[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7172-7176]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have waited to give this speech for 
weeks, waited for the rhetoric to die down after the untimely and 
unexpected passing of Justice Scalia, and waited to speak about the sad 
state of affairs out of a hope that no more words would be necessary 
before this Senate acted.
  It was my fervent hope that the initial reaction to Justice Scalia's 
death was due to the shock and the grief at the loss of a conservative 
icon.
  I, like many of my colleagues, were publicly mourning the loss, and I 
assumed that my colleagues were simultaneously realizing that after 
decades of trending to the right, it was now more than likely that the 
Supreme Court was going to shift back to a more centrist, progressive 
point of view.
  But now it appears that the Senate has descended into an ``Alice in 
Wonderland'' world where the Senate cannot even agree on how many 
Supreme Court Justices make the Court functional. Throughout our 
history, in the Senate there have been previous attempts to attack the 
Court by, on the one hand, denying it members, or, on the other hand, 
packing the Court. In

[[Page 7173]]

those instances, this once august body has stood together and always 
protected the sanctity of the Court--but not today.
  The Senate is not only displaying contempt for the Court, but it is 
demonstrating contempt of its constitutional responsibilities. It is 
hard for the people we are honored to represent to make sense out of 
much of what goes on here--who serves on the subcommittee that always 
sounds like the subcommittee on acoustics and ventilation, what a 
motion to table the amendment to the amendment to the amendment 
actually means--but this is an issue the American people get.
  We know there are supposed to be nine Supreme Court Justices and the 
Senate ought to do its job and ensure that the Court can function 
without wasting years of people's lives and dollars by allowing cases 
to be undecided through deadlock.
  I can state that I am going to be home this weekend for townhall 
meetings. At these townhall meetings, I hear from citizens who are 
exasperated. They tell me this in the grocery store, in the gym, and in 
other places where Oregonians gather. They cannot understand how a U.S. 
Senator can ignore the responsibility to advise on a Supreme Court 
nominee and remain true to his or her oath.
  Here is what Oregonians know for sure. They understand that the 
President of the United States is elected to a 4-year term, not a 3-
year term and some number of days--4 years. We learn it in the first 
quarter of high school civics class. Oregonians and Americans 
understand that it is the President's job during that 4-year term to 
fill vacancies on the Court, and Oregonians understand that it is the 
Senate's job to advise and consent on the nomination by holding 
hearings and then having an up-or-down vote.
  The President has fulfilled his duty. The Senate is utterly failing 
its responsibility. We have a nominee--an eminently well-qualified 
nominee. Our President pro tempore in the Senate, who is widely 
respected, called him ``highly qualified'' and described him this way:

       His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned. 
     . . . His legal experience is equally impressive. . . . 
     Accordingly, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know 
     him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his legal 
     ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen, and he 
     belongs on the Court. I believe he is not only a fine 
     nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this 
     administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the 
     list.

  Those are the exact words of our President pro tempore with respect 
to this nominee.
  The then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee called him ``well 
qualified,'' even though he objected to bringing the Court he was being 
appointed to up to its full complement of Justices.
  But despite having a fully qualified judge vetted and praised by many 
of their colleagues, this intemperate rhetoric about blocking the Court 
has now solidified into an indefensible position. That is why after 
waiting for weeks, I am on the floor this evening.
  The first blow is now well known and often quoted. The majority 
leader said:

       The American people should have a voice in the selection of 
     their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy 
     should not be filled until we have a new President.

