[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7735-S7743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 22, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers
and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the
definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12
noon will be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HELLER. I will yield.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Nevada I be recognized,
unless an intervening minority Member should come in, in which case
that I be recognized after that minority Member.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue that will
impact every single one of my constituents and probably all of the
constituents of my colleagues in this body; namely, the Environmental
Protection Agency's and the Army Corps of Engineers' new definition for
``navigable waters.''
Also known as waters of the United States, this overreaching and
burdensome regulation is bad for Nevada and frankly it is bad for the
Nation. My home State of Nevada is one of the driest in the Nation, and
the water of course is a very precious resource. The only thing more
scarce than water in the Silver State is probably private property, and
the implementation of this waters of the United States rule will only
do more harm for both of these.
Since coming to Congress, one of my primary goals has been to promote
job-creating policies that grow Nevada's economy, and the key to
promoting these types of policies is to cut redtape regulations handed
down by Washington bureaucrats. Unfortunately, time and time again,
this administration is bound and determined to issue overly burdensome
regulations that damage the economy and stifle job creation. The latest
edict from Washington bureaucrats is no different.
After years of failed legislative attempts to change the scope of
regulatory authority over water, this administration has overturned
both congressional intent and multiple Supreme Court decisions to
further overregulate hard-working Nevadans. I have long been an
outspoken advocate and a cosponsor of Senator Barrasso's legislation,
the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, that would make the EPA and
the Army Corps of Engineers redo this rule and consider stakeholder
input--something they completely ignored the last time around.
Considering that nearly 87 percent of my home State is managed by the
Federal Government--which I often refer to as our Federal landlords--it
is easy to see why this rule is thought of by many back home as yet
another Federal land grab.
I have heard from many of my constituents who have shared with me
their staunch opposition to this rule, like Marlow from Ruby Valley and
Darryl from Yerington. They write about the rule that it ``creates
confusion and risk by providing the Agencies with almost unlimited
authority to regulate, at their discretion, any low spot where
rainwater collects, including farm ditches, ephemeral drainages,
agricultural ponds and isolated wetlands found in and near farms and
ranching.''
The EPA may tell us that farmers and ranchers are protected from this
regulation by exemptions under the Clean Water Act. The problem with
this so-called exemption is that if a landowner made any changes on
their farmland or their ranch since 1977 that impacts any land or any
water on their property, they do not qualify for an exemption. Think
about it again. Since 1977, if a landowner made any changes on their
ranch land or on their farm that impacts water or land, they don't
qualify for this exemption. So under this new rule, almost everyone
would be regulated.
Ranching is the backbone of Nevada's rural economy. Implementation of
this rule will devastate Nevada's landowners and businesses. Like
Marlow and Darryl, I believe this rule needs to be redone with
significant input from local stakeholders and in a way that will not
impact the ability of Nevada ranchers to provide food for Americans.
Unfortunately, the Senate was not even able to proceed to this
measure and debate legislation to exert some much needed oversight over
the EPA due to the left's circle-the-wagon mentality of the Obama
agenda. Although I was sad to see this vote fail, today I am proud to
stand in support of Senator Ernst's resolution of disapproval, which
will send this regulation back to the administration and send a clear
message that Congress doesn't accept overreaching regulations created
by Washington bureaucrats.
The fact is, the implementation of this rule has already been halted
by the Federal courts. I strongly believe that at the end of the day,
the courts will decide to overturn this onerous regulation. That is why
I stand here today to urge my colleagues to support this resolution of
disapproval. Instead of waiting years for the courts to decide,
Congress needs to take immediate action to show this administration
that we will not stand for any more regulations that kill jobs and
stifle economic growth.
Good stewardship of our natural resources is part of Nevada's
character that makes it so unique. This is not about dirty water or a
rollback of the Clean Water Act. This is about Federal regulations that
severely limit land use, infringe on property rights, and diminish
economic activity in Nevada and nationwide. This is about Federal
regulatory overreach by an agency that is using the Clean Water Act as
a means to greatly increase its authority. At a time when the American
public is still waiting for answers on the Animas River spill in
Colorado, I find it greatly disturbing that this Agency is using clean
drinking water as an excuse to gain authority over all waters of the
United States. Enough is enough with these power trips.
Should we really trust the ``Environmental Pollution Agency'' with
this?
As a sportsman, I grew up understanding the importance of being a
[[Page S7736]]
good steward of our environment. I support efforts that balance
conservation and economic growth, and that is why I urge my colleagues
to stand with me against this administration's heavyhanded mandates.
Mr. President, thank you, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday 41 Senators refused to have a
substantive debate on an issue that is critically important to all of
our constituents--the scope of Federal authority under the Clean Water
Act--and voted against a motion to proceed to Senator Barrasso's
bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act, S. 1140.
