Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on December 9, 2016, by the President of the United States: The Treaties with the Republic of Kiribati and the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries, Treaty Document No. 114-13; the Arms Trade Treaty, Treaty Document No. 114-14; and United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, Treaty Document No. 114-15. I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I would inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have listened to the words from the other side. I have respect for them and their thoughts. I don't agree with them. But I wish to share a couple of things with the Senate. First of all, people need to understand what we went through on this bill. There were 2 years of work. It has been a long, involved time for all of us. Particularly, we had Mr. Jackson, Mr. Herrgott, Susan Bodine. These are experts in different areas. She is the water expert. Charles Brittingham has been crucial to this becoming law; he knows that end of it. The Corps operations--Charles Brittingham knows more about the Corps operations and worked tirelessly. These guys worked for several hours on this thing for many, many weeks. Byron Brown negotiated the coal ash. The coal ash issue is a huge issue. The States have been wanting this for a long period of time. It was a compromise, and everyone was happy with it. I wish to thank Jennie Wright, Andrew Neely, Andrew Harding, Carter Vella, Amanda Hall, Devin Barrett, and Joe Brown. And from Senator Boxer's staff, I don't think we could have gotten this done without the long hours of Jason Albritton and others from her staff, like Ted Ilston. The CBO staff came in and they worked very hard on this. Aurora Swanson was always available. I thank the Senate legislative counsel, including Deanna Edwards, Maureen Contreni, and Gary Endicott. We have a lot of people involved in this. I don't want people to think this is just another bill that came along and it is time for it to be considered. We could have done this a long time ago. We weren't quite ready. It took time for all of us to get together, and I think it is important. We have heard others talk about one major provision in the bill, and I wish to address that in a moment, but we should stop and think about what is in this. We have 30 new navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration projects and modify 8 existing projects based on reports submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. These projects support our Nation's economic competitiveness and well-being by deepening nationally significant ports. Everyone here knows which ones we are talking about. The bill also includes ecosystem restoration in the Florida Everglades, which will fix Lake Okeechobee and stop the algae blooms on the Florida coasts. The bill includes ongoing flood control and navigation safety in the Hamilton City project--that is in California--and the Rio de Flag project in Arizona. It includes programs that will help small and disadvantaged communities provide safe drinking water and will help communities address drinking water emergencies like the one facing the city of Flint, MI. The bill includes the Gold King Mine. The people in California, and certainly Senators Gardner, Bennet, and Udall, spent a lot of time on it. It is in this bill. The bill includes the rehabilitation of high hazard potential dams. This section of the bill authorizes FEMA assistance to States to rehabilitate the unsafe dams. This is significant. There are 14,724 what they call high hazard potential dams in the United States. That means that if a dam fails, lives are at stake. The program will prevent loss of lives. We have talked about this on the floor. That is significant--14,726. The WRDA bill is bipartisan and will play a critical role in addressing problems facing the communities. I want to make sure everybody understands how long we have been talking about the Flint, MI, tragedy. We have been talking about it for a long time. It is in here. The solution is in here. The bill we just passed, that is an appropriation, but the authorization has to be there. I would say this: Since I am looking across at the two Senators from Michigan, I know they are concerned with this. We have to understand that without this authorization, this bill, there would be no Flint relief, none whatsoever. I will yield some time to either of the two Senators from Michigan-- Senator Stabenow--for any comments she wants to make about this. But I hope she understands, as I yield time that she would be requesting, that without this bill, there is nothing for Flint.