  This was said at a time when other officials were releasing 
statements offering condolences to the Justice's family, which includes 
26 grandchildren.
  In some respects this reaction should have been expected. When 
President Obama took office, it seemed that the goal of some was to 
oppose anything he did, however reasonable. Senators such as myself who 
have been here long enough to see the ebbs and flows of the Senate 
figured that this stance was probably just a temporary slump. Senators 
put in long hours and travel endlessly to make a difference on issues 
that are important to them and to their States. Even if the solemn 
responsibility and constitutional duty with which they are entrusted 
weren't enough to encourage action in this serious situation, it would 
seem, for the sake of our country and our people, that many here hoped 
this body would find its way back again.
  Unfortunately, that has not been the case. So the majority leader's 
response to the death of Justice Scalia becomes yet another example of 
the scorched-Earth approach to politics the far-right has taken since 
the very beginning of the Obama Presidency. It is a sad and unworthy 
response to Americans who expressed their will at the ballot box.
  Many Americans list choosing a Supreme Court Justice as one of their 
leading reasons for choosing a Presidential candidate. Sometimes--many 
times--this is given as the most significant reason for voting for a 
President. In the last Presidential election, the American people chose 
Barack Obama as the duly elected President of the United States. I 
state this because, for many of my colleagues, that fact somehow seems 
to have just vanished from their minds, or perhaps there is just a 
refusal to recognize the results of the 2012 election. Americans chose 
President Obama to be the Commander in Chief, to administer the laws, 
and, yes, to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice for any vacancies that 
occur between January 20, 2013, and January 20, 2017. The unanimous 
position or near unanimous position of the majority is that elections 
don't really seem to matter, that the rule of force becomes the rule of 
law, and saying ``no, we will not'' is an acceptable response for being 
asked to fulfill constitutional responsibilities. Basically, this 
position disenfranchises the constitutionally ratified choice of more 
than 65 million Americans because the majority in the Senate simply 
doesn't agree with them.
  This is not a response worthy of U.S. Senators. It is choosing party 
and ideology over the needs of our country, and it is a political 
choice that many of my colleagues are beginning to understand they 
cannot support.
  My colleagues have said: It is not the position; it is the principle. 
But this is a position without principle. It is really pure politics--
pure politics of the worst kind. It calls into question whether 
perpetrators can effectively do their jobs as Senators going forward.
  Today the Senate, this venerable institution, continues to find 
itself in the hands of the most insidious form of politics--small ``p'' 
politics. It is the kind of politics that seems just devoid of reason, 
revolving around what seems to most Americans to be a truly 
straightforward portion of the Constitution.
  Article II, section 2, paragraph 2, of the Constitution states:

       [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice 
     and Consent of the Senate, to . . . nominate, and by and with 
     the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . 
     Judges of the Supreme Court. . . .

  Now, I am a lawyer in name only. I don't profess to be a 
constitutional scholar. But at this point, I am one of the longer 
serving Members of the Senate, and I have placed a special priority on 
working with colleagues across the aisle, trying to find common ground, 
recognizing that the Senate is at its best when colleagues work 
together. But to my mind, the current approach taken by the majority 
toward the President's duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and the 
duty the Senate has to advise and consent on the nominee has led this 
Senate to an unprecedented and dangerous situation. It seems to me that 
by denying Judge Garland a hearing, we are denied the opportunity to 
ask the nominee questions to which the American people are owed 
answers.
  The current position of refusing to ask those questions and hear 
those answers is an insult to our form of government, one understood by 
originalists, strict constructionists, and liberal interpreters alike. 
The Senate's decline has been particularly vivid in the case of 
judicial appointments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia is the primary judicial forum for appeals of Executive and 
regulatory actions prior to the Supreme Court. As such, it has become 
the focus of ideologues who oppose environmental regulations, consumer 
regulation, anti-trust, and many other hallmarks of our system of 
government for the past century.
  When three vacancies opened on this court and Presidential 
appointments were made, Senate Republicans proceeded to filibuster each 
and every one

