Shelley Capito

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. I thank my colleagues.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the kind comments from my friend and fellow Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, who has been a champion of this issue. It has been a pleasure to work together and to have it all work out. We have worked closely together for the past several years to advance a permanent solution for the retirement benefits of thousands of miners in our State and across the Nation. I appreciate Senator Manchin's hard work and leadership on this; I really do. I would be happy to discuss what I believe is our shared understanding of the intent behind miners' healthcare language in the omnibus bill that originated in the Miners Protection Act.

Mrs. CAPITO. There is nothing like seeing the faces of our miners as we did in our offices the other day and I have seen in my office throughout this time--or when it was at the 100-degree rally out on the lawn last fall--to realize the human faces behind what we are talking about. Senator Manchin is right. It is a bipartisan issue, and it is the right and fair thing to do. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Manchin and with the UMWA and our other colleagues to see this legislation through.

Mrs. CAPITO. I wholly share Senator Manchin's understanding of this key provision of the legislation. By adopting the language from the Miners Protection Act that is included in the Omnibus appropriations bill, we intended to cover any miners, survivors, and dependents who would have received or continued to receive Federal retiree healthcare benefits from one of these bankrupt employers had it not gone through the bankruptcy process, without regard to the 1993 plan's usual eligibility rules. I understand that these individuals are eligible under the rules as applied by the Patriot VEBA, and I expect that these rules will continue to be applied in the same manner by the 1993 plan.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, it is my honor today to recognize Dr. George E. Keller II for his outstanding achievements in the areas of engineering, innovation, and leadership. Dr. Keller was born and raised in Charleston, WV, and has a bachelor's degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and a master's degree and Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Keller's wisdom is evidenced in his personal life as he has been married to his wife, Judy Keller, for decades, allowing for his legacy to live on through his many children and grandchildren. Dr. Keller served as a lecturer in President Eisenhower's ``Atoms for Peace Program'' in Chemical and Nuclear Engineering from 1958 to 1959. He went on to have an illustrious and highly accomplished 36-year career at the Union Carbide Corporation in research and development at the South Charleston Technical Center and achieved national and international accolades for pioneering contribution in separation science, reaction engineering, catalysis, and novel process technology development. After retiring from the Union Carbide Corporation, Dr. Keller became the cofounder and vice president of New Carbon, LLC, with the purpose of commercializing various aspects of the WVU Chemical Engineering Department's coal to advanced carbon products programs. Dr. Keller also inspired leadership under the BIDCO organization for local economic development, which ultimately led to the birth of the Mid-Atlantic Technology Research & Innovation Center, MATRIC, Inc., in 2003. Dr. Keller served as MATRIC vice chairman until 2014, as well as MATRIC's chief engineer. He currently serves on the MATRIC board of directors and continues service as the company's chief engineer. In 1988, Dr. Keller was elected to the National Academy of Engineering, NARE, for his invention and insightful analysis of novel separation processes. Recently, Dr. Keller was recognized as ``one of the nation's top 100 chemical engineers of the modern era'' by the premier industry association, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, AIChE. He is a recipient of many prestigious awards including the Chemical Pioneer Award by the American Institute of Chemists for his breakthrough work in long-range hydrocarbon technology, as well as the Institute Lecture Award, the Clarence Gerhold Award, and the Institute Award for Excellence in Industrial Gases Technology, all awarded by the AIChE. The Chemical Engineering Magazine awarded Dr. Keller's team with the Kirkpatrick Honor Award for the most innovative chemical technology successfully commercialized in the world: development of highly efficient pressure-swing parametric pumping for gas-gas separations. Pennsylvania State University also awarded Dr. Keller with the Outstanding Engineering Alumnus Award in 1989. Dr. George Keller has coauthored and edited more than 35 publications in refereed journals and is the coauthor of two major books in the area of industrial separations. He also holds 21 U.S. patents in key technologies. Dr. Keller has lectured at more than 30 universities around the world and has served as chairman for many prestigious international conferences. At West Virginia University, Dr. Keller serves as chair of the visiting committee of the College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, as well as a longtime member of the visiting committees of several chemical engineering departments at WVU, Virginia Tech, Penn State, University of Wisconsin, University of Texas, and University of Virginia. He has also served on the National Research Council's board on chemical science and technology, BCST, and as an adjunct professor of chemical engineering at WVU and Virginia Tech. In addition to Dr. George Keller's many awards, honors, and service, he also has an abundance of major technical accomplishments. Dr. Keller was a pioneer in discovering ways for converting methane to hydrocarbon feedstock for the chemical industry and was awarded by the American Institute of Chemists for doing so. When Dr. Keller joined Union Carbide in 1961, he was a trailblazer in implementing amongst the first computer-controlled pilot plants in the industry worldwide. Under his leadership, the separations and process fundamentals skill center developed such disparate processes as the most advanced technology for producing oxygen via miniature adsorption units in the homes of people with severe lung problems in the 1970s, creating a better and longer life for countless millions around the world, and the world's largest commercial pervaporation facility in the 1990s. Dr. Keller's personal expertise in membranes, adsorption, distillation, and extraction operations has resulted in reducing the generation of process wastes, developing more cost-effective ways to treat industrial waste streams, and, in some cases, resulted in recovery of valuable coproducts from traditional waste streams. In addition to his Carbide contributions, Dr. Keller has also worked on several next-generation technologies for carbon capture from fossil fuel combustion. His work in this area will be impactful for years to come, especially in industries touched by the development of shale gas in the United States. Dr. Keller has recruited exceptional, diverse talent to WV and to Union Carbide, including over 100 of the world's premier doctoral-level engineers and scientists. He has served and continues to serve as an excellent mentor to countless individuals. In turn, this aspect of Dr. Keller's efforts paid exceptionally rich dividends to Union Carbide and West Virginia in developing and sustaining a world-class, market- driven, R&D technical center at South Charleston for many decades. This culture still lives on today at MATRIC. The company is a growing multidivisional company with long-term strategy levering both market opportunity and its own internal expertise. It is noteworthy that MATRIC has delivered more than $95 million to the West Virginia economy that would never have existed without exceptional leaders like George Keller. It is with great respect that I ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to recognize the accomplishments and dedication of Dr. George E. Keller II. Dr. Keller is an excellent example of perseverance and commitment to innovation, enhancing the lives of others and inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have on a number of occasions in the past, to express the urgent need for action to protect the retirement security of our Nation's coal miners. Because of bankruptcies that have decimated the coal industry, we have lost over 22,000 jobs in our State, but more than 22,000 retired coal miners and their spouses are at risk of losing their healthcare benefits at the end of April. I have visited with retired miners from all across West Virginia to discuss this situation. During the February congressional recess, I visited the Cabin Creek Health Center in West Virginia. The Cabin Creek Health Center serves hundreds of coal miners and their families. They provide pulmonary rehabilitation services for miners suffering from black