Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Well, I thank the Senator, and I appreciate the junior Senator from Connecticut for yielding for a question. I first want to thank Senator Murphy and the senior Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from New Jersey, and so many others who have been on the floor. Our Democratic caucus is united in saying: Enough is enough. I am very grateful to our Senators from Connecticut and New Jersey who have come to the floor to lead us in that stand of saying: Enough is enough. So I do have a question, but let me first indicate that when we look at this situation--whether it is Orlando or Sandy Hook or Tucson or Columbine or on and on and on or every day on the streets of our cities and communities across the country--it is time to stop just putting out statements. I don't know about my colleagues on the floor, but I am sure they share with me this sense of frustration of constantly having to put out statements saying that our thoughts and prayers are with the families, because, of course, our thoughts and prayers are with the families, but our actions should be with the families. That is what we are here today to focus on. It is not enough to have words. They expect us to act and to make a difference. I am so grateful for so many Americans from all walks of life and all religions who have joined together. I am so proud of the powerful statements coming from the Muslim community, standing in partnership and friendship with the LGBT community and the Jewish and Christian community at large, and all of those who have said: Enough is enough. Hate crime, act of terror--enough is enough. I want to lift up, before asking my question, two young people from Michigan who were part of the horror 4 days ago. A 25-year-old who had been living in Saginaw, MI, was killed in the Orlando terrorist hate- crime attack. By all accounts he was a wonderful young man. He owned his own business, loved his family, and recently attended his niece's graduation. His friends said: Nobody can say a bad word about him. He always had a smile on his face. He always loved to laugh. Additionally, a Detroit native was also killed in the attack. He worked as a mental health counselor, and he had won awards for his work in the LGBT community. We in Michigan have a long tradition of enjoying hunting, fishing, and outdoor activities. I grew up in northern Michigan. My family is very involved in hunting and legal and safe gun ownership. But that is not what this debate is about. My family--my brothers, my son, my nieces and nephews--and others look at me and say: What is going on here? This is not about whether we can enjoy hunting or legal gun ownership. My family is saying to me: Wait a minute; let me get this straight. There is a terror watch list where you can't fly, but you can buy a gun. What is that? They go into a gun shop, and they get a background check. But you can go to a gun show or on the Internet and not? So I ask my colleague, a great leader on this issue, because I think it is important now to explain a little more about these two things we want to accomplish: What are the two things we want to accomplish? In going through all of this--stopping the regular business of the Senate and saying we have to act; we have to begin to address what we can do for these horrors--what are the two things we are asking for?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, we are here just a few days before Memorial Day, when all across the country, Americans are going to go to parades to pay tribute to troops who made the ultimate sacrifice. They will invite friends and family over and fire up the grill. I think we all look forward to those family gatherings. At least that is what Americans usually do over this holiday weekend. This year, they might have second thoughts. I know I am getting asked a lot of questions by my family, not because of rain but because of something more frightening. Since the beginning of the year, public health experts have been warning us about a severe threat to moms and babies--the Zika virus. It causes severe damage to fetal brains, birth defects, and even death. Zika is not just coming to the United States; it is already here. People are concerned, and they want us to act. There are already more than 150 pregnant women in the United States who have been infected, and we are hearing of more every day. We have four in Michigan so far, and the threat is growing. We are fortunate to have doctors and scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health who have the skills and the knowledge to get Zika under control. I have great confidence in their ability to create a vaccine, to do what needs to be done on testing, and to get the information we don't have right now on the full impact of the Zika virus. These brilliant minds are ready to go to work in the lab to find a treatment, to develop a vaccine that can help protect the health of babies, of pregnant moms, and of women of childbearing age. We are now hearing about a different kind of reaction to the Zika virus in men, as well, so we are still learning every single day. But that work will be costly. Specifically, these doctors and scientists asked for $1.9 billion, and they included an extremely detailed action plan for where the money would go and the work that would be done. Unfortunately, we have not yet sent an appropriation to the President of the United States to sign so they can get to work. Republicans in Congress have said no to the full request. Senate Republicans have agreed to $1.1 billion. I am glad we have been able to get agreement to move something forward as a first step, even though it is not what the scientists and doctors have said needs to happen. But I signed on because it was the best we could get at the moment, and we have to get started. What is incredibly concerning is that the House of Representatives was even more shortsighted. They gave researchers only one-third of what they asked for--one-third of what they say they need to go into the lab and develop the vaccines that will protect our children, will protect pregnant moms, and protect all of us who may be impacted in some way. On top of that, in the House, they are using gimmicks to disguise the fact that they are raiding one public health fund to pay for another. So it is as if there is a fire, and you send a fire engine out. Then another fire starts on the other side of town. And instead of sending a different fire engine out, you just take the one and send it to the other fire. Well, wait a minute. People wouldn't put up with that in the community, and they certainly aren't going to put up with what we are seeing coming from the Republicans in the House. So they are playing games and denying doctors and researchers the money they need to keep us safe. Many of these Members talk tough about keeping Americans safe, but right now we have a frightening virus that is getting more severe every passing day. Yet Republican colleagues, particularly in the House, have no sense of urgency. We haven't seen a sense of urgency to take the Senate compromise out of an appropriations bill, put it into an emergency bill, and send it to the President. Madam President, I can't imagine how scary this must be for a pregnant woman right now--even for women in Michigan, where the threat is far less severe than in other parts of the country. Yet when my own family members, when others across Michigan--friends I talk to, the others I have had a chance to talk to in the last couple of weeks--turn on the television, they have to hear from Republicans in Washington who refuse to take this threat seriously. We have to take this seriously. Make no mistake, this is a major public health emergency. These mosquitoes are not picking and choosing whether they are going to bite Democrats versus Republicans. The reality is that this is a public health emergency for all Americans, and we need to treat it as that. For Republicans to go home for Memorial Day without dealing with this threat is incredibly insensitive and irresponsible. We have work to do. This is another case where we need to make sure we are doing our job. We are here; we are willing to do that. We must equip our doctors and medical researchers with the tools they need to keep our families safe. For a threat of this scale, we should not be delaying in any way, and we can't do this on the cheap. We can't only do part of it. We have to do what needs to be done with the doctors, the researchers, and the people we trust in our country. We have the most brilliant minds in the world. They are telling us what needs to be done, but they need the resources to get it done. The richest Nation in the world can't afford to take the steps necessary to defeat the world's most urgent public health crisis. Really? I don't think so. It is time to act. