          ____________________