Later in the day I was extremely disappointed to learn that 11 of
those 41 Senators agreed that the EPA's rule is flawed, but instead of
doing their job to provide legislative clarity to the EPA on the
regulation of our Nation's waters, they wrote a letter. In this letter
they told the EPA that they have concerns with the rule, but instead of
acting now they reserve the right to do their jobs simply at a later
time.
If only 3--only 3--of these 11 Senators who signed this letter would
have voted to proceed to the bill, we could have worked with them to
resolve their concerns and ours about the WOTUS rule disapproval.
As Senator Sasse so eloquently reminded us yesterday in his maiden
speech, what are we here for if not to have a substantive debate on
issues? No wonder the American people think Congress is not looking out
for their interests.
Instead of doing their jobs, 11 Senators asked the EPA to change the
final rule through guidance. That can't happen. EPA can't do that. That
would be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and I think
most of us know that. These 11 Senators also asked the EPA to enforce
the rule in a way that will protect people who are not regulated today.
That also will not happen. The WOTUS rule is on the books. Even if the
EPA doesn't bring enforcement action against someone, some activist,
environmentalist community is going to file a lawsuit, and we know what
the result of that would be.
In the letter I am referring to, the 11 Democrats agreed that the EPA
did not provide clarity in its final WOTUS rule to protect American
landowners, but instead of voting to debate a bipartisan bill that
would have forced EPA to provide that clarity and to offer perfecting
amendments, if they wished to do so, they wrote a letter. I know I am
sounding very critical, and in a minute I will tell my colleagues why,
because this happens to be the No. 1 issue of the farmers and ranchers
in my rural State of Oklahoma. It is a big deal.
The EPA's entire rulemaking process, and now the lack of debate in
the Senate, is an example of Washington at its worst. This is a long
and sordid story that dates back to 2009. EPA wanted to be able to
control isolated ponds, wetlands, and dry channels water only when it
rains, but they were blocked because the Supreme Court said the Clean
Water Act is based on the authority over navigable waters. I think
everybody understands that the State has always had the authority, but
certainly if they are navigable waters, I agree, the Federal Government
should be involved.
First, the EPA backed legislation--and this is the legislation I
referred to yesterday by Senator Feingold, 5 years ago, and Congressman
Oberstar in the House--to take the word ``navigable'' out. If we take
the word ``navigable'' out, everything is then in the authority of the
Federal Government.
To support this legislation, EPA created a propaganda message that
action was needed to protect drinking water. The EPA spread this
propaganda, even though they know that all sources of drinking water
are already regulated. That is already done. That is a done deal. It
should have been done and it was done, but the American people were not
fooled. The bills were so unpopular with the American people that even
though Senator Feingold's party held the Senate, the White House, and
the House--everything was on their side--the bill never reached the
Senate floor and Congressman Oberstar did not even try to move his bill
through the committee he chaired.
So the American people held them accountable. Both of them, I might
add, lost their elections for reelection to office in 2010. After that
election, EPA changed its strategy. Even though in 2009 the EPA said
they needed legislation to expand Federal control after Congress
rejected their attempt to take the word ``navigable'' out of the clean
Clean Water Act, they tried to do the same thing through regulation.
This is exactly what this administration has been doing. Every time
they try to pass something legislatively and they can't do it, they get
a regulation. That is what they are doing. How many times did we vote
on the global warming and the cap-and-trade bills, and each time it
went down resoundingly in the Senate. Well, it happened over and over
again. So what did they do? They said if we can't do it legislatively,
we will do it through regulation.
In this new regulation, EPA tried to dodge the Supreme Court rulings
by pretending that all water has a connection to navigable water. EPA
also cranked up its propaganda machine. On May 19, the New York Times
said: ``In a campaign that tests the limits of federal lobbying law,
the agency orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from
Republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal
environmental groups and a grass-roots organization aligned with
President Obama.''
That was in the New York Times. They created social media messages
and asked people to send these EPA-directed messages of support back to
EPA--a true echo chamber going back and forth.
After soliciting comments using its propaganda machine, the EPA
claimed that 90 percent of the comments supported the rule and that
every comment is meaningful to the EPA. However, the Corps of Engineers
told my committee--the committee that I chair, the Environment and
Public Works Committee--that only 39 percent of unique comments
supported the rule, and 60 percent were opposed.
The difference is that EPA is counting each email address on a list
as a separate meaningful comment. For example, EPA counts a list of
nearly 70,000 email addresses sent in by Organizing for Action,
President Obama's political campaign arm, as 70,000 comments. It is
actually only one. Apparently the EPA considers an email address more
meaningful than substantive comments submitted by States and by local
governments, by farmers, ranchers, and property owners. The EPA has
ignored the significant concerns raised by these groups, and they
should not have.
I am sure that every Member of this body has heard from someone
comparable to Tom Buchanan in my State of Oklahoma. Tom Buchanan is the
president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. He speaks for a lot of farmers
and ranchers, and we are a rural State. He says of all the problems
that farmers and ranchers have in Oklahoma, these issues are not found
in the farm bill, and they are not in the ag bill. They are the
overregulations of the EPA. He is talking about endangered species,
where you can plow your fields and where you can't. But of all the
regulations of the EPA, the most onerous are the water regulations
because they will allow the Federal Government to have an army of
bureaucrats crawling over every farm and every ranch, not just in my
State of Oklahoma but throughout America.