lung. They also provide primary care services for miners and other members of their community. During my visit, I met with several retired miners who would lose their health insurance coverage if Congress fails to act. These individuals are suffering from serious medical conditions and were unsure how they would afford their healthcare if they were to lose their current coverage. Just 2 weeks ago, I met with about a dozen retired miners from West Virginia who came to Washington to support the Miners Protection Act and to stand up for their hard-earned retirement benefits. Other groups of West Virginia miners have come to Washington over the past few months. All have carried one message to Congress: Keep the promise of our lifetime health benefits. On March 1, thousands of miners received notice that their health insurance would be terminated in 60 days. Most of these same people received that very same message just last October. As I listen to their stories, it is hard to imagine the worry these notices cause for miners and their families. In December 2016, Congress included language in the continuing appropriations legislation that preserved health coverage for these retired miners for just 4 months. While that provision kept mining families from losing their health coverage--which is good--at the end of last year, a permanent solution is critically needed. The 4-month provision from the December CR expires at the end of this month. It is vital--vital--that Congress take action within the next few weeks to provide healthcare and peace of mind for these miners in West Virginia and across coal country. Our retired miners deserve their promised healthcare coverage and should not have to receive another cancellation notice or another Band-Aid solution. We have a bipartisan vehicle for action. I have worked closely with Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Rob Portman, and others to introduce and promote the bipartisan Miners Protection Act, which would preserve healthcare and pension benefits for our miners. Our bill passed the Senate Finance Committee last year by a bipartisan vote of 18 to 8. I also would like to thank the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, because he has introduced legislation that would provide a permanent healthcare solution for our miners. With all of us pulling together and with us working together, I am confident the Senate will act before the end of this month to continue these critical healthcare benefits for our miners. I ask my colleagues for their support in addressing this important issue for our working families.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Few individuals over the last century have impacted the American legal discourse as profoundly as the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In the wake of his untimely passing last February, Justice Scalia left behind a legacy of faithfully applying the law and upholding the principles of our Constitution. Judge Neil Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Judge Antonin Scalia. Judge Gorsuch understands the protections granted in the Constitution, including the separation of powers, federalism, and the Bill of Rights. He knows that the Constitution provides Americans with an indispensable safeguard against government overreach. His past opinions demonstrate that he will honor constitutional protections afforded through due process, the right to bear arms, equal protection under the law, and religious freedom. Legal experts from across the political spectrum are very much in agreement with the Gorsuch nomination. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave Judge Gorsuch the highest possible rating of ``well qualified'' for the Supreme Court. I couldn't agree more. One of Judge Gorsuch's associates, the chief judge of the Tenth Circuit who served with Judge Gorsuch, has said about him: Judge Gorsuch brings to the bench a powerful intellect combined with a probing and analytical approach to every issue. He brings to each case a strong commitment to limit his analysis to that case--its facts, the record, and the law cited and applicable. He does not use his judicial role as a vehicle for anything other than deciding the case before him. President Obama's former Solicitor General Neal Katyal penned an op- ed in the New York Times supporting Judge Gorsuch and wrote: I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence--a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. Those are the words of the Solicitor General who argued on behalf of President Obama's administration in front of the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch has been through the confirmation process before--as we have heard many times on this floor--when Senators, some of them in this body today, approved his nomination to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit without opposition. I was privileged to meet with Judge Gorsuch several weeks ago, and it was clear to me through our conversation, a thorough examination of his record, and watching last week's hearing in the Judiciary Committee that Judge Gorsuch will decide cases fairly, based on our Constitution and laws. Isn't that the way it should be? This is what West Virginians expect from a Supreme Court Justice. Newspapers in my State have recognized this nominee's strong qualifications of independence and respect for the rule of law. The Charleston Daily Mail editorialized: Gorsuch has strong legal credentials and deserves to be confirmed. He is the kind of pick that any president should make, Democrat or Republican, because of his proven qualities necessary for any justice: a strong understanding and respect for the nation's founding document, the U.S. Constitution. The Wheeling Intelligencer and News Register wrote: During hearings last week, Gorsuch's suitability for a high court post was made abundantly clear. He is precisely the type of judge--faithful to the Constitution not ideology on specific issues--the nation needs. And the Martinsburg Journal said: Gorsuch seems to believe in using the plain language of the Constitution to decide cases, regardless of his own preferences. That--someone who believes only the people not the courts can change the Constitution--is precisely the type of Supreme Court justice we Americans need. The American people benefited from an open and transparent Supreme Court process that led to Judge Gorsuch being nominated. During the 2016 Presidential election, both candidates were transparent about the type of Supreme Court Justice they would appoint if elected. President Trump released a list of 21 names, a list that included Judge Gorsuch, and promised voters that he would fill this Supreme Court vacancy with someone from that list. Voters paid attention. According to an NBC News exit poll, 70 percent of voters said the selection of a Supreme Court Justice was either the most important factor in their vote for President or an important factor. Let me state that again--70 percent. The American people weighed in, and President Trump acted wisely in selecting Judge Gorsuch. He is a mainstream judge who is well qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader has indicated that his party intends to engage in an unprecedented partisan filibuster of this nomination. A filibuster of a nominee of this caliber would be a tremendous mistake, I believe, that would harm the Senate as an institution. There has never been a Supreme Court nomination that has been defeated by a partisan filibuster of the type that the Senate Democrats are telegraphing. It is one thing to vote against a nominee on whatever grounds a Senator may wish, but it is quite another to filibuster in an effort to block a nomination that has been submitted by a duly elected President who has the support of the majority of the Senate. Senators have always enjoyed the ability to filibuster nominations. That ability has remained available because Senators have shown restraint in applying the power that comes along with requiring unlimited debate. The clear tradition of the Senate--and this is a body of tradition, I have learned--over the course of its 230 years of history is a confirmation by a majority vote. That tradition has been demonstrated in recent Supreme Court nominations. President Obama nominated both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Neither Justice Sotomayor nor Justice Kagan faced a filibuster in the Senate. President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice. There was no filibuster attempt against that nomination. President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court. Neither faced a filibuster. President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Neither Justice faced a filibuster even though 48 Senators voted against the Thomas nomination. One recent Supreme Court nomination did require a cloture vote when a group of Democrat Senators attempted to block a vote on the nomination of Justice Alito's nomination, but a large majority of Senators--72, in fact--invoked cloture, which preserved the bipartisan practice of