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it has now been 62 days since Judge Garland's nomination--62 days. As we all know, our Founding Fathers entrusted all of us in the Senate with the role of providing advice and consent to the President of the United States in relation to his appointments to the Supreme Court. We have the option--in fact, I believe the responsibility--to meet with the nominee in person. We are responsible for holding hearings through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Based on his responses to questions, we then have the opportunity to vote yes or no on the nomination. But we don't have the responsibility of doing nothing. We have to proceed to consider the nomination. Unfortunately, Senators in the majority are refusing to do that. They have said they will not hold hearings--no hearings, zero--on a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. And too many have refused to even meet with the nominee, and I believe it is a matter of respect to meet with the nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. This is our job in the Senate. This is their job--the job established for them--for us--by America's Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, the majority is refusing to do it. I have talked with a lot of hard-working people in Michigan and, frankly, people around the country about what would happen if they decided to not do one of the most basic parts of their job; if they said: For the next year, I think I am just not going to do this major part of my job description. Usually, when I ask people about that, they laugh and say: Well, that is simple; I would be fired. That is the response of the majority of Americans. If we go back in history and look at how long it usually takes for the Senate to process a President's Supreme Court nomination, we see how unprecedented these delays really are. If this Republican- controlled Senate did its job as previous Senates have, then there would have been a hearing of the Judiciary Committee by April 27, which was 3 weeks ago--3 weeks ago--but that hasn't happened. The Judiciary Committee would have held a vote on May 12, but that vote never came, and there is no sign it is coming anytime soon, if at all, this year. Based on historical precedent, the Supreme Court nominee would then come to the floor for a vote on confirmation, up or down, yes or no, by Memorial Day. That is not going to happen either. I urge my Republican colleagues to schedule a hearing so that the American people can hear directly from Judge Merrick Garland in a transparent and open way. Ask the tough questions. Talk about his almost 20 years on the circuit court bench and his role as chief judge. We should also talk about the fact that he was confirmed for that position overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, by the U.S. Senate. Because there is not a willingness to hold hearings, to debate, to discuss, to have a vote, I think that is why polls show that the majority of Americans support holding the hearings and a vote for Judge Garland and don't understand what is going on. Meanwhile, the eight Justices of the Supreme Court have been unable to reach a final decision on two important cases, and I am sure there will be more. Those cases are Zubik v. Burwell and Spokeo v. Robbins. As a result, the law remains unsettled and is likely to remain unsettled for a year or more as to whether women who work for certain nonprofits will continue to have seamless access to contraceptive health care coverage. Given the gravity of the decision the Supreme Court must make, we can't afford to let it continue with less than the nine Justices who make up the Supreme Court. This is supposed to be a separate branch of government that will place a check on the administration and on Congress, the third branch of government. It is time that we get about the business of doing our job and for our Republican colleagues to say they are going to do their job and provide advice and consent on the nomination. Again, if there is not support for this nomination after rigorous debate, after hearings, after questions, after hearing from Judge Garland, then so be it. Then the President of the United States will have to come back with another nomination. But right now nothing is happening to reflect the fact that the third branch of government will be left ineffective, unable to fully function for probably a year, and it could be longer. That makes no sense. It is time to do your job. It is time to do your job so that the U.S. Supreme Court can do its job on behalf of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, the bottom line is that we have developed a bipartisan bill that phases out this program in a responsible way for the businesses that are currently involved and uses that to pay for water infrastructure needs across the country, not only in Flint but in Jackson, MI, and Cleveland, OH--across the country. So we can achieve what the Senators are talking about in a way that helps us with water infrastructure. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wanted to quickly take a moment to speak about the vehicle program from two sides. When I authored this legislation back in 2007, we began to see fuel economy standards increase in the United States. Part of our focus at that time was to keep jobs in America and make sure we had low-cost financing available for companies, such as retool plants, so that smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles would be made in the United States rather than have those jobs shipped overseas. We saw that with the initial loan made to Ford Motor Company. They were able to bring jobs back from Mexico and also focus on electric vehicles. As we fast forward to today, we are looking at fuel economy for trucks and larger vehicles. A loan was recently made to Alcoa. They are focused on aluminum materials so companies can make lighter weight trucks in order to meet new fuel economy standards. There are positives, but there are also areas under this loan program that have not been successful. I come to the floor to specifically say that when it is time to consider the Coats amendment, which will completely eliminate this program, my colleagues need to know that we are undercutting a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise with Senator Inhofe, Senator Portman, and others to move forward on a water infrastructure plan to deal with lead in water that will not only help 100,000 people in the city of Flint, but it will also help people in Jackson, MS, Cleveland, OH, and other States across the country. Our proposal responsibly phases out this program and uses the funds for critical water infrastructure needs. We strongly oppose pulling the rug out from under not only Flint but also Jackson, MS, Cleveland, OH, and communities across the country that are counting on us to come together and pass what we have done in a bipartisan way to address critical water infrastructure needs and deal with the lead poisoning issues. I ask colleagues to vote no on the Coats amendment and allow us to phase out this program in a way so that we will be able to use this investment in a critical way to address water infrastructure needs across the country. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wanted to make a quick statement about an amendment that will come up for consideration on the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I would like to speak about two different subjects. Both are connected in the sense that they involve lack of action and people counting on us to act as a Senate. The first involves the fact that today in the city of Flint, MI, we still have people who can't drink the water coming out of the tap. I think any one of us would have trouble if that happened for 1 day, but we are talking about months and months--going on 2 years now--that we have seen a system completely broken down because of decisions, because of lack of treating the water, a whole range of things. From my perspective, the most important thing is the fact that people still don't have access to clean, safe water. They can't bathe their babies. They can't take a shower themselves. I can't imagine what it must be like for families in Flint who are waiting and waiting for help. I want to thank President Obama for doing what he can do through the administration to help from the standpoint of health and nutrition and education, but the fundamental problem is replacing the damaged pipes. As my colleagues know, we have been working very hard and we have developed a bipartisan proposal. I wish to thank the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell, for working with us, and so many colleagues who are now bipartisan cosponsors on a bill with myself and Senator Peters. I wish to thank Senator Inhofe as chair of EPW and ranking member Senator Boxer and so many people who have come together to support this effort, not only for Flint, but we now are seeing headlines across the country about other areas where lead poisoning in water is a serious issue and where we have all kinds of communities with water infrastructure needs. We have put together a proposal. We have a bipartisan proposal. We are ready to move forward. We need a vote on this proposal. As people in this building know, the junior Senator from Utah is holding us up from being able to get that vote. We have spent weeks now--weeks-- trying to find a way to get beyond this objection. We thought we had an agreement, and then the bar just keeps changing. This is not a game. These are real people, and we are trying to solve a real problem. We have put forward a proposal fully paid for that actually reduces the deficit, paid for out of a program that I care deeply about because I authored it in 2007, and prior to Senator Peters being a Senator, when he was in the House, he was the champion of the program that we are offering to use as a payfor. So I just want to remind everyone--and I am going to continue to come to the floor and remind colleagues every day--that a group of Americans in a city of 100,000 where there has been a Federal emergency declared are still waiting for us to act to help them--not to do the whole thing, not to pay for all of what needs to be done in terms of water infrastructure, but to do our part as a Federal Government, as we have done in communities across the country for other kinds of emergencies. We need to help the children of Flint. Nine thousand children under the age of six are being exposed to lead poisoning; some homes have exposure higher than a toxic waste dump. I can tell my colleagues as a mother and now as a grandmother, I would never tolerate something like that. I can't imagine what is happening for families. We have the opportunity to do something. It is easy. It is fully paid for. It is fully paid for by something that colleagues on the other side of the aisle have wanted to eliminate--fully paid for. It helps communities across the country. Now we have a situation where one Member has indicated, well, it is not his problem. He doesn't care; it is not his problem. I hope as Americans we are willing to say that other people's problems--I would think we care about them, whether it is our own children, our own grandchildren, people we know or not. That is what we expect when there are emergencies and disasters across the country. And whether it is in the farm bill that I worked on with the distinguished Presiding Officer where we strengthened livestock disaster assistance-- even though that is not a huge issue to me in the State of Michigan, but I know it is for a lot of States and a lot of communities. That is what we do as Americans. We care about people and communities. We have a group of people right now who are not being seen. I want my colleagues to see this baby and the picture this represents of a group of people who are waiting for help and deserve help. Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy Mr. President, I wish to address something else now and turn to history to talk about somebody else who is waiting. He can drink his water and take a shower. That is a good thing. But we have a very distinguished jurist, the Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals, nominated by the President of the United States to be a Supreme Court Justice, who is waiting for the opportunity to be heard, to have a hearing, to meet with people, to have a vote, yes or no. We have spoken a lot about the Constitution, about responsibilities, about debates. Our three branches of government are sworn to uphold both the written word of the Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution. This spirit was expressed in a series of articles beginning in 1787. I wasn't there at the time. But in reading what our Founding Fathers said--those who framed the Constitution--I think it is important to look at what they intended through the Federalist Papers. On April 1, 1788, Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist Paper No. 76, outlined two specific roles for Supreme Court nominees: that the President nominate Justices and the Senate provide advice and consent. Hamilton explained how the Senate held the power to reject a nominee, to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment, or from other biases. As my colleagues know, Senators can investigate the character of a nominee by meeting the nominee in person, by holding hearings, and by looking at their writings. At the Senate Judiciary Committee they can ask the nominee questions in full view of the public. Based on responses, if they believe a nominee does not have the appropriate character, they can reject the nomination. They can vote no. That is our right as Senators. But Senators in the current Republican majority are refusing to do any of that. They have said they will not hold hearings. Most of them will not even meet with the nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. I want to commend Republican Senators who are, in fact, meeting with Judge Garland. This is their job. This is our job--the job established for us by America's Founding Fathers--and a majority of the majority is refusing to do it. Now, according to the average time for moving a Supreme Court nominee through the process, if the Republican majority did their job, as previous Senates did, then there would be a hearing of the Judiciary Committee by April 27, but there is none scheduled. The Judiciary Committee would hold a vote by May 12, but there is no vote coming. And based on historical precedent, the Supreme Court nominee would then come to the floor for a vote on confirmation before Memorial Day. But because my colleagues across the aisle are refusing to do their job, that vote will not happen. My Republican colleagues like to say that the Senate does not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a Presidential year, but that doesn't square with the facts. More than a dozen Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed by the Senate in an election year. In 1988, also a Presidential year, the Senate did its job by confirming President Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, with a Democratically controlled Senate. In 1940, another Presidential election year, the Senate did its job by confirming President Franklin Roosevelt's nominee, Justice Frank Murphy. In 1932, the Senate did its job by confirming President Hoover's Supreme Court nominee. In 1916, the Senate did its job twice by confirming President Wilson's two nominees for the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in June 