Two courts have already said it is illegal. It will be overturned. We
don't have to stand for this. We don't have to endure years of
confusion before the courts act. They are going to act, but it could
take a long, long time. In the meantime they will go forward, and the
overregulations will continue.
We have only one way to stop the rule right now, and that is coming
up. It is through the CRA offered by Senator Ernst. A lot of people
don't know what a CRA is, but it forces responsibility on Members of
the Senate. There are a lot of Senators who want overregulation; the
liberal ones do. So they would rather go ahead and go home, and when
people complain, they can say: Hey, it wasn't us who did that; it was
an unelected bureaucracy that did that. A CRA will not let them get by
with that.
The President can veto it, which he will, and it will come back for a
vote to override the veto, and we will know and our constituents
throughout America will know just how their Senator is
[[Page S7737]]
voting. Senator Ernst's CRA would do that. I certainly urge a ``yes''
vote, not just for me but for all my farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma.
After vacating this rule, if any Senator wants to work with my
committee on substantive issues around the scope of Federal authority
under the Clean Water Act, I stand ready to work with them.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in a
quorum call before the 12 noon vote be charged equally against both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa who has
led the effort this morning as we speak about the waters of the United
States rule that would lead to a resolution of disapproval on this very
wrong-headed rule.
I also want to acknowledge the good work of my colleague from
Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, who had the opportunity yesterday to discuss
the devastating impact of the WOTUS rule, as we lovingly refer to it.
It was a combined effort to address the concerns that so many of us
have across the country about the waters of the United States rule that
has stemmed from the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers.
This WOTUS rule that so many of us speak to is not only an overreach,
it is a significant overreach that will allow for a dramatic expansion
of the Federal Government's ability to regulate our land and regulate
our waters and will harm the people in the State of Alaska and other
States across the Nation. They have said in no uncertain terms that
this rule could have as damaging an impact on our State and our State's
ability to engage in any level of development--this rule would have
greater impact than most anything we have seen before.
So I am here to urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the
resolution of disapproval that we now have pending, which we will have
an opportunity to vote on in just a little over an hour.
I have had dozens of meetings--meetings with constituents, meetings
with people across the country who have raised this as an issue. We
have sent letters, and we have questioned the EPA Administrator about
the impact of the rule.
I had an opportunity to have a field hearing in Alaska earlier this
year, joined by Senator Sullivan, focusing on those areas we would
consider to be Federal overreach, those areas that hold our State back
from any level of economic activity and development. Time after time,
the concern was whether this waters of the United States--again, this
expansive interpretation of the Clean Water Act literally designed by
the EPA, a concern about how its negative impact on our State will be
felt.
In addition to many of the legislative efforts that are out there, as
chairman of the Appropriations interior subcommittee, I included a
provision within the Interior appropriations bill to halt the
implementation of the waters of the United States rule. I am a
cosponsor of the bill we tried to advance yesterday. Unfortunately, it
was blocked. I am also a cosponsor of the disapproval resolution that
is being offered by our colleague from Iowa.
My position on this is pretty simple: The WOTUS rule cannot be
allowed to stand. The agencies have to go back to the drawing board. I
am not alone in this view. It is a highly controversial rule. It stands
out among many of the rules we have seen finalized by this
administration. Of the controversial ones that are out there, I would
argue that if this is not in the top tier, if it is not the top, it is
certainly No. 2.
It is a rule that is controversial enough that it draws bipartisan
opposition as well. We have a large majority, a bipartisan majority of
the House that opposes it. When we look to how this has been addressed
by the States, some 31 States, including the State of Alaska, have sued
to block it. A wide range of local governments and business groups have
done the same. Just last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the implementation of this
rule.
I welcome what the courts have done so far, but I do not think
Congress should sit back on this and hope we get the right legal
outcome. We should not just be sitting back because that right legal
outcome may come. It may come in months, it may come years from now, or
it may not be the right outcome. Our opinions here in the Congress are
not based solely on what the courts say. We have to look to the reach,
to the impact of this rule, and then determine whether it is
appropriate. Again, my answer to this is pretty simple: It is no. It is
just not appropriate.
The agencies are claiming the WOTUS rule is somehow or other just a
clarification. They have gone one step further and they renamed it.
They are calling it the clean water rule because who out there is going
to oppose clean water? Nobody opposes clean water. We all strive for
cleaner water, cleaner air. This is something we all should be working
to. But just changing the name on this rule does not make it so. In
fact, this rule is really just muddying the waters. Excuse the pun, but
that is what EPA is doing. They are creating confusion. They are
certainly creating greater uncertainty. It opens the door to higher
regulatory costs and delays for projects all over the country.