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reclaiming my time, let me just say that I saw the other Senator from Michigan nodding with approval and agreement. So this can happen, and that is why it is in here. I have to say to both Senators from Michigan--and we on this side worked very closely together to make this happen. That wasn't really easy. But now there is an agreement, and I think that is a very important part of this. Let me mention one of the things the Senator from Oregon made some comments about, about Senator Boxer and me, the things we have done together, and we have. It does show, though, that we can disagree, but that doesn't change my feelings about Senator Boxer. I want to conclude just by saying something that I don't think people have heard. They talk about the drought provision as if something evil put that together. Well, the White House put it together. It was drafted by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The savings clause--we have spoken about that. According to the White House, the savings clause prohibits any Federal agency under any administration from taking any action that would violate any environmental law, including the Endangered Species Act and the biological opinions. Don't take my word for it; just ask Senator Feinstein. We talked about this on the floor. This was put together by those Departments, and the savings clause that is there is strong. And according to them--not to me; I actually don't know that much about it, but they do because this is their area of specialty--they say this prevents any type of action. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Well, I just consulted with my staff. I know you believe in this or you wouldn't have said it, but the administration cannot be opposed to this. As a matter of fact, the administration drafted this. Everyone liked the underlying bill before the change was made, but then the Department of--and I will repeat this. ``Section 4012 includes a savings clause--a savings clause written by the U.S. Department of Interior and Commerce''--that is the White House--``that ensures that the entire subtitle must be implemented in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, or the smelt and salmon biological opinions.'' So I would just say, in response, they are the ones who drafted that. Here is a bill that everybody talked about--my friend from California and myself included and more than half the people. Then, when that provision was put in by those two departments, all of a sudden it is a bad bill. That is what I don't understand and I don't agree with. They are very emphatic in their paper that they wrote, with their opinions, putting this provision in.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am about to yield back my time, except to make one last comment. Everyone agrees it is a beautiful bill. They talk about the rider, but the rider came, not from someone else, it came from the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, and that is the administration. So they are the ones that, I guess, made it into a bad bill, but nonetheless it is a good bill. It is one we all want, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, that was a very emotional and heartfelt speech. As I look around, I know there are a lot of people who want to respond and be heard, but I grabbed it first. This will be real short. I believe it was the majority leader who gave me a quote this morning. He made the comment that the two of you agree on nothing, but you get everything done.

Mr. INHOFE. There is a reason for that. If you stop and think about it, we came to the House and Senate at about the same time. There are no two people in this body who are further apart from each other than Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe. Yet we have something beautiful. I hesitate to show this AP picture of our embrace, but it has to be in the record here somewhere. For 12 years, we swapped--back and forth--being chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I always remember when the Republicans were in the majority back in--let's see. We lost it in 2006. I remember seeing Barbara, Al Gore, and all these other people danced in and out the door saying the world is going to come to an end unless we do all of these things. At that time, she said something very profound that I never forgot, and I thought about it for the next 8 years. She said that we look at things differently. We had an election and elections have consequences. Remember that elections have consequences. Well, 2 years ago, the Republicans took over, and I gave her a T-shirt that said: ``Elections have consequences.'' During all that time, we didn't really change in terms of what we were doing together. I have a list of the things we have done that I left someplace, but, nevertheless, we did the highway bill in 1998 and 2005. All of the things we did actually worked. I remember when we had a news conference on TSCA. When I looked around, I saw all of my very liberal Democratic friends and me, and I thought: Wait a minute. How did this happen? We have been able to work together and get things done, and I have been very proud of that. In fact, I shouldn't say this because I am going to divulge our confidence, but we have meetings just as Democrats have their meetings. All the chairmen get together, and when it was my turn to make a statement, I said: Now, from the committee that gets things done. Anyway, that is the way it has been. I disagreed with Senator Boxer on a lot of the regulations, and I have told her many times she has every right to be wrong.