rejecting filibusters against Supreme Court nominees. Among those who rejected the Alito filibuster in 2006 were the two Democratic Senators from my State--Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator Jay Rockefeller. There were 72 Senators who voted to invoke cloture on Justice Alito's nomination, but only 58 ended up voting for the final confirmation. The Senate has a very clear history of rejecting the use of the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations, but there is no justification for a filibuster on the Gorsuch nomination. Neil Gorsuch is a mainstream judge with the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association. He was confirmed by the Senate, without objection, in the year 2006. His service on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has earned him the respect of his judicial colleagues, and he has demonstrated the independence and respect for the law that the American people expect from a Supreme Court Justice. I hope that at least eight of my Democratic colleagues will join us regardless of how they, ultimately, will vote on Judge Gorsuch's confirmation. I hope they will recognize the need to invoke cloture on this nomination. The Senate will confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. For the good of the Nation and for the good of the Senate, there should be no filibuster of this well-qualified nominee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am here to address an issue that I think is of great importance to this country and to this administration; that is, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the new EPA Administrator. We are nearly 8 years removed now from what we consider--many of us, I think, particularly as we look back--the great recession. However, many American workers, their families, and their communities have yet to feel the benefits of any kind of a recovery. A key component to a slow recovery--the slowest recovery since World War I--is the regulatory overreach coming out of this city--Washington, DC. Since the end of the recession in June 2009, Federal agencies have burdened a weakened economy with thousands of pages of new rules, costing consumers billions of dollars. Tens of thousands of workers have lost their jobs. The EPA has perhaps become the poster child for this overreach, from restricting carbon emissions without the direction of Congress--and according to the clean air direction of Congress of what is important--to federalizing every stream, every pond, every wetland under the waters of the United States rule, to unilaterally banning virtually Appalachian coal mining by obstructing the permitting process and pursuing ozone standards that the vast majority of the country cannot meet. The vast majority of the country is still trying to meet the ozone standards that were established under the last regulation. I support the mission of the EPA in protecting human health, in protecting our air and our water, but there has to be a balance. There has to be a balance between growing the economy and preserving the environment. Over the last several years, we have seen that balance very disrupted. This disruption is at odds with the law and the well- being of many of our working families. This has been acutely felt in my State of West Virginia where we have lost more than 35 percent of our coal jobs since the year 2011. That is more than 7,000 jobs eliminated in a relatively small State like West Virginia, and many of these jobs are very high-paying jobs. As a nation, we have lost more than 60,000 coal miners in the same timeframe. This has hurt our workers, our families, our communities, and our State. The loss of good-paying jobs means less commercial activity. It means less tax revenue to support our education, our county school systems, our county ambulances, our county sheriff's departments, and our law enforcement. For example, little old Wayne County in West Virginia has lost 88 percent of its coal severance taxes between 2013 and 2016. This year, our Governor and our legislature are struggling right now with a $500 million budget deficit, largely due to the loss of our coal jobs. Patching that shortfall could mean significant tax increases, painful cuts in public services, or both, which could further hurt and cripple our local economy. It will be a long road undoing the legal and economic damages suffered over the last several years. Voters in my State and across the country have made it clear that fixing Washington includes meaningful reforms for the way that the EPA operates and has been operating. So what do we have before us? We have a great nominee for EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, who is presently the attorney general of another energy-producing State--Oklahoma. Scott is committed to returning the Agency to its core mission of protecting our air, our water, and our land without undercutting the economy. At least, we know that he will listen to the other side and try to be reasonable. He will ensure that the EPA abides by congressional intent, and he will be an active partner with State and local stakeholders in the rulemaking process. Going back to the stream buffer rule and the reason that fell apart-- and I am so pleased that the President is going to be signing the CRA on that today--the EPA invited States to come in and speak about the rulemaking process. Within months, it became very apparent to the States that are charged with protecting the water that this is just window dressing. They realized: They are not listening to us, and they don't really want us to buy in. Eight of those States left. So as the attorney general for the State of Oklahoma, he has held industry to account as well protected lakes and streams in his State. I asked him in the committee: If the State or local government doesn't intervene in what looks to be an environmental issue--not just a crisis, but if they are not doing their job in protecting the air and the water--what would you do as the EPA Administrator? He said: That is where we should be stepping in. That is where we should be helping those States meet those standards, helping those States get the right information. So I think he is going to be unafraid to take on the EPA when it is set to ignore a State's sovereignty. Mr. Pruitt is the most thoroughly vetted candidate for this position in history. He fielded 6 hours' worth of questioning before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, where I serve. During that hearing, he assured me that he will engage directly with the State of West Virginia and visit our State. We could never get the EPA Administrator to visit our State and listen to our side. He will visit our State, listen to our side, and reform the rulemaking process to prevent another open assault on our economy by unelected bureaucrats. He also committed to me that he would pursue full implementation of the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a bill on which we joined together--Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle, with President Obama--to modernize our toxic chemical regulations in terms of water. This is important to me. I was talking to my colleague from Michigan about this issue. We had a water crisis in West Virginia where we had a large chemical spill. This bill, under Scott Pruitt's leadership and my pressing for the implementation, as others will be, will help us in situations like this. Beyond the over 200 questions he answered in the hearing, he answered more than 1,000 followup questions. He is the most thoroughly vetted nominee for Administrator in the history of the EPA. I am confident-- very confident--as he assured me in committee and in personal meetings, and I have watched him in action in terms of questioning the overreach in the court systems. He has worked with our attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, to be the leader in this. I have confidence that he embodies the leadership that we need to restore the balance and accountability to the EPA in a way that will benefit the public health and benefit environmental preservation, as well as restore much-needed economic growth that needs to be a part of the balance that we want to see restored back to the EPA. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the Congressional Review Act on the stream protection rule. I want to say to those who participated in the last election--where part of the discussion was the Federal Government knows all and needs to be in your life and in your business life every day, and it knows the best one-size-fits-all way--that help is on the way today. A lot of the talk of the election is now going into action in the form of the Congressional Review Act. In particular, the stream protection rule was a last-minute power grab that was aimed at giving more power to the Federal Government. Now, at the onset, I would like to say this: I don't have any charts. I don't have any pictures, but then I thought, you know what. Yes, I do. I have a lot of pictures on my device here, which I will not open up because it is against the rules and you will not be able to see anyway. But in these pictures, you will see a picture of me fishing in a beautiful stream in West Virginia, where trout is unlimited. You will see me riding an ATV on a Hatfield-McCoy Trail, which is the old mining trails and the old lumber trails in southern mine country in West Virginia, where thousands of people come every year. You will see me visiting a school or a business park that is built on the top of what is a reclaimed mountaintop removal. If you have ever been to West Virginia, they don't call us the Mountain State for nothing. It is mountain after mountain after mountain, difficult terrain, and in some ways it is very difficult to have any kind of economic development. So when the laws are enforced--the laws that we have now, in terms of water protection and reclamation--after the mining is finished, we have been able to have some economic development projects that have been to the benefit of many communities there. So I have no charts. I live there. This is my home. I can drive 4 miles and be at a coal mine very easily, probably less than that. I heard the argument about outdoor recreation, that people want to have outdoor recreation. I just described three outdoor recreation activities in my State, and the ranking member was talking about how she fished in West Virginia and enjoyed it and had good luck, I hope. Anyway, we have beautiful trout streams, but the outdoor recreator doesn't want to see a coal mine. I would bet the outdoor recreator doesn't want to see a nuclear plant, probably doesn't want to see a windmill farm, probably doesn't want to see a natural gas plant because when you are getting away to recreate, I don't know that anybody would want that, but I can tell you what they do want. They want the steel that is in their truck to get them there. They want the electricity that they have to have when they go home at night to cook their food or clean their clothes or all the different things that electricity does. There are tradeoffs to everything. Certainly coal has provided the baseload of the industrial revolution for this country, and we still, I think, have a great role to play. There are estimates with this rule. The other thing is, it was said that there were no rules in place until we had this rule. That is absolutely false--absolutely false. This rule was rushed in. It was worked on for 5 years, yes. It had 10 State regulators. Let me go back. The regulation, under the Clean Water Act, is done by the States through the EPA, in conjunction with State and Federal, with the EPA overseeing what the States are doing to make sure they are meeting the minimum standards. So there are protections in place, and we welcome those protections. Where we live, where everybody lives, we want that. Can we do better? Absolutely, we can do better. We should always strive to do better. This rule has been in the making for 5 years. Ten States came to this table, 10 States which were most heavily impacted, to try to help the Department of Interior develop this rule. Our DEP Secretary Randy Huffman says that this proposed version of a stream protection rule--and this is not a Republican-Democrat thing. This is a Democratic Governor's DEP commissioner saying that it was ``an unnecessary, uncalled for political gesture.'' He went on to say that ``the combined administrative record developed throughout the history of mining regulation under SMCRA is totally devoid of any indication of a need for this radical rewrite of the regulations governing the way coal is mined in America.'' Other States have made comments as well. We had the Ohio Chief of Mineral Resources Management Lanny Erdos testify before our EPW Committee. ``OSM has not provided for meaningful participation with the cooperating or commenting agency States.'' Basically, these State regulators who were charged with the primacy of putting forward the water standards in their States and overseeing mining in their States were basically invited into the party and then put in another room and not listened to. Then, eight of them walked away. That has to tell you, this wasn't an even playing field and was probably a very insincere effort to include everybody's opinions. In Wyoming, Todd Parfitt said: ``The failure to engage cooperating agencies throughout this process is reflected in the poor quality of the proposed rule.'' We have heard a lot about the empathetic voices of the job losses: 60,000 miners since 2011, many of them in my State. Many of these men and women who were making $80, $90,000 a year no longer have a job. They are living in communities that are decimated. Our State is $500 million in the hole. We are trying to transition. We are trying to do the right thing, but rules like this that we are about to overturn through the CRA process are such an overreach of authority. The EPA has already gotten slapped down by the Supreme Court for the match rule. They put a stay on the Clean Power Plan. There are definite questions as to the authorities that the past administration has put forward. United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts says: ``We are especially concerned with the long-term negative impact this rule is very likely to have on future longwall coal mining in the United States and associated employment impacts on our miners.'' We have heard about mountaintop removal. There is a strong belief that this will impact our underground mining as well. That is pretty much--I wish I knew the exact percentage, but I would say well over 70 or 75 percent of the mining and maybe more than that. I hosted Senate committee field hearings centered on energy jobs in Beckley, Logan, and Morgantown. Bo Copley, a coal miner who lost his job, talked about the impact regulatory policies were having on him, his young family, his community, and his former colleagues. We heard about the fact that the health and pension of our miners is in deep trouble. I have been very much on board. Senator Manchin and I have been working hard--along with Senator Portman, Senator Brown--with those more affected regions to make sure the health care and pensions of our miners are funded and that those miners know that the benefits that were promised will be there for them and their families. The promises made will be promises kept, but this downturn in the coal industry heavily affects the ability for the pension funds to be solvent and for the health benefits to be carried on. So there is a direct correlation between the overregulation we have seen and the effects in the health and pension funds. The ranking member on the Energy Committee--and we just had a good conversation. I will paraphrase what she said: Sometimes I think we are sort of talking by one another. And I think maybe she is right in certain respects, and she mentioned the effect of natural gas on the coal industry. Yes, that has had an effect on the coal industry, but this rule that was proposed, rushed in at the last minute by the Department of Interior, would have an even more devastating effect than the combination of regulations to this point, the combination of the natural gas and market conditions. So you ask: Oh, how rushed in was it if it was being worked on for 5 years? Well, they didn't publish the rule until December 20, 2016, after the election--the election in which overregulation was one of the key factors that was discussed during the election and the effect on economies and businesses and the ability for American workers to continue to work hard and keep their jobs, but Americans rejected the continuation of these policies. So they published the rule on December 20, 2016, and then it was made effective January 19, 2017. What is January 19, 2017? It was the day before President Obama left office. There is no irony there at all, I don't think. I am here to say that Senator McConnell and I have put this forward. It is one of the first ones that has come forward in terms of the Congressional Review Act. Help is on the way, and the President will sign this. He has said in his Statement of Administration Policy: ``The administration is committed to reviving America's coal communities, which have been hurting for too long.'' Again, I can tell you about it. I could probably show you pictures of it. I live there. These are my friends. These are folks I see every day. I see them in the grocery store. And we have seen the effects in our region to the point of six of our counties are in deep, deep depressions. So I want to congratulate the House of Representatives for passing this earlier today. I want to thank West Virginia Representatives David McKinley, Evan Jenkins, and Alex Mooney for voting yes and getting a strong vote. I would like to thank Leader McConnell for his leadership on this and the 27 other cosponsors of this bill. Lastly, I would like to say, we heard the Senator from Hawaii talk about how this is really going to create jobs. Well, I found an article from the Wall Street Journal on December 20, 2016, and I am going to quote from it. Interior's projections about the economic impact are laughable. OSM reckons the rule