There have been many colleagues who have come to the floor and talked
about kind of the mechanics of the WOTUS rule. Unfortunately, they are
pretty complicated. When you start talking about ``categorically
jurisdictional waters,'' when you try to explain the ``significant
nexus'' analysis, the only people in the room who are really captivated
by what you are talking about are the lawyers who might be in a
position to gain some benefit because they are working these cases. But
most farmers in Iowa and most miners in Alaska are not thinking about
what a categorically jurisdictional water is and whether there is a
significant nexus from my little plaster mining operation to a body of
water. That is not what people are thinking about.
I want to use a little bit of my time this morning to speak to how,
in the State of Alaska, people will be harmed by application of this
rule.
To understand the reach of the rule in the State, take a look at this
map of the State of Alaska. It is so big, we cannot even fit it all on
one floor chart because really we need to go all of the way out to the
Aleutian Chain and we do not have all of the southeastern part of the
State in it, but we have the bulk here. Alaska, plain and short, is
covered in water. It is just wet. According to our State government,
Alaska has more than 40 percent of the Nation's surface water
resources. Think about that. Think about the entire United States of
America, and then appreciate that in one State, in my State, we have
more than 40 percent of the Nation's entire surface water resources. So
we are talking over 3 million lakes, over 12,000 rivers. We have
approximately 174 million acres of wetlands. There are more wetlands in
the State of Alaska than in the entire rest of the country combined.
So all you colleagues, all you folks in the 49 other States who are
concerned about the impact of this rule, I don't mean to diminish your
problems, but think about what this rule would do in Alaska.
We have more wetlands in the State of Alaska than in all of the rest
of the country combined. Out of 283 communities in the State, 215 of
these communities are located within either 2 miles of the coast or a
navigable waterway. We live on the water, even in the inland part of
the state, where I was raised and went to high school--the lakes, the
rivers, up in the north country here, where you have just a small lake.
Out in the whole southwest of Alaska--when you fly over it, you look at
it, and it is dotted with small lakes and bodies of water. Plainly
said, it is wet in Alaska.
Surprise--if it is not wet, it is frozen. Think about the permafrost
we have there. How do you deal with the permafrost? How is that
considered in this proposed rule, in this waters of the United States?
If it is frozen, is it
[[Page S7738]]
waters of the United States? Well, you know, we don't know because the
rule is unclear, but we are going to go ahead and just assume that it
is going to be covered.
We have a map here where what you see is blue. The reason it is blue
is because all of it is water.
This is the National Hydrography Dataset, Streams, Rivers and Bodies
for the State of Alaska, September 2015.
EPA has produced maps of the waters and wetlands in each of our 50
States. Our colleagues in the House actually had to force the Agency to
release these maps last year. Almost the full State of Alaska is shaded
in. That is what the EPA wants to be able to regulate under this rule.
So what exactly could that cover? What are we talking about?
It could be out here in Bristol Bay, where it is all about fishing.
It could be a new runway project there that would be subject to
regulation or a seafood processing plant out there in Bristol Bay.
Up here in the interior of Alaska, in Fairbanks, it could be a new
neighborhood they want to accommodate to deal with the growing
population there that would be subject to regulation.
It could be a parcel of land awarded under the Native Land Claims
Settlement Act that just so happens to be in a wetlands area or have a
small river present. But the fact that it was a conveyance of land
under the Native Claims Settlement Act does not get you beyond
regulation through the EPA.
It could be the new industrial park in Anchorage that wants to
diversify, wants to help expand the economy there.
It could be an energy project up on the North Slope that the Arctic
Slope Regional Corporation wants to pursue. But, again, it is either
wetlands or it is clearly permafrost up there.
It could be Alaska's proposed gas line. We are hoping to run a gas
line from the Slope all of the way down to tidewater in Valdez. This is
a major project our State's legislature is working on. Right now they
are in the midst of a special session. It is going to run across--if
you want to talk about wetlands and rivers and areas that will be
subject to this permitting requirement, it could be any of those. It
could be many more.
That brings us to the potential impact under the WOTUS rule. I am not
certain that the agencies will try to stop every project in the State--
that is too much even for them--but I recognize that they could use
this rule to stop any project that they want, whenever they want, and
for as long as they may want. So maybe not every project will be
affected, but any project could be targeted. Think about that. If you
are trying to make an investment decision, if you are a business that
is seeking to expand but you have that level of uncertainty because you
don't know if you are going to be targeted, that is tough. It is tough
to make these decisions.
We know these agencies have cast an extremely wide net with this
rule. We know from Keystone XL and from our experiences in Alaska that
regulatory decisions are not always fair or impartial or even logical
within this administration. We know that almost everything in Alaska is
either near water, it is wetlands, or it is permafrost. You add it all
up, folks, and almost every project in Alaska could suddenly be subject
to Federal permitting under the Clean Water Act. That, in turn, means
most projects in our State will end up costing more, taking longer, or
being indefinitely delayed.