[[Page 7174]]

of those nominees, claiming--in my view ridiculously--that the 
President was engaged in ``court packing.''
  Now, in the interest of fairness, court packing is the reprehensible 
course of action chosen by a liberal icon, President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt, when faced with a court that opposed his will. That attempt 
was a dangerous time for our constitutional system of checks and 
balances and must be remembered, lest it be repeated.
  Not only was it dishonest to apply this term to the regular process 
of filling existing vacancies, the accusers were, in fact, attempting 
to accomplish FDR's same goal of bending a Federal court to their will 
in a blatant attack on our system of checks and balances.
  Today, we are witnessing another attack on the Constitution in this 
refusal to do our job and proceed to the confirmation process for Judge 
Garland.
  This is a grave assessment, and maybe I am being a bit too harsh to 
colleagues in laying their refusal to duty on purely political grounds. 
So I want to just take a couple of minutes to unpack some of the 
justifications that have been given for what we have heard. Some 
Members have argued there is a longstanding tradition that the Senate 
does not fill a Supreme Court vacancy during a Presidential election 
year. This has been referred to as an ``80-year precedent'' and as 
``standard practice.''
  Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case. There is no such 
precedent. Or, I would say, there is no such precedent unless you 
define your terms so narrowly that the concept of precedent becomes 
meaningless. This can be contrived, for example, by limiting the 
discussion to nominations made during a Presidential election year 
rather than nominations considered during a Presidential election year.
  However, that is like saying: We never previously filled a Supreme 
Court vacancy in a year in which Leonardo DiCaprio won an Oscar and 
Denver won the Super Bowl. This is true enough, but it covers such a 
small set of cases that it provides no meaningful guidance. If 
anything, the relevant historical precedent favors the Senate 
considering a nomination to fill the current vacancy.
  Since 1912, the Senate has considered seven Supreme Court nominations 
during Presidential elections. Six of the nominations were confirmed: 
Mahlon Pitney in 1912; Louis Brandeis and John H. Clarke in 1916; 
Benjamin Cardozo in 1932; Frank Murphy in 1940; and the most recent 
example, Anthony Kennedy in 1988, who was nominated by President Reagan 
and confirmed unanimously by a Senate in which Democrats held the 
majority.
  In one other case, that of Abe Fortas in 1968, the nomination was 
rejected in an election year. However, even then, the Senate did its 
job. It held hearings, reported the nomination from committee, voted on 
whether to invoke cloture on the nomination on the Senate floor.
  In the face of this historical record, some Senators have argued 
another point. They have invoked the so-called Biden rule, based on a 
speech that Vice President Biden gave on the Senate floor in 1992 when 
he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that speech, 
according to some Members, Senator Biden established a binding rule 
that the Senate should never consider Supreme Court nominations during 
Presidential election years.
  First, as discussed above, there is no such thing as a binding Senate 
rule. We make them. We break them. We change them. It is the 
flexibility of this institution that has allowed it to continue to 
serve Americans for 225 years and the current inflexibility of my 
colleagues that threatens to bring it to harm.
  Now, let's look at Senator Biden's 1992 comments in perspective. He 
gave a speech, perhaps intemperate, but in 1988, as I just described, 
he led the Senate in confirming Justice Anthony Kennedy.
  Further, in 1987 and 1991, when Presidents Reagan and Bush submitted 
the highly controversial nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence 
Thomas, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by then-Senator Biden, 