would cost a mere 124 coal mining jobs a year-- Whereas, other estimates are almost as much as one-third of the jobs-- but instead of visiting operating mines, the wizards at OSM built their estimates on computer models. They even reported a net gain in jobs-- And I think this is what the Senator from Hawaii was talking about-- as miners are replaced by workers implementing the rule. Less mining but more workers--genius. This reminds me a little bit of when we were talking about all of the regulatory burdens of Dodd-Frank, which I am sure we will be getting into in another CRA. I was on the Financial Services Committee over in the House for a long time, and we learned, when Dodd-Frank went into effect, within a year and a half, the largest growing profession was bank auditors. So the government has created jobs for bank auditors to put forward their rules. It sounds a lot like that is what OSM has done with this rule. I would just like to close with this. We are going to move forward with this because it is important to our region. It is important to a lot of working people. It will not and does not in any form or fashion allow fowling of the water, fowling of our streams. There are protections that are carried forth through our State regulators who came to the table for this rule, who felt they were not being listened to and, over the course of 5 years, all drifted out. I don't think they were invited back. I am confident this will have an effect of saying: America, you voted to unleash the American economy, to let our regulators regulate, to let our clean water statutes move forward in conjunction with State and Federal regulators, to let Americans know that the Federal Government is not going to be reaching into every aspect of your life and it is going to result in losing your job, creating hopelessness, 72 teachers being laid off in my county last month because we have lost people, real estate values going down, and the loss of a valuable resource that leads to the strength and to the viability and to the security because energy security is security for our country, for our whole country.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Chao nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Tillerson nomination postcloture, and the Senate recess until 2 p.m., with the time during recess counting postcloture on the Tillerson nomination.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, the Environmental Protection Agency, which bears most of the blame for regulations targeting energy jobs, is in dire need of a change of direction. The EPA under the Obama administration was unwilling to engage the people of West Virginia in public listening sessions or hearings about decisions that directly impacted our State's economy, and I have described what the result of that has been. This failure to effectively engage resulted in a number of job- killing regulations, like the utility MATS rule for powerplants, the so-called Clean Power Plan, and the waters of the U.S. rule. As the Presiding Officer knows, the waters of the U.S. rule is something that impacts not just mining but also agriculture, construction, and it really has far-reaching implications. Scott Pruitt, who is President Trump's nominee to become the EPA Administrator, has gone through a thorough review process by the Environment and Public Works Committee. At Attorney General Pruitt's confirmation hearing, Senators from both parties were permitted to engage in as many as four rounds of questioning, and some of them were pretty tough. After the hearing, Attorney General Pruitt answered 1,078 questions for the Record. Combining both the hearing and the followup questions, Attorney General Pruitt answered more than 1,200 questions from our committees. Through the process, Attorney General Pruitt has shown himself to be a person who cares about applying our environmental laws as they were written and intended by Congress. He has a strong record of enforcing environmental statutes in a balanced way and ensuring clean air and clean water without unnecessarily sacrificing jobs or economic growth. Attorney General Pruitt has been clear that he will work with State regulators and listen to the views of individuals who will be most heavily impacted by EPA's regulatory decisions. I believe Attorney General Pruitt will keep his word and provide a refreshing change and direction for West Virginia coal miners, natural gas workers, manufacturers, farmers, and, indeed, for all of our communities struggling from the effects of overregulation. I look forward to supporting Attorney General Pruitt's nomination in the EPW Committee, which will come before the committee on Wednesday morning, and I look forward to seeing him confirmed on the Senate floor soon. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, the last 6 years have been devastating to local economies across coal country. The Mine Safety and Health Administration has estimated that at least 60,000 coal jobs have been lost since 2011, and thousands of these jobs have been in my home State of West Virginia. Excessive government regulation and other factors have done more than cost jobs. These policies have imperiled our coal miner retirement benefits, and they have left local governments struggling to keep up to pay for education, to pay for public works, and to pay for law enforcement. I can tell my colleagues story after story I have seen in our newspapers about this very thing. In October, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee heard testimony from Wayne County, West Virginia commissioner Robert Pasley. He said that the coal severance tax revenues in Wayne County in West Virginia--his county--dropped by 88 percent in 2013 and 2016. This drop left the county without a vital funding source that traditionally helped to pay for local volunteer fire departments, senior citizens programs, and education. West Virginia University economist John Deskins told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in August that six West Virginia counties were suffering a depression--a depression--because of the coal downturn. And just last week, the State of West Virginia projected that its annual State budget faces a $500 million shortfall. So what was the response of President Obama's administration in its last days in power? Yet another job-killing and anti-coal regulation that would make a bad situation in my State worse. The Department of the Interior published its stream protection rule on December 20, 2016, and it made the rule effective on January 19, 2017--just 1 day before President Obama left office. There is a lot of irony here, and I don't think it is by chance. According to a National Mining Association Study, one-third of remaining coal jobs could be placed at risk by the rule. Today I am proud to join Leader McConnell as he introduces the Stream Protection Congressional Review Act. We are also joined by my colleagues in the West Virginia congressional delegation, including Congressman David McKinley and Congressman Evan Jenkins, and others. We are going to be introducing a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, blocking the Obama administration's stream protection rule. Once this resolution of disapproval is passed by Congress--and I believe that it will be, and signed by President Trump, which I believe that it will be--I am confident that both things will happen: The stream protection rule will be nullified, and the Department of the Interior will be prohibited from imposing a similar rule without permission from Congress. The stream protection rule deserves to be eliminated through the Congressional Review Act process. Despite its title--because why would we get rid of something called the stream protection rule--this rule will do little to actually protect our streams, but if left in place, this rule would cost even more coal jobs in my State and across the country that have already been devastated. West Virginia's former Department of Environmental Protection secretary Randy Huffman told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I served last Congress, that the proposed version of the stream protection rule was ``an unnecessary, uncalled for political gesture.'' I would like to say that Secretary Huffman was serving under a Democratic Governor in my State. The stream protection rule is the result of an incredibly flawed regulatory process that excluded State officials. Of the 10 States that began the regulatory process--people were asked to join together to begin this process--working with the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining, eight of those States eventually removed themselves from the process because of the Department's unwillingness to actually seriously consider their input. In other words, they were just there for window dressing. Ohio's chief of Mineral Resources Management Larry Erdos told the Environment and Public Works Committee last February that ``OSM has not provided for meaningful participation with the cooperating or commenting agency states.'' Congress took action to instruct the Department of