I would remind friends that the cost of securing a section 404 permit
can easily run $300,000 and take over 2 years to do. So you are adding
cost and you are adding delay. The delay adds to further cost. Some
developers just give up. They raise the white flag and they say: I am
tired. I am frustrated. I just cannot run this regulatory gauntlet.
They give up. All of this would be in addition to the significant
regulatory burdens Alaska is already facing.
One last example I will leave you with comes from Craig, AK, down
here in the southeast. This is a small town of about 1,200 people. We
have a local tribal organization that wants to construct a 16-unit
affordable housing project. The Army Corps required a $46,000
downpayment to a mitigation bank prior to permitting. Again, this is
for a small project in a community of 1,200 people. It is a tribal
organization trying to bring in some low-income housing units, and they
are going to have to spend $46,000 just to get started. Think about
what they could have done if they could have put those dollars toward
that project. Imagine then--a town like Craig--when you scale this up
to communities such as Anchorage and Fairbanks, what do those costs
mean to you? There is just too much at stake.
Again, I strongly oppose the WOTUS rule because of the uncertainty it
will create, the delays it will deliver, the costs it will impose,
because Alaska is the only State that has permafrost and we still have
no idea whether or under what circumstances these areas will be
regulated and, further, because this rule could dampen our efforts to
begin new resource-extraction projects, which we depend upon for a
majority of our State's budget.
Finally, I oppose the WOTUS rule because it is yet another regulatory
burden for Alaskans, for people all over the country. This is on top of
all of the other regulations we have seen in our State and from the
Interior Department's anti-energy decisions to EPA's quest for project
veto authority before, during, and after the permitting process. It
gets to a point where it is just too much. It is just too much, and
this is where we must come together and stand to stop it.
I thank my colleagues for their leadership and look forward to the
opportunity to support the disapproval resolution that is pending
before the body.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Michigan.
The Budget
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, just a week ago the American people were
able to breathe a collective sigh of relief--and I think all of us did
in this Chamber as well--as Republicans and Democrats in the House and
Senate finally pulled back from what would have been a financial
catastrophe. We had a potential default of our country's bills. There
was a potential government shutdown, but that was averted, and we
passed a budget with no time to spare. It was a good thing to do on a
bipartisan basis, to be able to show that we could work together,
develop a bipartisan budget.
I believe it was 3 a.m. when we had the final vote on early Friday
morning, but we put that in place and had some confidence at that
moment that we were going to be moving forward with a comprehensive
budget--a comprehensive appropriations process--that would allow us to
say to the American people that we were addressing all of the needs
they care about: security, growing the economy, making sure we are
investing in middle-class families, strengthening our defense, and so
on.
Now, not even a week later, Republican leaders are back to their old
tricks again. We are quite shocked to see that rather than giving the
appropriators the opportunity to put together a comprehensive
appropriations process, a comprehensive budget to be able to move
forward on all of the needs of the country, what we are seeing is
potentially a trick to undo the bipartisan budget agreement through the
backdoor. We have seen this movie before, a few years ago, passing the
Department of Defense appropriations and then forcing everything else
into a long-term continuing resolution.
We are not going down this road again. We are operating under the
basis that we have a bipartisan agreement. A lot of folks on both sides
of the aisle deserve credit for that, but we want to stick to that and
a comprehensive budget moving forward--no tricks to undo the bipartisan
budget agreement.
Frankly, our families deserve a budget that grows the economy and
invests in our middle-class families. How many of us have said the
issue is that folks don't have money in their pocket, good-paying jobs,
and can't do what they need to do to be able to put food on the table,
send the kids to school, pay the mortgage, be able to support their
families in a way that we always have in America, and be able to grow
the economy with a strong, vibrant middle class.
We also need to strengthen our national defense--our national
security--broadly. If we only move forward on Department of Defense, as
we know, we
[[Page S7739]]
are leaving out a whole range of things that are part of our national
security.
I can say that as a border State in Michigan, we need to be
concerned. We hear a lot of debate and discussion about border
security. We need to make sure we are adequately funding border
security. Cyber security, for us it means things such as the Coast
Guard. When we look at other areas of security, it includes food
security efforts that people care about. It includes first responders,
police, and firefighters. It includes airports--a whole range of things
that need to be looked at comprehensively.
We want to see the whole budget, not just the Department of Defense.
We want to see the agreement on the whole budget so we know there
aren't going to be any tricks. If there aren't going to be any tricks,
what are folks trying to hide? Let's just develop the whole budget and
then move the whole budget.
We also know people care deeply about growing the economy and jobs,
and that means supporting small business. It means investing, making
things, and growing things, which I talk a lot about in Michigan. That
is what we do; we make things and grow things. There are efforts to
support that that we need to do.
Frankly, some of that is in critical partnerships with the private
sector and job training. The No. 1 thing I hear from manufacturers
today--in fact, the National Association of Manufacturers tells us
there are 600,000 unfilled jobs today because we don't have people with
the right skills for the right job. That is something we need to
address in our budget: job training, education, and college
affordability.