Mr. INHOFE. But on the things that were really important, we did manage to get things accomplished. There is an awful lot of hate around here, and it is so unnecessary. You can disagree with someone and love them anyway. I have to say that confession is good for the soul, but I want my good friend to know I am truly going to miss her around here.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator from South Dakota would rescind his request to yield the floor, I would like to share one thought. First of all, I am honored to chair the committee of which you are a subcommittee chairman, and what a Godsend the Senator from South Dakota has been, I have to say to my friend. I was concerned, with this last election coming along, with what might be happening. I think people are aware of what has happened to our military. They are aware of what is happening with the debt going all the way up from $10.6 trillion to $20 trillion, the largest increase of all the Presidents, from George Washington, Bush 1, and Bush 2. My concern was that people wouldn't realize what an impairment the overregulation has been to our businesses in how we are no longer competitive. I think the Senator really struck the note here that it had a lot to do with the awareness of the public. The Senator knows how many hearings we had on the Clean Power Plan in our committee, and the Senator's subcommittee. We actually had 10 hearings and we had three oversight reports. I have to say the liberals really like overregulation. Does the Senator know why? This is the question I want to ask the Senator because, generally, if you are of a liberal philosophy, you want to have as much control centered here in Washington, DC. However, when you get home and they get complaints about overregulation, what this is costing them, they then say: Well, that is not the case now because I had nothing to do with it. That was the regulation. That is what we are in the midst of right now. I have a friend who is the head of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau who came to me and he said: Have you seen this document that we have? This is true in South Dakota as well as Oklahoma, that the major problem with the farmers in America today is not anything that is found in the agriculture bill, it is overregulation, primarily by the EPA. The Senator from South Dakota struck a nerve when he spoke about the waters bill, the Waters of the United States. My State is an arid State, but they know full well if the Federal Government can take away from States that jurisdiction of regulating water, what will happen in my State of Oklahoma? So I would ask my friend--I think a lot of what happened on November 8 has to do with overregulation, and I think we have devoted a lot of time to that. I would suspect the same thing is true in South Dakota.

Mr. INHOFE. And, too, I would say the wisdom of the statements brought out that if we stop and think about it, over half of the States had a lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan. That is 29 States. Of course, I am sure that had a lot to do with the U.S. Supreme Court putting a stay on this, and now of course we will have a different administration, but I guess maybe we missed the boat on that one. Overregulation has been the problem. People have not been as aware of that as they are of other problems. I think that had a lot to do with what happened on November 8 and what is going to happen in the future, particularly in your subcommittee and my committee.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator James Lankford and myself, it is my honor to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of Department of Army civilian employee Michael G. Sauro who died 1 day after his 40th birthday on October 19, 2016, of wounds received from encountering hostile enemy fire near Kabul, Afghanistan. The son of Michael and Christine Sauro, Mike was born on October 18, 1976 in Chambersburg, PA. He graduated from Savanna High School in Savanna, IL, and went on to graduate with his bachelor's degree from Illinois State University in Normal, IL. ``Whether it be sports, or his friends, or his family, he always went at it 100 percent,'' recalled a fellow Savanna High School graduate, ``He was very committed to the U.S. and service members, making sure they had what they needed to do their job.'' He was passionate about life and was always willing to step in and help. His infectious smile will be remembered by everyone that knew and loved Mike. Mike began his Federal civilian service in December of 1999 and spent his career working for the Defense Ammunition Center, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, OK, and at its satellite locations at Fort Riley, KS, and Schofield Barracks, HI. While at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, he led the effort and was instrumental in revisions of the hazardous materials course. He worked to deliver the most robust training course available at over 50 locations in and outside the continental United States. Mike was the liaison between McAlester Army Ammunition Plant and the satellite training locations helping to ensure that the mission was accomplished. McAlester Army Ammunition Plant coworkers fondly remember him for his ``sunny disposition as well as his genuine kindness.'' Mission always came first for Mike. Regardless of the complexity of the task, he quickly comprehended requirements of the task and aggressively accomplished them in a professional, timely manner. He deployed three times--the first time