the Interior to reengage with the States, realizing what was happening here, before moving forward with this rulemaking process. However, despite this direction from lawmakers in the Congress, the Department failed to address the State concerns. Wyoming director of Environmental Quality, Todd Parfitt, told the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that ``the failure to engage cooperating agencies throughout this process is reflected in the poor quality of the proposed rule.'' He called on the Office of Surface Mining to withdraw the rule and reengage with States and other stakeholders. Last week, West Virginia's newly appointed secretary of Environmental Protection--again under a new Democratic Governor--Austin Caperton wrote to congressional leaders detailing our State's concerns with the stream protection rule. Secretary Caperton gave three main reasons for West Virginia's opposition to this rule. First, he said that the rule upsets the statutory balance between environmental protection and allowing coal mining to take place in the first place. Second, the rule conflicts with the congressionally directed role of the States to be the exclusive regulators of mining activities. And third, the rule conflicts with the Federal Clean Water Act and State water quality standards--pretty broad-ranging concerns. The concerns from environmental regulators in mining States across the country explain why 14 States, including the State of West Virginia, have already filed lawsuits to stop this stream protection rule. Fifteen State attorneys general, led by West Virginia's attorney general Patrick Morrisey, have written to Congress asking that this rule be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. State environmental regulators are not alone in their opposition to this rule. Cecil Roberts, who is the president of the United Mine Workers of America, wrote just last week in support of this resolution of disapproval. He said that ``the last thing America's coal-producing regions need at this time is another regulation that will have the effect of reducing employment even more and further stifling economic development.'' West Virginia cannot afford another job-killing regulation that once again inserts Washington and their one-size-fits-all standard into a regulatory process that is supposed to be effectively managed--and is effectively managed--by our State agencies. The stream protection rule is a flawed policy that was born out of a flawed process. The rule deserves to be eliminated promptly, and I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the McConnell-Capito resolution of disapproval and to vote to block the rule in the coming days.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is important to all of us. We are, obviously, a nation in transition. Recently, the Senate took the first steps to repeal ObamaCare and begin a transition toward policies that will ensure continued access to health care with more affordability and flexibility for all. We need a stable transition that will empower Americans to make the best health care decisions for their families. In my home State of West Virginia, ObamaCare has been very difficult for many. It has meant skyrocketing premiums and skyrocketing copays and deductibles for families and small businesses. It has meant little, if any, choice of insurers. As a matter of fact, for the first several years, we had no choice. We now have two insurers in several counties, but in the beginning, the entire State had no choice. It has meant fewer choices of doctors and hospitals, as networks shrink and plans become more restrictive. Now we must repair what can be fixed, scrap what is not working, and create a better health care reality for all Americans. I have spoken with small business owners who have absorbed the cost of increased insurance, but their employees are getting less coverage. I have spoken to families who may have health insurance, but due to the high deductibles and copays, they don't use it. They can't afford to even go. I have also heard from those in my State who have real concerns about what this transition will mean to them. This is especially true for those who receive coverage through Medicaid. My State is one of the States that did an expanded Medicaid. For all of these West Virginians--and there are somewhere around 177,000 new folks who are on Medicaid--whether they are the Medicaid recipients or the business owners and families who are currently struggling, we need to have health insurance that works for everybody. So I want them to know--and many of them have called my office, and I have talked with them a lot in our State--that I am listening to their concerns. As we move forward, I am working to balance each of these needs and ensure access in West Virginia and across the Nation to affordable, quality health care. To achieve this goal, I am joining Senators Cassidy, Collins, and Isakson to introduce an alternative to ObamaCare which was introduced yesterday. It is called the Patient Freedom Act. It sounds good. We are really good at making names that sound good, but the Patient Freedom Act lives up to its name. The Patient Freedom Act of 2017 removes ObamaCare's most burdensome regulations. It provides our States, which are closest to the people who are accessing health care, the opportunity and funding to ensure that those currently covered by Medicaid expansion are protected and retain their health coverage. It returns authority to the States and provides more health care choices and better insurance options to individuals and families. It keeps important consumer protections, such as coverage for preexisting conditions, and extends coverage to children and dependents until the age of 26--both very popular parts of the ACA. It protects the Federal black lung benefits program, which is especially important in my State of West Virginia and the surrounding areas. In addition to all of those important changes, it gives States a pathway forward for replacing ObamaCare. Specifically, following repeal, which we know we are going to do, States will have three options. First, a State, if it so chooses, could choose to reinstate ObamaCare, or a State could go without Federal assistance and opt to not receive any Federal funding for tax credits or Medicaid expansion. Finally, a State could choose an innovative replacement plan where the State determines its own insurance regulations. In this scenario, the State would be eligible for 95 percent of the funds it would receive under ObamaCare, and the Medicaid expansion would be fully funded. For a State like West Virginia that has already expanded Medicaid, the State could either keep its Medicaid expansion as is, or they could convert it to subsidies to help individuals purchase the private insurance. Under this plan, individuals would use a Roth Health Savings Account to purchase health care. This would enable uninsured individuals to purchase health insurance that meets their specific needs. States would have the option to auto-enroll uninsured individuals into a standard health care plan, with individuals able to easily opt out if they didn't want it. Auto enrollment would ensure stability and soundness to our insurance markets. The Patient Freedom Act is a smart, innovative way forward and meets the varied needs of people in my State of West Virginia and across the country. The legislation reflects Senator Cassidy's experience as a physician, and I thank him for his innovation--he has worked with patients who are uninsured--and I appreciate his leadership so much, as I do Senator Collins in particular and Senator Isakson as another cosponsor. As other replacement plans are drafted and introduced in the Senate, I will evaluate those proposals to ensure they meet West Virginians' health care needs. I am committed to replacing ObamaCare with a system that offers us more choice. We can figure this out; we know what we need--lowers cost gives patients and families more control--because, together, we can achieve a health care system that works for everybody. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be on the floor with my colleagues today and most especially pleased to be here to honor my good friend Kelly Ayotte as she leaves the Senate but does not leave public service. Believe it or not, I first met Kelly on the softball field when we were on the Congressional women's softball team. I was in the House, and Kelly was the cocaptain in the Senate. We raised money for young survivors of breast cancer. I knew then I wanted to get to the Senate to be good friends with Kelly because when you talk about being in the trenches, she was such a competitor. When you think about a team, a baseball team or a softball team, who is the toughest person on the team? Everybody wants to say the pitcher. In my view, it is the catcher. Guess who our catcher was. Kelly Ayotte was and is, and so we became good friends then. We found we have a lot of love for physical activities. We are both runners. We have run a couple of times together. We participate in the 3-mile run that we have every May that determines who is the fastest male Senator, who is the fastest woman Senator. Well, guess who the fastest woman Senator is. You got it. She just blew right by me every year so I might have hope next year. I don't know. I will have to check out the newcomers. But Kelly was always such a great competitor on the softball field, running in 5Ks, and just being around in general. As we have heard from everybody, you have served your State with integrity and passion. I know it is tough on your family. I see Joe in the Gallery. I have met your beautiful children, Kate and Jake. I have heard you on the phone planning daycare while the rest of us are figuring out how we are going to get home that night or what we are doing in our committees. As a young mother, Kelly is still trying to make the ends meet. I have such admiration for that as a mother myself. I know how difficult it is, but I know the three of them know that no matter if you were here figuring that out, they were always No. 1 in your heart. I think that is a real tribute to you. We have heard all of the issues she has been so out front on. Particularly as I am from a State like West Virginia--the opioid issue has really impacted our rural areas. When I visited Kelly twice over the last 6 months in New Hampshire, it was the same kind of impact. It is small towns, families, people who know each other. It hurts everybody. Kelly, thank you for your leadership there. That is going to make not just a mark in your State but across our Nation and in my State in particular. We traveled to Gitmo together. I had never been to Gitmo before. To have an expert such as Kelly explain to me and to hear her question what is going on there and how important it is and was, she continues to be in the fight that she led to make sure we don't have terrorists on our own home soil. The fact that Gitmo is still open and is still functioning to keep those very dangerous folks off of our shores I think is a tribute to Kelly's leadership. In terms of New Hampshire, as you move away from here, I know you are going to realize how you have impacted the people where you live and in your home State, but just kind of multiply that all over the Nation. We have a huge debt of gratitude to you and your family for being here for 6 years, but as I have told you repeatedly since the election, this is not the last time we are going to hear from Kelly Ayotte or about Kelly Ayotte. To me, that is a very strengthening thing when I talk about my friend. I am not going to say goodbye because I don't think we will be saying goodbye. I am going to say Godspeed, good luck. You will land on your feet because you always do. Keep running, I will keep running, and maybe I can keep running and improve my time so I can at least see the backs of your feet as you are running past me. It has been a real privilege to serve with you. It has been great to be your friend, and I look forward to keeping our relationship very viable and alive as the time moves on. Thanks, Kelly. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue of great urgency--the fate of tens of thousands of American workers. In just a matter of weeks, 16,000 coal miners and their dependents will lose their health care coverage and roughly 6,000 others will join that group in the year 2017, and here we are just days away from Congress wrapping up its work for the year. This should be a time to motivate us to action. I have served in Congress a long time, and I know nothing motivates Congress more than a deadline, being up against a deadline, as we are today. This time should be no different, and here is why: Without some resolution before Congress adjourns, the men and women who have powered our Nation and spurred economic growth for generations will have the carpet ripped out from under them. They will lose the health care benefits they so rely on and have been promised. It is important to recognize the risks our coal miners take to better our lives every day. When you visit a coal mine, which I have done--I have been underground in a coal mine--you see the rigorous and often very dangerous working conditions where these men and women do their job every day to provide the energy we need to light this Chamber, to warm our homes, and to keep our classrooms lit. These miners are the pillars of our communities, and many of them are veterans of our Nation. For decades they have worked hard and played by the rules. Yet the realities facing these men and women are stark. They are up against the wall, and we are up against the wall with them. The challenges they face will only grow if we fail to accommodate and have immediate action. We can talk about the realities of the War on Coal, but this is about more than that. This is about people--tens of thousands of people, mostly older, many suffering health issues--who rely on health care, and many are in need. This is about tens of thousands of coal jobs that have been lost, devastating my region of the country, forcing miners to rely on these modest benefits more than ever before. This is about employers who are bankrupt who can no longer fund these benefit plans. We have a solution right here in front of us that is ready for a vote to prevent any lapse in benefits. It is a solution that has support from both sides of the aisle. We passed the Miners Protection Act out of the Finance Committee in a bipartisan way, and it is a solution that could make a difference in the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Americans. I had really hoped that we could offer the Miners Protection Act as an amendment to the 21st Century Cures bill. The 21st Century Cures bill is all about health. The Miners Protection Act is a lot about the health and well-being of our miners. That is why, despite the many good things and benefits in the 21st Century Cures Act, such as funding for the opioid epidemic that hit my State of West Virginia and many of our States very hard, advanced medicine, and Cancer Moonshot, I had to oppose us moving forward on the Cures Act tonight without an amendment process. That is how important this issue is to our miners. Before Friday we will move forward on a bill to fund our government. We must take action in that bill--which I consider mostly our last chance, the continuing resolution--to protect these important benefits for our miners. If we don't, we will be failing to act for the benefit of thousands of American workers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for all the hard work he has done to try and make sure those folks he talked about, and those tragedies he has brought to light for all us, are getting the best assistance they deserve. I think every State, whether it is Louisiana, West Virginia, Georgia, or wherever we live, we are all subjected to a national emergency at some point. It could be a flood, fire, large snowstorm, windstorm, or tornado--any of these events could happen to any of us. That is why I have always, through the course of my legislative career, looked favorably to try and help particular areas of this country that need extra assistance. Senator Cassidy has been particularly effective here, and it has been my pleasure to work with him and others on this subject. I have already talked on this topic earlier in the week. We are close to having a vote on this legislation, and hopefully it will pass so we can bring badly needed relief not only to Louisiana, West Virginia, and other places but to also have the funding that will carry us through December. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, and the Senator from Louisiana is a member as well. I think we are both frustrated that we are at a point where we have a continuing resolution after passing our appropriations bill out of the Appropriations Committee in a bipartisan way. I think we worked well together to provide the greatest impact and voice on individual bills, but unfortunately that process broke down. We are where we are, and in between the time of those appropriations bills, West Virginia suffered one of the worst floods we have seen. A State like West Virginia has small communities, such as Clendenin, Rainelle, Richwood, and Clay. These are small towns much like every small town in America, and there are people who are still not able to get back into their homes and water systems that have not been running since June. Banks of creeks and water systems are still in disrepair. In order for folks to get their needed assistance, we need to pass this continuing resolution. Our Governor has identified 310 million additional dollars through the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program, and an overwhelming amount of this--90 percent of the homes that have now been impacted--was not covered by flood insurance. The $310 million, which the State has identified as a real need, was supposed to go to putting folks back in their homes, new homes, and homes that any one of us would want to live in, but unfortunately they were not able to do that. More than 5,000 homes in the State of West Virginia were identified as a loss. Twenty-three people