How many times have we heard about young people or in our own
families know people who have come out of college, they did everything
we told them to do: Go to college, get good grades. They graduate, and
then they come out with more debt than if they were trying to buy a big
house. In fact, the realtors tell us now they can't qualify young
couples to buy a house because of their college debt. That is part of
this debate on the budget: education, access to college, job training,
support for small businesses, and support for our manufacturers and our
farmers, large and small.
Another critical area in our budget that we want to make sure is
adequately funded is our ability to save lives through medical
research, such as new treatments, new cures that we all have heard so
much about that we are excited about. The whole effort now--finally, we
are doing research on the brain, the least researched organ in the
body. That impacts Alzheimer's; $1 out of every $5 Medicare dollars is
spent on Alzheimer's disease and dementias, Parkinson's, mental
illness, and addictions. That doesn't count what needs to happen with
cancers. It doesn't count how close we are if we were to double down on
our medical research in this country. Juvenile diabetes--we could go on
and on. That is part of this budget.
We want to see what is being funded on medical research in the
National Institutes of Health before we move forward on only one piece
of this, as we are very late in the game to debate this. This might
have been a strategy we could do last spring. Now what we need to have
is a look at the entire budget: mental health, substance abuse,
services for veterans. Whether it is veterans and job training, whether
it is providing veterans an opportunity to have a home and live in
dignity, whether it is mental health substance abuse services, that is
in this budget. We need a comprehensive budget. We need to know, the
American people need to know the whole budget and that there are not
going to be tricks in this process.
Protecting our natural resources. For us around the Great Lakes, 20
percent of the world's freshwater, it is incredibly important for us
that we know how the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is funded; how
we are supporting our clean air, clean water, and land initiatives.
We have new challenges in outrageous things such as what is happening
in Flint, MI, where there is very high lead found in the water and we
need pipes changed. We need to be supporting infrastructure around not
only roads and bridges, which are critically important, but aging pipes
that have been there for 60 years, 70 years, 80 years, 100 years that
we are now seeing--and multiplied by a series of errors and incredibly
bad misjudgments at the State level, at the minimum. We are seeing
situations where we are going to need to support efforts on making sure
we can upgrade our pipes, our water pipes, water and sewer, and so on.
That is all part of this budget.
So when we look at moving forward, last week at the end of the week
was a good time because it was an opportunity to come together in a
bipartisan way, avert disaster, and actually come together as the
American people want us to do every day. People in Michigan ask: Can't
you guys just get something done? Can't you just work together?
Well, at the end of last week we actually did that. We actually came
together and developed a plan, a 2-year overall budget process, and now
it is implementing it through appropriations. What we as Democrats are
committed to doing is implementing the agreement in total. We are not
going to support going back to where we were before, where we move one
budget--the budget that has the most interest among Republican
colleagues, the Department of Defense--and then potentially see all of
these other needs go unaddressed in a fair and responsible way in terms
of what American families are asking us to do. We just want to know
that we are truly working to implement a bipartisan budget that we
voted on--no backdoor tricks. Unfortunately, we have seen this movie
before--no backdoor tricks to undermine critical needs for jobs, the
economy, quality of life, protecting our natural resources, our broad
security needs as a country. Let's put that strategy aside rather than
trying to have a vote on only moving forward on the Defense
appropriations.
I urge that Republican leadership put that strategy aside, give the
appropriators the time they need--we have good people on both sides of
the aisle who can work together as appropriators--and provide us a
balanced, responsible budget for the United States of America that will
in fact grow the economy, invest in our middle-class families, and
strengthen our national defense. I am hopeful that in the end that is
what will happen.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I had a few minutes yesterday before the
vote--the Congressional Review Act vote on this truly terrible EPA rule
on water--to talk about the reasons EPA shouldn't do this, the long-
term understanding of what ``navigable waters'' meant, the ability for
EPA--if they wanted to change the law--to come and ask the Congress to
change the law, but of course they don't want to do any of that. In
fact, I had a small version of this map yesterday that shows the Farm
Bureau projection--that I believe other projections agree with--of how
much of our State is covered by this new jurisdiction by the Federal
Government over essentially all the waters of the country. If you will
notice, the only part of Missouri that would be covered under the so-
called waters of the United States rule is just the part in red. Only
99.7 percent of the State would be under this new jurisdiction that the
EPA would ask for. Surely, nobody believes the EPA could ever exercise
this jurisdiction. And uniquely, as it relates to this rule--I think
``uniquely'' is the right word to say here--Federal agency after
Federal agency opposed the EPA going forward with this rule. This is
basically not just the EPA versus a few people who are concerned about
it. It is the EPA versus anybody who has looked at it.