held hearings on the nominations and took them to the floor for up-or-
down votes. So when Senator Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee, he 
always provided a Republican President's Supreme Court nominees with a 
hearing, a vote in committee, and a vote on the Senate floor.
  It is also important to consider the overall point that Senator Biden 
was making in 1992. The Supreme Court was about to adjourn, which is a 
time when Justices frequently announce their retirement. Senator Biden 
was arguing that there should not be a trumped-up retirement, designed 
to create a vacancy for which the President would submit an 
ideologically extreme nominee as ``part of a campaign to make the 
Supreme Court an agent of an ultra right conservative social agenda 
which would lack support in the Congress and the country.''
  Senator Biden was arguing against partisanship. He was counseling 
restraint. He said that ``so long as the public continues to split its 
confidence between branches, compromise is the responsible course both 
for the White House and for the Senate.''
  Noting his support of the nominee, though nominated by an opposing 
President, Senator Biden was urging both sides to step back from 
partisan ideological warfare. Senator Biden urged Congress to develop a 
nomination confirmation process that reflected divided government by 
delivering a moderate, well-respected nominee who would be subject to a 
reasonable, dignified nomination process.
  Senator Biden went on to say, ``If the President consults and 
cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent 
consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support, just as did 
Justices Kennedy and Souter.''
  That is precisely the approach that President Obama is following 
here--moderating his selection. In nominating Judge Garland, the 
President has not politicized the process. The President has not 
nominated some left-wing ideologue who thrills progressives but angers 
conservatives. You already heard what I quoted directly from our 
esteemed friend, the President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator 
Hatch. The President has gone to the middle, seeking compromise. He has 
nominated someone who is widely regarded as sound and moderate and 
capable. Indeed, not long ago, leading Republican Senators cited Judge 
Garland as the very example of the type of person they were hoping the 
President would nominate.
  Judge Garland is the kind of person about whom my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle said: This is the kind of person we would 
really like to see for this job.
  Now, there have been other attempts to defend the indefensible, and 
they all go back to the facts that I have just outlined. No matter the 
politics, no matter your concern about a primary challenge from the 
right, no matter the faint hope that a Member of your party might win 
the White House and nominate an ideological kindred spirit, no matter 
the pressure to choose party over country, it is time to do our 
constitutional duty, hold hearings, ask questions, get answers, and 
vote on the nominee.
  Perhaps, as with Abe Fortas, the nominee will be rejected. If that is 
the Senate's will, so be it. But denying a duly nominated candidate a 
responsible and dignified confirmation process is choosing to further 
endanger the people we serve and the body that we serve in.
  Finally, every Republican Member must know that having a meeting or 
calling for hearings and a vote without taking any action to make it so 
is pretty much naked politics, and Americans are not going to be 
fooled. If Members of the majority actually wish to see the Senate do 
its job, they can force the Senate to make it happen by denying the 
leadership the ability to act on other less pressing matters until they 
take up this responsibility.
  To go home and claim that you would like hearings--that you would 
like a vote--without taking action to make it happen is simply lip 
service to the constitutional responsibility of a Senator.
  I am going to close with just a couple of last thoughts. My 
colleagues have