lost their lives in the flood because it came so suddenly. West Virginia has beautiful hills, but we also have some valleys as well. When the water rushes, it rushes fast and quickly fills those valleys, and unfortunately some of the families had very tragic circumstances. Many families, thousands of them, lost everything. Small businesses are unsure if they can rebuild and workers don't know if they still jobs. I know the town of Clendenin--19 miles from where I live in Charleston--has a very uncertain future, and that is why it is very important that we get this downpayment of emergency relief for our State and States like Louisiana and Texas. We are going to work together to make sure we can secure additional funding, if that is what our Governors--and I think both of our Governors have identified additional problems. I thank the leader, Senator McConnell. I think this has been a week of pushes and pulls and ups and downs. I think he was very skillful by working with the Democratic leader and the leaders over in the House, and we now have a good pathway forward. I wish to express my appreciation to him for his leadership and his ability to, I think, find an answer to some very difficult questions. I also thank our Appropriations chair, Senator Cochran, for his work on this bill. I wish to speak about Flint, MI, for a few minutes. Nearly 7 months ago, I was one of the very first cosponsors of the bipartisan legislation that Senator Stabenow introduced, along with Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer, that would direct resources to address the serious water problem in Flint. I strongly supported the inclusion of the Flint provisions in the Water Resources Development Act, as did many of us, and the vote was 95 to 3, 2 weeks ago. I know the leadership is committed to taking final action to help Flint later in the year, and I wholeheartedly support that. Unfortunately, West Virginia had a water crisis, too, and although the impact we had was different than what we saw in Flint, we know how devastating it is for businesses and residents to not have clean drinking water. This also has critical funding for our veterans and the opioid and heroin crisis we see sweeping across the country. I see my colleague from Maryland is here. Her State has also had some flooding as well. We are right next door to one another, and I thank the Senator for her leadership. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support this cloture motion this afternoon and move forward in passing the continuing resolution to fund our government through December 9. Flooding is a national emergency. I have heard many Members talk about the flooding in Louisiana, West Virginia, and Texas. It is a devastating circumstance we find ourselves in in the State of West Virginia. Twenty-three West Virginians lost their lives. Amazingly, the last victim was found--a 14-year-old girl--probably just a month ago. Twelve counties were declared Federal disaster areas. For some areas of West Virginia, this was a thousand-year event. It came up so quickly. Some of our oldest and our poorest communities suffered serious destruction, and nearly 90 percent of the homes and businesses affected did not have flood insurance. I toured most all of the affected areas and talked to some very brave people and very brave local mayors, who were doing a great job. There are 5,100 homes and businesses that have suffered a loss, as verified by FEMA. Seventy-five percent of the affected homes have been deemed unsafe by inspectors, so we have thousands of people who are not living in a permanent home situation. Some are still living in temporary situations that are unsafe, and certainly, moving into the fall, it would be very unhealthy. There is a significant need for resources to help communities, individuals, and small businesses to recover, and disaster-related needs go beyond the disaster reimbursement provided by FEMA. Our Governor, Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia, wrote to President Obama earlier this month outlining the significant need for disaster aid. The Governor's letter identified $310 million in flood-related needs from the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program. I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I very much appreciate our chairman, Senator Cochran, coming to the floor today to implore, after all this hard work trying to get this continuing resolution confirmed. I have worked hard to secure the resources in this bill for our West Virginia flood victims. The legislation we will vote on today takes an important step to address flood recovery in disaster-stricken portions of West Virginia and certainly for our friends in Louisiana and other parts of the country. I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. I thank the leader for listening to me. I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Collins, who chairs the subcommittee, for responding favorably to my request for these desperately needed resources. This bill begins to address this by including funds for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program. Those funds will help meet housing and infrastructure needs in communities impacted by the flooding in West Virginia and all across the country. Given the need in my State and other States, such as Louisiana and Texas, additional disaster funds beyond those in this bill will be needed. This is an emergency. This means now. These floods occurred several months ago. I could have easily come to the floor today and heralded the record funding this bill includes for our Nation's veterans or the important resources it provides to help combat our opioid and heroin epidemic--something that is devastating my State and many States across this country. These are needs facing all States. They should have been addressed by our regular appropriations bills. No one likes the fact--well, I don't think anyone likes the fact that a continuing resolution is necessary. The Senate Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, passed all 12 of the appropriations bills. Many of them were bipartisan and worked out between the chair and the ranking member. I wish the Senate had acted on all of these. We tried for weeks and weeks to get cooperation to move through these bills in a predictable and very responsible manner so that we could have addressed our Nation's priorities in a fiscally responsible way. But this bill today keeps our government open and provides the additional resources to help our flood victims who are still suffering so much. It helps our veterans, and it helps to address those who are suffering this new and devastating scourge of opioid and heroin addiction. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a dedicated public servant and advocate for the people of West Virginia, Michele P. Craig, on her retirement. Ms. Craig stepped down from her role as executive director of KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission and Region II Planning and Development Council on July 1. Her 30 years of service have benefited the State of West Virginia and the Huntington area. Michelle received a bachelor's degree in economics from Queens College in Charlotte before completing graduate work at West Virginia University and American University. After beginning her career in Washington, she returned home after losing her father in the Marshall University plane crash of 1970 and began working in the family business. During this time, she also served in the West Virginia House of Delegates from 1973 through 1978. In 1986, Michele went to work for Region II Planning and Development Council; within a year, she became executive director. During her tenure, Michele oversaw a staff that grew from 4 to 13 individuals, serving Cabell, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, Mingo, and Wayne Counties. I have had the pleasure of working with Michele and her staff on numerous projects benefiting the citizens of West Virginia. Her wealth of knowledge, professional expertise, and poise were integral to these accomplishments. My staff and I will miss Michele as she moves on, but she has left behind a strong foundation for the future. Aside from her role as executive director, Michele has served her community through several organizations, including the Prestera Foundation, Ronald McDonald House, and Hospice of Huntington. She is also an avid reader, gardener, and world traveler. Michele is married to Thomas L. Craig, and together, they have three children. I wish Michele all the best as she spends more time with her children and grandchildren, enjoying her favorite activities and continuing her philanthropic endeavors and service to the Huntington area. Throughout her career, she has made a positive difference in the lives of many West Virginians. It has been an honor working with her, and it is an honor to call her my friend and fellow West Virginian. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring her service.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fifteen Years After 9/11: Threats to the Homeland.''