Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the chairman of the Energy Committee will yield for a question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the chairman of the Energy Committee has done tremendous work with the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, to try to find some way to address the legitimate concerns we all share and have with what has happened in Flint, but I want to clarify some basic facts. I wish to ask for a comment or answer from the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

Isn't it true that there is not yet a comprehensive assessment and plan in place by the State of Michigan or Flint as to how they might even spend this money at this point to address their concerns about lead in the water supply in Flint?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Since there is no plan announced yet, or in place, it strikes me as putting the cart before the horse to say that the Senate ought to vote on a $600 million emergency appropriations deal to pay for a plan that has not yet been created or disclosed to the American people.

I ask the Senator through the Chair, isn't it a fact that the State itself has already appropriated $40 million to deal with this issue on an emergency basis and the Obama administration has made available another $80 million through the EPA that is available to the State of Michigan to help Flint deal with this problem, so a total of roughly $120 million has already been made available?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator is out of order.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alaska if she would yield for one last question on topic.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Isn't it true that the Senators from Michigan made this demand for a $600 million earmark before a plan was actually put together by the State of Michigan or the city of Flint--either to analyze the problem or what the solution might look like and how much it might cost--and that the Senator from Alaska, in her capacity as the bill manager, has made an effort to come up with some compromises? In fact, I believe the Senator from Alaska mentioned a compromise that would include upfront funds of $50 million plus a loan, in effect, that would be paid back over time.

I ask the Senator, doesn't it make sense--because there is no plan in place and because there is money already available for Flint and Michigan to begin to address this problem--for us to take our time and handle any additional requests for funding from Flint or Michigan through the regular appropriations process? I believe the Senator is the chair of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over these issues, and I am just wondering whether that wouldn't be a more orderly, responsible process than a $600 million earmark before a plan is even in place.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source