[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13639-13643]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 13640]]

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 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.

[[Page 13641]]

  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 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

[[Page 13642]]

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 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

[[Page 13643]]

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 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.

                          ____________________