[[Page 7175]]

the opportunity to redeem this body. My colleagues have repeatedly 
said: It is not the position; it is the principle. But it was 
understood during FDR's time, and it should be understood now, that 
threatening the makeup of the Supreme Court is a position without 
principle.
  Intemperance appears to be the hallmark of political rhetoric in this 
day. Somehow, if it is loud and intemperate, that is what people are 
going to pay attention to. But this sort of intemperate rhetoric is 
certainly corrosive to this institution.
  The Senate still has an opportunity to sober up, regardless of what 
was said, buckle down, get to work, hold hearings, and vote on a 
nominee. Political rhetoric can be forgiven. Allowing intemperate 
rhetoric to control the solemn responsibility of every Senator is 
unforgivable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2017, or the NDAA. This bill was reported 
out of committee 2 weeks ago with 100 percent support from our friends 
across the aisle and nearly unanimous support from the majority party.
  I am thankful for the leadership of Chairman McCain and Ranking 
Member Reed. I think they have done a marvelous job. These are two 
veterans who have served their country well before becoming Members of 
this body. As Members of this body, they have worked very hard to find 
consensus between Republicans and Democrats with regard to how we work 
to prepare an authorization bill for funding for our military.
  The reason I am here today is I think it is important to share my 
thoughts about the need to move forward with a discussion of the 
National Defense Authorization Act on the floor of the Senate in an 
appropriate timeframe.
  For those individuals who wonder how the Senate works, sometimes we 
find it frustrating because we would like to move on. And as my friend 
the Senator from Oregon just indicated, they would like to have votes. 
In this particular case, he was suggesting a vote on the Supreme Court, 
but on that one there are challenges and there are concerns on the part 
of Members of the majority party.
  But in the case of the National Defense Authorization Act, this is 
one which has been passed out of the Senate, passed by the House, and 
signed by the President for 54 years in a row. It is a bipartisan work 
effort. It is one in which we have agreement; we find consensus. It 
seems only appropriate that we try to move forward on this particular 
bill before Memorial Day, the day in which we honor those individuals 
who have given the ultimate sacrifice.
  Let me share with you what we understand has happened. I understand 
that when the majority leader had asked for a unanimous offer or an 
agreement that we take up this bill early--take it up and begin to 
debate it; not pass it, but debate it and accept amendments to this 
particular bill about how to appropriately direct our military for the 
coming year--the minority leader objected, which is his right, and said 
he would not allow us to move forward, even to debate the bill.
  In fact, we had to file what they call cloture or a closure of the 
time with a 30-hour period, which we are in right now, before we can 
even take up the bill. That seems inappropriate. At least to me, it 
seems that if we really wanted to show we honor those individuals--and 
we talk about the memory of those who lost their lives serving our 
country--the least we could do would be to move forward with this 
particular one in some sort of a united effort since there does not 
appear to be anything that is of a challenge in passing the bill.
  I think about Memorial Day because I lost an uncle. As a matter of 
fact, I am named for him. My name is Marion Michael. I go by Mike, but 
I was named for an uncle who died in World War II on the island of 
Okinawa in May of 1945. He never had a chance to vote, never had a 
chance to have a family. My family lost something. He lost his life, 
but we lost an uncle, a brother.
  This is the time period in which we remember what these folks--these 
soldiers, sailors, and warriors--have given to our country. It seems 
appropriate that this would have been a great time to make an example 
of our working together. That sense of sacrifice didn't stop in World 
War II; it continues on.
  I had the opportunity, the privilege, to work as Governor of South 
Dakota during the time in which we were sending young men and women off 
to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I remember one time in particular that 
was an example of the generations supporting our country. It happened 
to be with a mobilization ceremony in the little town of Redfield. When 
we send young men and women off in South Dakota, we have a mobilization 
ceremony that is attended by literally the entire town. In this case it 
was the 147th Field Artillery, 2nd Battalion. I was working as Governor 
at the time, and when we came into this town, we went to the high 
school gymnasium. You couldn't park within three blocks of that 
gymnasium because it was filled.
  When we walked inside, there were people everywhere. They were even 
sitting on the window sills because there were a little over 105 
soldiers who were being deployed, and they were going to Iraq.
  I remember it specifically because as we finished the ceremonies for 
deployment in this packed crowd, we went down the line, and we started 
thanking each soldier for their service. I walked through the line 
saying: Thank you. We appreciate your service. Be careful. Come back 
safely.
  I looked at one of the soldiers and looked at his last name. He was 
gray haired, clearly he was a sergeant, and he was one of the leaders. 
I said: Thank you for your service. Do your job, but bring these guys 
home safely.
  He said: Yes, sir.
  The next man in line--I looked at his name, and it was the same name 
as the individual ahead of him. I looked at him and I said: Is that 
your dad?
  He said: No, sir, that is my uncle. My dad is behind me.
  Three generations, three separate members of the same family were 
serving in the 147th, three of them offering their own and their 
families' time to support our country. I don't know whether they were 
Republican or Democrat. All I know is that they were wearing the 
uniform of the United States of America.
  Sometimes, as we talk about what we do, we have to remind ourselves 
that when these young men and women deploy, they are not deploying as 
Republicans or Democrats. They really don't care about how we see the 
progression of the votes that we take here. What they look at is 
whether or not we are united as Americans.
  This would be a very appropriate time for the minority leader to 
perhaps consider giving back some of the time that he is holding for 
debate on this bill to begin. Let's begin the debate on this bill 
before we leave for Memorial Day. Let's begin the process of letting 
these families know that this is important to us, too, and that we 
understand the significance of Memorial Day.
  For that particular family I talked about in Redfield, this is 
especially important this year because that young man came back and 
carried the Cross of War with him. They lost him earlier this year. 
This year, Memorial Day means a little bit more.
  What I would ask today is that we send a message to all of the men 
and women who wear the uniform. Politics is gone. We will debate the 
bill, we will spend time on the bill, we will make it better, but we 
will not hold it hostage. We will do what they want us to do as 
Americans protecting our country and honoring the memory of those who 
have given everything in defense of our country.
  This is the time to vote--to vote for those who died before they ever 
had a chance to vote. This is a chance to share our strong belief that 
when it comes to the defense of our country, we are Americans first, 
Republicans and Democrats last.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                    Water Resources Development Act