in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the second in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and the third to support the mission to train, advise and assist Afghan forces. Mike's dedicated service and expertise made a difference around the world and saved lives. He is a testament to the values of the Defense Ammunition Center, the U.S. Army Combined Services Command, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, and the U.S. Army. Mike is survived by his parents Michael and Christine Sauro, his brother and sister-in-law Ben and Sarah Sauro, his sister and his brother-in-law Brienne and Lance Matthews, and their children, Dakota and William. Today we remember Michael G. Sauro, an American hero who gave his all for his country. Our Nation lost a great American, son, grandson, brother, uncle, and friend. Mike's service and sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I realize that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just voted against the short funding resolution because it doesn't include critical funding for Flint. Unfortunately, I believe this is a misguided strategy. Now, I voted against it but on the basis of something that can be corrected, having to do with the funding of the increased number of troops that we will have in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I must be clear that the $300 million Flint package that passed this body several weeks ago will become law by the end of the year. It is a mistake to take the country to the brink of a shutdown over an issue when we already have a bipartisan agreement on the solution. When the national press opened the eyes of America to the lead water contamination crisis affecting Flint, MI--a city of roughly 100,000 people--I told my staff it was time to get to work, to see what went wrong and what could be done. We are so close to making this a reality. I urge my colleagues to not create a standoff on the CR when we are taking care of the people of Flint and communities around the country, which is very important. We did this in our WRDA bill. I know that Leader McConnell spoke with Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi this morning and assured them that he is dead serious about ensuring the Flint package becomes law once we return from the break. Let me remind you that on September 15, when the Senate passed WRDA 2016 with an overwhelming 95-to-3 vote, I pledged to not let politics or any lameduck session jeopardize the emergency relief in WRDA and to get this signed into law by the end of the year. I have been standing with my colleagues in Michigan from the very beginning in support of our fiscally responsible solutions to help not only the Flint community but also other communities facing drinking water emergencies and water infrastructure challenges and solutions that the Republican majority Senate has supported strongly. The Senate-passed WRDA bill not only provides the critical support that Flint needs but also would help to prevent future water and wastewater infrastructure crises across the Nation. WRDA is the right vehicle. I am committed to getting this bill to the President's desk with Senator Boxer and my good friend Senator Stabenow by the end of the year. I know that many on the other side of the aisle are skeptical of our resolve, in particular, because of the uncertainty about the WRDA bill moving through the House this week without the Senate Flint compromise attached. It is important to understand that, unlike the Senate, different committees in the House have jurisdiction over the Corps of Engineers and the Safe Drinking Water Act. On our side, on the Republican side, they are both in the committee that I chair, and Senator Boxer is the ranking minority member. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers. However, it is the House Energy and Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act. The House WRDA bill only includes issues that are under the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That is why the House WRDA bill does not include Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, like the Flint package. Once the House sends us their T&I version of the WRDA bill tomorrow, hopefully, Senator Boxer and I will immediately attach the Senate Flint compromise as we conference with the House for a final bill. The Republican House leadership has already assured me this is the plan. So it is time for us to stop playing politics with the CR on this issue and focus our attention on making WRDA 2016 a reality. I can assure you that Senator Boxer and I are in lockstep agreement to get this done. People doubted us on the 5-year highway bill we passed last year, and we showed this body that when we work together on issues such as this, our word is as good as a guarantee, even during difficult political gamesmanship like what is happening on the continuing resolution. I urge my colleagues to trust in our unique relationship and our ability to get the Flint package and make sure it is on the President's desk this year.