According to the Small Business Administration--by the way, another
agency of the Federal Government headed by someone else who is
appointed by the President--they have a number of concerns. One is that
utility companies would have a hard time complying with the law in a
way that allowed the power grid to continue to be utilized. Of course,
anything that raises utility company power costs raises the cost to the
consumer. There is no mythical way anybody else pays for that except
the people who get utility bills, which almost every person in America
or at least the family of almost every person in America does.
The Home Builders Association of St. Louis believes that if this rule
goes
[[Page S7740]]
into effect, on average, the increased cost for permitting to build a
home would go from a little under $30,000--right now the average cost,
at least for St. Louis home builders to get all the permitting
necessary, is $28,915--and would increase by 10 times. So the average
permit to build a home, if this silly waters of the United States thing
is allowed to happen, would go from a little under $30,000 to $271,596,
and the wait time would go from a little less than 1 year to more than
2 years, just to get the permitting you need to build a home.
Now, the SBA also says the rule will increase permitting costs
generally by $52 million in the country, just for permitting costs
generally, and environmental mitigation costs by $113 million every
year. With the addition of the power rule the EPA also has out, I think
you would be hard pressed to come up with a third rule that would do
anywhere as much damage as the two rules they already have out there do
to the American economy.
In April of 2015, a memo from MG John Peabody to Assistant Secretary
Darcy of the Corps of Engineers, states that ``in the Corps' judgment,
the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no
connection to the data provided . . . and logical inconsistencies.''
This is the view of the Corps of Engineers--not necessarily my favorite
Federal agency--on the EPA rule.
This rule would also mean that Federal bureaucrats, assuming you
could ever assemble enough of them to do the job the EPA says they like
here, can decide what falls under the jurisdiction, and they would be
deciding from a long way away. This kind of authority is barely able to
be exercised by the local city or county. It becomes even more
complicated when the State department of natural resources gets
involved. It would be impossible to do and will slow down both the
economy and add cost to families.
Thirty-one States, including mine--including this State here, where
again only the red part is covered by the waters of the United States
rule--have sued the EPA to overturn the rule, and the courts appear to
be listening. The district court that covers our district and North
Dakota issued an injunction for 13 States. Then in early October, the
Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay on the rule.
So not only is the Congress concerned and involved, or a majority of
the Congress--unfortunately, only 59 Senators were concerned with
something that 60 Senators could have solved--but so is Federal agency
after Federal agency, and the courts themselves are saying this should
not be allowed to happen.
I hope we see the Congressional Review Act put this issue exactly
where it deserves to be--on the President's desk. He appointed the head
of the EPA. The Senate confirmed the head of the EPA. I didn't vote to
confirm the head of the EPA. In fact, I held that nomination back as
long as I could possibly hold the nomination back, hoping the new
nominee would suggest they were going to be better than the person who
had been holding the job before. This rule indicates the EPA doesn't
really have the best interest of the country at heart. They do not have
a reasonable way to enforce the authority they say they would like to
have. So I look forward to the President having to deal directly with
this issue and that the American people will pay attention, as we all
do, to the job we are sent here to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
The Budget
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague from
Michigan for her outstanding remarks. I too want to talk about the
budget. We have agreed to a bipartisan budget framework, and that has
been very good. We have avoided a shutdown, and we have avoided
defaulting on our debt. I am glad the brinkmanship that some on the
other side of the aisle wanted to play did not prevail. That is a very
good thing.
Now we have to move forward. I want to join my colleagues to ask our
friends on the other side of the aisle to engage in a fair process on
the omnibus that must follow. The budget, after all, is only a
blueprint. Now it is up to Democrats and Republicans to fill in all the
details and honor the agreements that both sides worked to pass
together. Already we have some on the other side of the aisle
threatening to insert policy riders that should have no business in an
appropriations process, particularly a delicate one like this.
So first things first--let us be crystal clear. If folks on the other
side of the aisle insist on inserting poison pill riders into the
omnibus bill and the Republican leadership on either the House or
Senate side goes along, they will be dragging us into another
government shutdown. We are happy to debate any of these so-called
poison pill riders but not to use the whole budget process as a
hostage.
The only reason that our colleagues who want these riders want to use
the budget process and hold, in fact, the whole rest of the American
people hostage is because they know they can't win on their own. They
can only do it by hostage-taking, by saying we won't fund the
government or this part of the government unless we get our way on
these nonrelated riders. Well, we Democrats, on both sides of the
Capitol, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, are totally united on
preventing poison pill riders in riding along on an omnibus.
Yesterday, I was disappointed to hear Speaker Ryan, who I think is a
fair man--and I have worked with him on a number of issues--say that he
expects to use the power of the purse to push riders. Again, the power
of the purse does not give anyone the right to jam through ideological
riders that can't stand on their own merits. The power of the purse
doesn't give anyone the right to hold government hostage until we
repeal parts of Dodd-Frank or defund Planned Parenthood. That doesn't
make any sense.
The power of the purse means, and has always meant in this grand
Republic in our history, that Democrats and Republicans, House and
Senate, work together to produce a fair budget that strengthens our
national and economic security, free of poison pill riders.