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, tonight I rise to speak about the pressing 
need

[[Page 7176]]

to invest in our aging infrastructure across this great country, 
especially drinking water infrastructure.
  What makes the ongoing crisis in Flint so tragic is that it was 
preventable. Steps could have and should have been taken over months 
and even years that would have prevented the poisoning of the citizens 
of Flint. Because these steps were not taken, efforts to mitigate the 
effects of lead exposure and repair the damage will be necessary for 
many years to come.
  Our drinking water supply is largely dependent on systems built 
decades ago that are now deteriorating. Many of the pipes in some of 
our older cities were installed before World War II, and many are made 
of lead. The EPA estimates about 10 million homes and buildings are 
serviced with lead lines.
  The American Water Works Association has said that we are entering 
``the replacement era.'' Water systems are reaching the end of their 
lifespan, and we must replace them. We have no choice.
  If we want to simply maintain our current levels of water service, 
experts estimate a cost of at least $1 trillion over the next two 
decades. That is why it is so important that we pass a new Water 
Resources Development Act, or WRDA. We now have the opportunity and the 
ability to dedicate resources to Flint and to communities dealing with 
infrastructure challenges all across our country.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee listened to water experts, 
State and local elected officials, and the shipping industry, as well 
as stakeholders, to craft a WRDA bill that makes crucial infrastructure 
investments in drinking and wastewater projects as well as our ports 
and our waterways.
  My friend Senator Debbie Stabenow and I were proud to work with 
Senator Jim Inhofe and Senator Barbara Boxer to include bipartisan 
measures that would include emergency aid to address the contamination 
crisis in Flint and provide assistance to our communities across our 
country facing similar infrastructure challenges.
  The Flint aid package included in the bipartisan WRDA bill includes 
direct funding for water infrastructure emergencies and critical 
funding for programs to combat the health complications from lead 
exposure. This includes a drinking water lead exposure registry and a 
lead exposure advisory committee to track and address long-term health 
effects.
  Additionally, funding for national childhood health efforts, such as 
the childhood lead prevention poisoning program, would be increased in 
this bill.
  The Water Resources Development Act also includes funding for secured 
loans through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or 
WIFIA program. This financing mechanism was created by Congress in 2014 
in a bipartisan effort to provide low-interest financing for large-
scale water infrastructure projects. These loans will be available to 
States and municipalities all across our country.
  There are also a number of other important provisions in this year's 
WRDA bill. It promotes restoration of our great lakes and great waters, 
which include ecosystems such as the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, 
Chesapeake Bay, and many more.
  In fact, the bill includes an authorization of the Great Lakes 
Restoration Initiative through the year 2021, which has been absolutely 
essential to Great Lakes cleanup efforts in recent years. It is 
important to know that the Great Lakes provide drinking water for over 
40 million people.
  The WRDA bill also will modernize our ports, improve the condition of 
our harbors and waterways, and keep our economy moving.
  A saying attributed to Benjamin Franklin rings especially true with 
this WRDA bill. He said: ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure.'' If we make the necessary infrastructure investments now, we 
will preserve clean water, save taxpayer money in the long run, and 
protect American families from the dangerous health impacts of aging 
lead pipes.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Water Resources 
Development Act with strong, overwhelming bipartisan support last 
month. This bill is ready for consideration by the full Senate, and 
communities across our country--including the families of Flint--are 
waiting for us to act.
  I am hopeful that this body will do just that in the coming weeks, 
and I urge my colleagues to prioritize this commonsense, bipartisan 
infrastructure bill for a vote on the Senate floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

                          ____________________