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe I actually had the floor anyway, and I am glad to yield the floor, which I will do to my colleague from Michigan. But I want to make sure I am clear in the statement I made in that I don't disagree and that my colleague doesn't disagree with the statements I made. We have a commitment to do everything we can to ensure this is in the WRDA bill. I tried to explain the difference in jurisdiction, which makes it impossible for them to do it over there within the T&I Committee. They have jurisdiction over WRDA but not these particular provisions. I have a lot of things in the CR I am really wanting to get done. I mentioned the military end, but on the Zika funding, I have given speeches on the floor saying how important this is because I happen to have a grandniece in Florida who is pregnant right now. So I am really interested in getting this thing done, and it is going to get done. It is going to be a part of the ultimate CR. I just wanted to say--and I listened to the statement by the ranking member of the committee that I chair, and I don't think she disagrees with anything I am saying in terms of our commitment to getting it done. I understand where she is coming from, and I will yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today I wish to engage in a colloquy with my ranking member, Senator Boxer, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Murphy, to speak about section 2004 of S. 2848, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, or WRDA 2016. Section 2004 of S. 2848 reaffirms current law that the Army Corps of Engineers must adhere to State water quality standards under the Clean Water Act when determining the least costly, environmentally acceptable alternative for the disposal of dredged material, known as the Federal standard. Although reaffirming current law, this section is not an endorsement by Congress of the Corps' current practices. Instead, Congress is letting the Corps know that Congress is paying attention and that the Corps must meet its legal obligations to abide by State water quality standards when determining whether it is meeting the Federal standard. I have heard concerns that, in some cases, that the Corps has not met this legal requirement and instead self-certifies its determination of the Federal standard rather than meeting State water quality standards. Senators Portman and Brown have raised this concern with me about the Corps' intention to dispose of dredged material in Lake Erie. This section is therefore intended to clarify that the Federal standard is a legal, fact-based definition and that neither party is empowered to make the final decision on the Federal standard, should a dispute arise. By not giving one party veto power over another, Congress is affirming that the Federal standard can be challenged in court. This means that a State can appeal the Corps' interpretation of the Federal standard if the State believes the Corps has failed to meet State water quality standards and that such challenges will be resolved on a case- by-case basis. I also have heard from members who are worried about whether the permitting of new dredged material disposal sites would be affected by the adoption of new State water quality standards that could ban open water disposal of dredged material. Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency must approve new disposal sites and have a very rigorous process for making those decisions. WRDA 2016 does not affect this process at all. The Clean Water Act also governs the adoption of new State water quality standards. These standards must carry out the purposes of the act. Blocking disposal of dredged material is not a purpose of the Clean Water Act. Any new State water quality standard must go through notice and comment rulemaking and also can be litigated. WRDA 2016 does not affect that process.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Just for one comment because we want to make sure we get this clear. We still have to go to the House, and Senator Boxer and I are hoping we are going to be able to resolve this. In fact, we may see House action as soon as next week. I know there are some Members in the House who have said they are going to make it difficult on Chairman Shuster to pass the WRDA bill because it doesn't have the Senate provisions that address the water crisis across our Nation that involves failing and outdated critical infrastructure and the situation in Flint. I promise to address this in conference. I have been standing with my colleagues in Michigan from the beginning on our fiscally responsible solution to help the Flint community, and I will continue to do so in conference. So let me be clear. It would be a shortsighted mistake for those trying to help the people of Flint to prevent the quick movement of WRDA in the House so we can conference immediately. I am confident that is going to happen, and this bill will become law before the end of this Congress. I just want to be sure we got that in the record before the vote took place today.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, the Senator is correct.

Mr. INHOFE. No. The Federal standard applicable to the disposal of dredged material from Federal projects is found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 33 C.F.R., section 335.7. That regulation requires that the method of disposal must be the least costly alternative that is consistent with sound engineering practices and environmentally protective, as provided under the guidelines established by EPA under section 404(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act. EPA's guidelines are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 C.F.R., part 230. Under EPA's guidelines, ``No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if it: (1) Causes or contributes, after consideration of disposal site dilution and dispersion, to violations of any applicable State water quality standard.'' S. 2848 does not change this requirement.