1788, just a few months after Hamilton published the Federalist Paper I mentioned a few minutes ago. And for nearly 228 years--228 years--during times of war, times of peace, periods of prosperity, and periods of economic hardship, America has balanced the powers between the executive and the legislative branches in selecting who would serve in the third branch of government. We have done it during Democratic majorities and Republican majorities for 228 years. To those who are refusing to hold hearings on a nomination, my question is this: What has changed? What has changed this year? What is it about this President that causes him to be treated this way? What is it that is leading my colleagues to question the judgment and the wisdom of Alexander Hamilton and the rest of the Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution and gave us the responsibility for advice and consent? In short, why now are you refusing to do your job? Just do your job. Do what we are paid to do. Last month, I went over in front of the Supreme Court on a beautiful, sunny day when a lot of people were here visiting, and I talked to a number of citizens and asked them what they thought about what was happening, the debate going on about filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. I also asked them what would happen to you if during a year you told your employer that a major part of your job--a very big responsibility that you have in your job--you were going to refuse to do for a year or so. What would happen? Well, the answer is pretty easy. People said: I would be fired. People say: Why aren't you doing your job? Why isn't the majority doing its job? Because if you are not willing to do the work, why should you have the job? Nobody else can do that in their job. That is why the polls show overwhelmingly that the American people side with those of us on the Democratic side, with all of us who stand together as Democratic Senators to say: Do your job. We are willing to do our job. People stand with the Constitution and with the overwhelming history of our country. It is very simple. It is a very simple idea. It is a phrase we say all the time in all kinds of circumstances. We say to our children, we say to people we work with: Just do your job. Well, this is our job. Hold a hearing, meet with the nominee, have a vote. You can vote yes; you can vote no. You could skip that day. But this judge deserves a vote, and it is our responsibility to vote and to fill the vacancy on the highest Court in the land. That is what the American people expect us to do. That is what they deserve. It is time that the Senate do its job. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I want to thank my partner and colleague, Senator Peters, for his wonderful friendship and commitment to the people of Flint. We both share this. This has really become a second full-time job for us, given what has happened in Flint, in reaching out on behalf of the 9,000 children who are under the age of 6 who have been exposed and the homes that have exposure of lead that is higher than a toxic waste dump. As a mom and now as a grandmother, I can't imagine what that must feel like for the moms and dads and the grandpas and grandmas and the fear and horror they feel, as well as for the adults and the seniors who are exposed and everyone who is paying a price. Certainly, the business community is concerned now about people coming and doing business and going to restaurants in the city of Flint, despite the fact that there is wonderful work going on downtown in rebuilding this community. There are wonderful, exciting things happening, and now they have really been knocked off their feet because of what has happened. Across the way in the other Chamber today, there are hearings going on. There is a lot of effort back and forth in talking about who is to blame for what happened. We certainly understand what happened, coming from Michigan, but I have to tell you that we are laser-focused on the folks who had nothing to do with what happened--nothing to do with what happened. These are the people of Flint, who assumed, like each one of us does, that when you get up in the morning and turn on the faucet, when you take a shower or you feed your children, clean water is going to come out of the pipes. We all assume that. That is pretty much a basic human right, certainly in America. It may not be in other countries, but it certainly is in America, where we assume that is the case. In America, when a community is struck by this kind of catastrophe--a catastrophe they did not cause--we come together as Americans. That is what we do. We pitch in. We do what we can to help. That is what Senator Peters and I have been hoping to accomplish on behalf of the people of Flint. Since we have started debating these issues, we have found other communities as well that have challenges--none to the extent we are seeing in Flint, where 100,000 people and the entire city have been exposed to lead poisoning and the whole water system is in shambles. But there are other communities that have challenges, and we believe it is important to help them as well. So we have come up with something, as Senator Peters said. We have been working hard for the last 8 weeks to find a bipartisan plan--a compromise--that is not only fully paid for but out of something that I authored in the 2007 Energy bill, by the way. Because of the importance of this to the people of Flint, I said: OK, we will give something we care about here. We will restructure it. We will shorten the time of the program, and we will pay for it out of that. Senator Peters, when he was in the House, was the champion for this particular advanced manufacturing loan program. We are saying: OK, we are willing to have that end in order to be able to pay for what is happening in Flint. On top of a fully paid-for program out of a program that Republican colleagues don't like--so we are going to be ending something that folks would like to end--tens of millions of dollars in deficit reduction come along with this for the score. So it doesn't get any better than this. We were told to find something that is a pay-for that is not going to infringe with what other people care about. We did that. We were told no earmarks. We did that. We were told no new programs built on current programs. We did that. And we added deficit reduction. Yet the children of Flint are still waiting. The children of Flint--for the last 8 weeks--and their families are still waiting. As Senator Peters said, we met some of these people this morning, and it just breaks your heart. People are looking at us and saying: OK, you have been working on this and you have this bipartisan group; isn't that great. But what is happening? The children of Flint are waiting. So we are at a point where this has to stop. We need a vote. We need a vote. We have a bipartisan bill, and we need a vote. We are at a point where we need to have a vote and stop this ability of one person to just hold things up. First, I want to thank our Republican colleagues as well as Democratic colleagues who have been working with us. First of all, our main Republican sponsor, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, has been a true champion for supporting water infrastructure investments nationally. I am so grateful he came forward and offered the idea of not only being able to support Flint but to activate a financing program set up in the last water resources bill that would address communities across the country as well. That is terrific. If we can help other communities, along with what we need to do to support the families of Flint, that is great. So we thank him for his diligence. He has really stepped up, and we are so grateful. I want to thank the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the ranking member, Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell, who have been stellar. I can't count how many hours we have talked on the phone, we have had meetings, and we have talked on the floor, and the lengths to which both of them have been willing to go to support us in solving this problem. They have been wonderful--even as late as a couple of hours ago in talking to us to figure out how we could move forward both to address this water infrastructure bill to help Flint and other communities and also to move forward on the Energy bill. So we need to be doing both, and we are at a point where that needs to get done. We have 10 cosponsors of the bill, and I want to thank Senator Portman and Senator Brown, Senator Kirk, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Burr, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer, Senator Mikulski, Senator Capito, and Senator Baldwin. People from both parties have come together to do something that will make things better for the families and the communities that we represent. There are a number of other Members and staff who have been working behind the scenes. We are so grateful for their kind words and encouragement and for the people who have offered their support for what we are doing. I particularly want to thank our appropriations leaders, Senator Cochran and Senator Mikulski, for going the extra mile to figure out some strategy that would satisfy the Senator from Utah to get beyond this hold and to come together. Unfortunately, despite strong bipartisan support and our best efforts, we find ourselves still in a spot, even though we have had conversations today--and I appreciate that, and folks say they still want to work together, but it seems like we go round and round and round and round. We need to stop and have a vote at this point in time. At one point, we thought we had agreement. As I said, we met again today. It would make sense in moving forward to offer the Senator the opportunity to have a second-degree amendment to our proposal. He has a different idea on structuring that. We are willing to make the case, let him make the case, and decide. That is what the Senate is about-- have a vote, decide. The children of Flint need our help. Somehow this procedural stuff-- talking to folks about holds and cloture and all this--is not going to turn on the water in Flint. It is not going to help the children who have already been exposed and their families. We need the sense of urgency they have. When we look around the country--and, believe me, our focus is on Flint. Even though there are certainly other communities in Michigan with water issues, others around the country, we are laser-focused on the place where the water has been destroyed and the people have been poisoned because of a whole range of what happened, and people have not been able to take a bath or cook with water out of a tap or to be able to care for their children or themselves for almost 2 years. It is also true that when we talk to colleagues in putting together this bill, there are drinking water infrastructure needs around the country to be addressed. Utah will require $3.7 billion in drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years to meet minimum human health and safety requirements. In Jackson, MS, last month--after random samples showed lead levels above Federal action levels--the mayor issued a warning to pregnant women and children 5 years of age and younger to stay away from tapwater. The mayor also said: This is not Flint because we are telling people about it and we are taking action, which, unfortunately, did not happen to protect the health and safety of the people in Flint. Last month in Crystal City, TX, there was black sludge water coming out of the faucet, and residents were warned to boil tapwater before drinking it--in Texas. According to a recent survey by EPA, Texas will require nearly $34 billion in upgrades to its drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years to comply with minimum safety standards. Last month in Ohio, 13 water systems were under lead advisories. In Sebring, OH, lab tests last August found unsafe levels of lead in drinking water--and it took 5 months before the city told pregnant women and children not to drink the water and to shut down the taps and fountains in schools. Just today, the USA TODAY network published a report that identified nearly 2,000 water systems where excessive lead levels have been detected in the last 4 years, and they serve 6 million people. Virginia Tech professor Marc Edwards recently again sounded the alarm about lead pipes in Washington. In Cleveland, children have high levels due to exposure to lead in household paints. We could go on and on. Pennsylvania, high lead levels. The reason I am saying this is because while the catastrophe has happened in Flint--for many reasons beyond the control of anybody in Flint--there are other communities now that need help as well, which is why the proposal we have is one that has broad bipartisan support to be able to activate a wider infrastructure-financing mechanism that allows communities around the country to be able to solve problems before they get to what happened in Flint on the early end to solve the problems so people don't get lead poisoning. That is in this bill. We step up, because these are Americans in Flint, MI, and say: We hear you. We see you. We care about you, and because you have a Federal emergency declaration we will provide the opportunity to get some help. In addition to accountability and responsibility of the State, the Federal Government, because of the EPA's role in this, will be a part of the solution in fixing these pipes. We also address public health issues: the Centers for Disease Control Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fund, HUD's Healthy Homes Program for lead both in water and in paint, and we address the opportunity to reach out and deal with the public health issues for children. Needless to say, we are extremely disappointed--putting it mildly--in how we feel about coming to a point today, despite best efforts on many people's parts, frankly, despite our patience working with people, accepting them at their word, working, trying to get things done, looking at various alternatives to get beyond the roadblocks, despite a lot of effort. Again, we are grateful for those who have stood with us and worked so hard on our behalf. It is incredibly disappointing and frustrating and, frankly, maddening that we are here as the Senate is leaving for the next 2 weeks and we do not have action on Flint and on water systems across this country. Again, I can tell you that for the people of Flint who have not gotten help for so long, for the people of Flint who were told the water was OK and it wasn't--and I have now been watching coverups and slow-walking for going on 2 years--this is just one more time when they are watching inaction and we could be stepping up and doing something to help. So that is what we are asking for; that when we come back, the children of Flint be a priority for action; that we work together, as we have done across the aisle, to put forward something that will address water infrastructures to help the people of Flint, to help people around the country so they don't find themselves in a situation like the people of Flint; and that we do that together; that we pass that bill; that we pass an energy bill; and that we move forward after weeks and weeks and weeks of good-faith efforts to get something done. All we are asking for is a vote. That is all we are asking for, after all this effort, is the opportunity to vote. If someone believes it is not the right thing to do, they have the opportunity that we all have, to vote no, but the children of Flint deserve a vote. The children in Jackson, MS, and the people around the country are worried they might become the crisis, the catastrophe in Flint, and are asking us simply to vote. Lead poisoning is a frightening thing. It gets in your body and never leaves. It goes from your blood to your bones. When a woman gets pregnant, it goes into the fetus. It is a frightening form of poison. If that is not a national emergency worthy of action by the Senate and the House--the Congress of this country--I don't know what is. Frankly, there are a whole lot of people who have lost faith in the government right now of Flint, who are asking us to see them, to care about them, and to help. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that we have not yet been able to come to an agreement on the issue of GMO labeling. Senator Roberts and I have a long history of friendship and of working together. We have both worked very hard to come to an agreement on an extremely difficult and emotional issue. I thank him for his continual work, and I am forever the optimist that we will get there, even though we are not there yet. We have continued to work, and my team and I have continued to work, to find common ground, all the way until very late last night. If we at this point do not proceed but can have some more time, I believe it is possible for us to come together in a bipartisan solution. While this debate has been difficult, there are some important areas where Senator Roberts and I agree. For instance, Senator Roberts and I agree that the science has shown us that biotechnology is safe. In fact, leading health organizations like the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, and the World Health Organization all say there is no evidence that GMOs aren't safe. We agree that biotechnology is an important tool for farmers and ranchers, particularly as we tackle the challenges of climate change-- which, by the way, science also tells us is real. I believe in science, and I would love if we would all come together around the science on both of these issues. We have to tackle the need to feed a growing, hungry world. We agree that a 50-State patchwork of labeling laws is not a workable long-term solution. In fact, I don't know any Member on any side of this issue in the Senate who doesn't agree with that, that we have to have a national approach, not 50 different States. But we also know, as we have frequently debated States' rights, the importance of States making decisions, that when we preempt States, whether it is on fuel efficiency standards for automobiles or whether it is on food labeling, the approach has always been to go from 50 different States doing 50 different things to having a national standard and a national approach. As it was with CAFE standards, in which I was very involved, it is important that it work from an industry standpoint. I know it can be done, and it is our job to get to that point. We also recognize, though, that a growing number of American consumers want to know more about the food they eat, and they have the right to know. They have the right to know what is in their food. I was very proud of the fact that we came together on the last farm bill to recognize all parts of agriculture. The fastest growing part of agriculture is the organic sector. We gave more opportunities to support the organic sector, the local food movement. People should have choices in deciding what food they eat, how it is grown, how it is processed, and that is something we have said in national policy that we support through our agricultural policies. Unfortunately, the Senate is poised to vote on a bill that I do not support, that does not fully answer this demand from consumers. Consumers want information about the food they eat, it is as simple as that. In fact, the bill continues the status quo on providing information to consumers. It lists a number of things, many of which are already being done, 1-800 numbers and so on. Look at the back of the pack; it lists things, but they are things that are already being done--not all but many, enough--and then says: We will keep the status quo nationally, but we will preempt the States and citizens around the country from taking individual action. I don't support that. That is not good enough. It doesn't reflect what we do when we are talking about Federal policy. That is one reason I think the approach put forward in the bill is the wrong path. Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of emotion around this issue on both sides--a lot of emotion. Frankly, there is a lot of confusion about GMOs and their safety, which is why I think this approach is the wrong approach. We should be telling the story, as should farmers, of biotechnology and the importance that it plays in our food production and in food security. We should not be taking action that further appears to stop consumers from getting the information they want and feeds into the idea that there is something wrong, that there is a reason to hide, because there is not. We should embrace this opportunity to share with the public what is in our food, talk about it, why we use these crops, why they are deemed safe. That is why, during the last several months of negotiations with Chairman Roberts, I offered several proposals that would shed light on this issue and do it in a way that is eminently workable for those involved in the food industry. While those proposals were not ultimately accepted, I still believe we need and can achieve a policy that creates a uniform national system of disclosure for the use of GMO ingredients and do it in a way that has common sense and works for everybody. The national disclosure system needs to provide real options for disclosing information about GMOs that work for both consumers and food companies. I believe we must create a system that provides certainty as well to our food companies and all of our companies--national, organic, traditional companies. Everyone knows that a 50-State system with 50 different definitions, 50 different laws, and 50 different ways to do packaging doesn't work, so we all have a need to come together and to fix this. I also believe that a system must work for all companies-- very small companies, medium-sized companies, and large companies as well. I believe we must not harm the important work being done by our organic producers. Again, we made great strides in the farm bill, and we need to keep the choices that are in the marketplace now available to consumers and not pass something that will infringe on any of the choices consumers have. I am disappointed that we have not yet been able to come to a clear consensus on the issue of GMO labeling. I know this issue is contentious. As I said, it is very emotional on all sides. As far as I am concerned, it is time for us to come together on a thoughtful, commonsense approach that is best for consumers, for farmers, for families, and for our country. We have the most successful agricultural system, food economy in the world. We are the envy of the world. We want to make sure that whatever we do, we maintain that position. But part of who we are in America is a country that believes in people's right to know information and be able to make their own individual choices. I believe there is a way to do that, to make sure we continue to have the strongest, most vibrant, most successful and robust agricultural economy and food economy in the world--we are literally feeding the world--and at the same time be able to provide basic information that American consumers are asking to have provided. I will not be supporting Senator Roberts' amendment. I think this may be the first time in the years we have worked together--both with me as chair and now with him as chair--that we have not come to the floor united. It is not for lack of trying. We have been working very hard, and there are differences, but I believe that if we have the opportunity to keep working, we will be able to get to that spot where we can come together. As I urge colleagues to oppose this proposal and moving forward on cloture without having an agreement, I also commit to continue working to get there because we have to take action to solve this problem and it has to be done in a bipartisan way. That is how we get things done, and I am committed to continuing to work with our chairman and with Members on both sides of the aisle so we can do that.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I commend my friend and colleague from Tennessee and share his feelings about passing the Marketplace Fairness Act. I hope we are going to see that happen as soon as possible. I am joined on the floor by my dear friend and colleague from Michigan. We are united in speaking out about the urgent crisis in Flint. If you will let me know when I have consumed 6 minutes, please.