Mr. INHOFE. No, it does not.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at 11:30, we will be voting on the WRDA bill, which we have talked extensively about for the last 2 weeks and the benefits it has. I applaud my Senate colleagues for advancing the WRDA bill to the floor to get to this point. We all have a lot to be proud of in the bipartisan passage of another critical infrastructure bill. We are kind of on a roll, really, when we think about our FAST Act and the chemical bill. We have a lot of things we have been doing, and we are authorizing the Engineers' 30 Chief's reports that recommend the construction of new projects with significant economic benefits. The modernization projects bill will modernize our Nation's ports and make our waterways safe and reliable. This Panamax chart shows that we have a problem in this country with some of our ports because as the Panama Canal has expanded--and we have this Panamax, which the top shows the new capacity and then the old capacity--we have to do something to help our various ports. Take the Port of Charleston, It has a 45-foot deck. That is fine for the old ships, but for the new ones it is not. The alternative is to take the ships into the Caribbean, change them, offload some things, which is a great deal of expense. It is not necessary. We deal with flood control projects in this bill. If we look at this chart and the picture, we must provide the necessary level of protection to our communities before another unfortunate disaster occurs like the one we are looking at in Louisiana. Of course, WRDA helps to do that. The environmental projects in the bill also help our Nation's critical ecosystems, including water off the coast of Florida which is experiencing the algae blooms that are disrupting the economy. Of course, the occupier of the Chair is very much responsible for that. It is important to note that this bill does a lot more than authorize new projects. WRDA 2016 includes substantive reforms to the Army Corps policy so local sponsors will be empowered to participate in the funding. This is a big deal, because we would think we shouldn't have to pass a law to accommodate those individuals who want to pay for things that otherwise the government is going to have to pay for. So we change the law. It also establishes the FEMA assistance program to help States rehabilitate the unsafe dams. There are 14,726 which have been identified called high-hazard potential dams located all around the country. We can see that around the country--the term ``high hazard potential'' means that if a dam breaks or if a levee breaks, it will take American lives. It will cost lives. We have 14,000 of these scattered around the country. The WRDA bill also provides reforms and assistance that will help communities address clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure mandates and help address aging infrastructure like this broken water main in Philadelphia. We can see it is not just in the larger, older parts of America. This is one where we have problems in the newer sections and the less-populated areas, such as my State of Oklahoma. WRDA also supports innovative approaches to address drought and water supply issues, which is particularly a problem out West and in my State. Finally, in addition to supporting infrastructure--and therefore the economy--WRDA carries four significant priority policies: It addresses the affordability of Clean Water Act mandates, unfunded mandates. We have been living with these since I was mayor of the city of Tulsa. Our biggest problem is unfunded mandates. In our area, we have a real serious problem in our smaller communities so it does address that. It addresses EPA's coal ash rule. The coal ash rule is something that has been batted around for a long time. There are a lot of diverse thoughts on it. We came to a compromise on this, and it is something that will allow us to use the value of the coal ash for building roads and also taking care of the disposal problem. WRDA 2016 includes exemptions from the SPCC rule for farmers. Senator Fischer has championed this issue, and I have been with her all the way on this. The WRDA bill will exempt all animal feed tanks, and up to two tanks on separate parcels, to allow farmers to refuel their equipment out in the field without being subject to onerous regulations. She has done a great job. Finally, the WRDA bill includes Gold King Mine legislation that will guarantee EPA will reimburse States, local governments, and tribes for the costs they incur cleaning up the mess that EPA makes. So we are one step closer to getting back on track with passing the WRDA bill every 2 years. We went 7 years, from 2010 to 2017, without doing a WRDA bill. We are back on a 2-year schedule now. We want to stay that way. Senator Boxer and I have talked about this, and we have worked together to make sure this does get done. We have also talked to Chairman Shuster and Chairman Upton of the House to make sure this gets done. As when I came way back many years ago, he feels very strongly about the relief that Flint has and the drinking water emergency. I will talk a little bit more about this later after we vote on the bill. I thank not just Senator Boxer for being chair of the committee, she has been the ranking member, and then when Democrats were in charge, she was the chairman and I was the ranking member, all the way through this. We were able to do what we were supposed to do; that is, infrastructure. I do applaud Senator Boxer. I will share my time before our vote with her. Maybe we can visit more about the benefits of this. I look forward to thanking the rest of the people afterward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I am the conservative.