Ms. STABENOW. Over the last couple of weeks, we have been negotiating and negotiating with the chair of the Energy Committee, the ranking member, and with other colleagues on the other side of the isle. I want to particularly thank our ranking member who has stood with us day after day in the effort to make sure we can get some help for the children and the families of Flint. I thank our colleagues on this side of the aisle for standing with us as well. We have been looking for an opportunity, a way to come together to help a group of Americans. That is what we do in the Senate. When someone has a crisis, we work together, State by State, to step up and be able to provide some assistance as Americans. I have had the honor and pleasure to negotiate a number of bipartisan agreements while I have been here almost 16 years, working with colleagues to pass a very complicated farm bill, working on many different issues together across the aisle. I know that when you want to get things done, you can. It is just a matter of having the will to do it. When you don't want to get things done, you come to the floor and attack the people you are supposed to be negotiating with and you negotiate in the press. Unfortunately, that is what we have seen in recent days. That is why we are so deeply concerned about the fact that there is not the resolve to come together to be able to help the children of Flint, the families of Flint, and then move on with the Energy bill that there is bipartisan interest in passing. Every time we have thought we had an agreement, we changed things to reflect a proposal, a structure from the majority on the Energy Committee, and every time we think we have something, the rug has been pulled out from under us after hours and hours of work. Frankly, I feel like Charlie Brown when Lucy is pulling the football away time after time. That is exactly what has been happening. We have had one exception though. I want to give a real thank-you and shout-out to Senator Inhofe because we spent all last weekend putting together a bipartisan, fully paid-for proposal that not only will help the families and children of Flint but create the opportunity for colleagues across the country to get help with water infrastructure projects. There are multiple areas. We have them in Michigan, other areas outside of Flint. They are not devastated like Flint is with their entire system corroded, the children poisoned, and the water system shut down, but there are multiple issues around water. We joined together with the distinguished chair of the EPW and have come together in good faith with a proposal we can't get a vote on, unfortunately. We cannot get the willingness to put before us where we could vote together on something that would address Flint but also help others. I thank Senator Inhofe, and we are going to continue to work with him to get that proposal or some other comprehensive proposal in front of us. It has also been extremely disappointing, though, to see Republican leadership come to the floor, colleagues who have had millions, in fact, billions of dollars funneled to their States for various emergencies over the years, come and tell us that what is happening on lead poisoning for these children, what is happening in Flint where you can't drink the water today, yesterday, the day before, 18 months and longer now, tomorrow, the next day, where you have to bathe these babies in bottled water, brush your teeth in bottled water, try to figure out how to take a shower in bottled water, that this is a local issue. Right now we have a fully funded Federal Disaster Relief Fund that we passed last year in the omnibus--fully funded, billions of dollars. Over the years it has paid for a water main break in Boston, a chemical spill in West Virginia, a fertilizer plant explosion in West Texas. Local issue? State issue? I am not sure why that was Federal, necessarily. Right now there is somewhere between $6 billion and $7 billion sitting in an account to respond to disasters, and we are only asking for a very small amount of those funds, to see and recognize and respect and care about the children and families of Flint, MI, a small withdrawal from that account to help children who have been poisoned by lead--9,000 children under the age of 6. Some parts of the city lead exposure is so high. It is higher than a toxic waste dump. How would we feel if this were our children, our grandchildren? I know how I would feel.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I may respond to that.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Presiding Officer. I am going to take 1 additional minute to emphasize the fact that yesterday our colleague from Texas said we are too optimistic trying to get help, while at the same time the President was signing a Federal disaster declaration allowing additional Federal aid for 25 counties in Texas. Since 2005, we have sent $9.75 billion to Texas, including $1 billion that I got in the farm bill on livestock disaster assistance, which is not a major issue in the State of Michigan, but it is for other colleagues, and $1 billion has gone to someone who said: We, as a group, should not care about Flint, MI. Let me just say, I think the folks in Flint deserve their money back. They have been paying to help Americans across this country, and now they don't have the dignity or respect to be able to have some small assistance to stop the poisoning and to create some dignity and respect for these families and help for these children. This child is an American too. We are not going to stop. We will negotiate in good faith. We will continue to do that, but we are not going to stop until we recognize, support, and help the families of Flint. Mr. President, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to my friend from Michigan, Senator Peters.

Ms. STABENOW. The Governor of Michigan sent a letter to the President asking for close to $800 million in disaster assistance to deal with all of the issues we are talking about. What we have been working to do is ask for Federal help for about 25 percent of that, with the balance of it being paid for by the State of Michigan. The State of Michigan certainly has incredible culpability related to this matter. We understand they are addressing this issue, and it is about time that they did that. It does not take the place of our helping the people of Flint and helping to solve this issue as much as any other issue we have talked about today.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Is the chair aware that the dollars we have asked for require a comprehensive plan from the State and that at this point only $28 million--most going to health--has been allocated to the State?

Ms. STABENOW. Will the chair yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Will the distinguished leader yield for a question? I have been asking for the opportunity to ask a question, and I ask unanimous consent to ask a question.

Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to continue the discussion. I thank the Chair. Cloture Motion

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we want to get this solved and not just have votes that go down. I object.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator to yield for a question so we can share the information?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I also want to, as I did before, commend those working on this bill, and I share the majority leader's feeling that a lot of positive progress has been made. We are just not done yet. So while I commend, and have commended, the chair and the ranking member, we have important issues and an energy bill that deals with energy, water, and all kinds of issues. Certainly addressing what is happening in Flint, MI, with the catastrophe is appropriate. We just want to know that we have an agreement--not vote, but an agreement--to get this done.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I first want to thank the chair. She lists a lot of bipartisan efforts that have gone on. I know a lot of work has been done, but nowhere in that list have the needs of the folks of Flint been addressed, including the children.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as all of our colleagues know, we have been working very hard to come together around a reasonable path to provide some support and assistance to the people of Flint, MI, who got up this morning--if they took a shower, it was with bottled water. If they were getting breakfast for their children, if a mom was mixing baby food formula, it was with bottled water. That has gone on now, for some people, 18 months or more. I mean, originally, they were told the water was safe, and they were drinking it and then found incredibly high lead levels in their children. Now it is bottled water. We have businesses downtown who have gone to the expense of creating their own water systems that are totally safe, but no one will come. Doors are closing. We have small businesses in neighborhoods--we have a revitalization effort in downtown Flint that has been really quite extraordinary. The chamber, a wide variety of organizations, the University of Michigan- Flint, a whole range of groups investing in downtown Flint. This is all collapsing because of the fact that people are afraid to come and to drink the water or to eat food mixed with the water, even though our businesses downtown are doing things to rectify this right now. The citizens of Flint, rightly, are in a position where they have been told that the water was safe to drink. They gave it to their children. It wasn't. They are poisoned. Now they are in a situation where they have great despair and great anger. I share in both of those feelings, a multitude of feelings, as does my friend and colleague Senator Peters. We are joined together in our commitment on a whole range of efforts to be able to help the children and families of Flint. There was one report--by the way, this is what the water looks like--brown, smells. There was one story on the news of a house where they went to talk with folks and looked at the lead levels. It was above toxic waste dump levels. I talked to a mom who talked about--and I heard another mom as well, being interviewed, saying: You know, I took my children off of what we call pop in Michigan, other people call it soda, Coke, Pepsi, because I was told that was not healthy for my children. So when my children were playing last summer, I told them to drink water to hydrate because I did not want them getting the extra sugar, the ingredients from pop. Now I know I was poisoning my children. I can only imagine what that mom feels right now. We have a lot of infrastructure problems around the country, no question. We have colleagues on both sides of the aisle working together on various proposals that I support to deal long term with infrastructure. But this is way beyond that. This is an entire city of 100,000 people who have poisoned water because of decisions that none of them made. We can talk later about whose fault it is. There is certainly culpability and accountability. But right now we are focused on helping the people who had nothing to do with creating this. It is 100,000 people. The entire system has lead in it. Some levels are thousands of points higher than is acceptable. No lead is acceptable, but some of it is higher than a toxic waste belt. So we are on the floor asking to help the children of Flint by doing what we do all the time. We just step up as Americans and help a community rebuild their water system. There is a lot more to do. We are so grateful for colleagues who have reached out to say we want to help in a variety of ways--with their education needs, nutrition needs, and health care needs,--but the basic issue is fixing the water system so that the people of Flint have the dignity that we have of knowing that when they turn on the faucet there is going to be clean water. You have probably seen the picture, but in this example in Time magazine, this is a child whose mom was bathing her children, and there are rashes. We have seen rashes, sores, hair falling out, and lead levels because a community drinking water system has been decimated. Americans responded across the country by sending bottled water, and people are very grateful for that. But we also know Americans support and join us by saying bottled water is not enough. This baby cannot be bathed in bottled water every day for years and years and years. I had one citizen say to me: Ma'am, I can't take a shower in bottled water. We have to support fixing the infrastructure. We do that all the time. So what we have done--and I appreciate the chair of the Energy Committee working with us. She spent a lot of time--as has the ranking member, who has been ferocious in her support, for which we are so grateful--trying to work this out. Originally, we thought we had a path forward. Then there were procedural issues that came up. Yesterday we thought we had another path forward that would give us bipartisan support on a solution that we could get done and passed here. Then that was paused. I am not exactly sure why that happened, but that was paused. So today we are asking for colleagues to give us some more time. We have very key people in this Chamber who are now stepping up to give us additional ideas on how we could get this fixed. We can do this quickly if there is the will to do that. So we are asking colleagues to give us more time. As we know, the cloture vote in front of us today is to basically shut off amendments and go to the next step in third reading. What we are saying is give us some time. There are other issues that need to be resolved as well, certainly issues with working men and women around Davis-Bacon laws. There are other issues. We know that we can come to a resolution if there is the political will and a little more time, so that it is not just some bogus proposal. We have had things thrown out that don't solve the problem. We are not looking for something that just gives somebody political cover. We have resisted a lot of folks who would love just to make this a political issue. These children should not be a political football. I think Members of this body know that Senator Peters and I are people who want to get things done. We work across the aisle every single day. If we wanted to blow this up as a political issue, believe me, there would be a different way to do it, and the story writes itself. We are asking people to care and see these children like you see your own children. These children, these families have been ignored and not seen. We see them. Their faces are burned in my memory. We are asking colleagues to see them, to hold them with as much value as you would children in your own family and in the States that you represent. That is what we are asking--nothing more, nothing less. We have not proposed that the Federal Government take full responsibility on cost--far from it. In fact, we have been told by colleagues that we have not proposed enough. We have been willing, in fact, to come to an agreement on something that is less than half of what we originally asked for. But these children deserve the dignity of knowing we will step up and help them. Too many of these children--9,000 of them under the age of 6 and a whole lot of many more thousands above the age of 6--are going to be set back and not have the opportunity to be all they can be. How many scientists, doctors, business people, and teachers are we going to lose because of lead poisoning in this community? It doesn't go away. I have learned more than I have ever wanted to know about lead. I didn't know that once it enters the body, it never goes away. So the children who are poisoned are going to have to live with this, and the best we can do is mitigate it through nutrition and through other strategies. But they deserve to know that we are going to fix this, and we can't begin to deal with it unless the water system works. That is all we are asking for. Today, because we know there is a path, people of good will have been trying to get it done. We need a little more time. I think these children deserve a little more time. I think these families deserve a little more time. Let us get this together. If we vote next week, next Tuesday, we will be OK. How many kids, how many bottles of water--how many bottles will be used between now and next Tuesday by the people of Flint? We can take a couple of extra days to do something that will dramatically change the opportunity for our future in a city that is as important as any other city in our country. So that is what we are asking for. We are grateful that our colleagues are standing with us-- our colleagues on our side of the aisle--to give us more time. We are hoping that the leadership will decide to give us that time so that we can say to this child: We see you, we hear you, we care about you, and we are doing our part in the Senate to make things better. Thank you.