Second, with respect to the timetable for these bills, I want to echo
my friend Senator Stabenow in saying we have to see the whole funding
picture up front before we move to any comprehensive funding
legislation.
I understand our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do
Defense first--sure. Then what about the rest of the budget? In 2010,
we did Defense and then did a CR for the rest of the budget. And then
it leaves the fight on riders undone.
Now, they say they need a vehicle. It is true. There are lots of
vehicles. You don't need the Defense bill for a vehicle, No. 1, and,
No. 2, you don't have to do that vehicle now. What should be happening
now is the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, should be
negotiating the whole picture, the whole omnibus. When they come to an
agreement, we can then move them on the floor of the House and the
Senate.
So we all agree the Nation breathed a sigh of relief when we agreed
to a balanced framework that would see us lift the sequester caps for
domestic as well as defense spending. We can't be goaded into passing
an increase in defense spending without seeing the rest of the omnibus
to make sure both sides are part of it, because 50-50 was always part
of the deal. Let us see the 50-50, and let us see the details.
What we also believe has to be part of the deal is no poison pill
riders, whether they be Democratic or Republican. Those should be for
another day and not risk a government shutdown, which is still a very
real possibility if some of the ideologues have their way and say it is
my way or no way.
So for this budget agreement to work, we need to see each piece of
the appropriations puzzle before we move forward on defense spending.
That is not too much to ask. Democrats want a simple, fair process to
fill in the blueprint we agreed on in the budget--no poison pill, no
sleight of hand.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S.J. Res. 22.
Mr. WICKER. And that deals with the waters of the United States rule;
is that correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
[[Page S7741]]
Mr. WICKER. If I could, I would also like to ask that Senator Blunt's
poster be placed back on the easel, because I agree with what the
Senator from Missouri had to say about the so-called waters of the
United States rule. It is a massive Federal overreach, a massive
Federal land grab with hardly any environmental benefit, if at all. The
map behind me of my neighboring State of Missouri points this out.
Everything in red would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water
Act. Almost every square inch of the State of Missouri and other States
would be subject to this massive overreach of a statute that was never
intended to do that.
So I was pleased just a few weeks ago when the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit pretty much agreed with us, on a temporary basis
at least. They ordered a nationwide stay of the Obama administration's
wholly unnecessary waters of the United States rule. I agree with the
court's action. I agree with the 31 States that have filed lawsuits
against this rule. I agree with the efforts in this Chamber to overturn
it.
I appreciate Senator Barrasso's legislation entitled the Federal
Water Quality Protection Act, and I certainly appreciate the efforts of
the junior Senator from Iowa, Senator Ernst, and will be supporting her
efforts when we vote at the top of the hour.
The waters rule is an unlawful--unlawful--attempt by the EPA and the
Army Corps of Engineers to wield enormous power over our Nation's land
mass, as this chart points out very dramatically. Americans are
concerned--and Americans are right to be concerned--by this Federal
overreach. The rule could have far-reaching effects on our lives and on
our private property.
I am particularly concerned about what this rule could mean to our
Nation's farmers and ranchers, especially in States such as
Mississippi, where agriculture is one of the leading industries. The
administration's attempt to expand the scope of waters of the United
States under the Clean Water Act would lead to unprecedented regulatory
authority--unprecedented regulatory authority--and everything from
property rights to economic development could be affected. Small ponds,
even ditches would be subject to the decisions of Washington
bureaucrats.
This expansion of Federal regulation could also adversely affect
conservation efforts that are working at the State level in States such
as Mississippi. We have begun considerable work with farm drainage
ditches to enhance conservation. The waters rule threatens to undermine
this important work. So it actually puts us back a step in terms of
conservation.
Moreover, this rule makes States, cities, counties, and private
citizens vulnerable to confusing and expensive legal challenges.
Just get ready for the Federal Government to come in with legal
challenges. Because of the regulation's lack of clarity, the Federal
Government could declare jurisdiction over almost any kind of land or
water, as this map of Missouri points out. Even areas that may have
been streams or wetlands more than a century ago could come under the
rule of this expansive regulation. The rule's exemptions do not make
clear whether water in tile drains, for example, or erosion features on
farmlands could fall under Federal control. At the very least, these
flaws should be fixed before the rule is fully implemented, and I do
appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Iowa in challenging this.
Americans should worry and Americans should be concerned that the
Obama administration has pushed forward with this rule despite these
legitimate concerns being voiced over and over again by 31 States.
State and local governments, farmers, small business owners, and
landowners are worried about how this unilateral expansion could lead
to substantial compliance costs, fines, legal battles, and permitting
requirements--very expensive to job-creating agriculture and
agribusiness.
As they do with many of the administration's other onerous rules,
Americans are asking: What is the benefit? What is the environmental
benefit here? No one is arguing that our waters should not be
protected, but water sources such as isolated ponds and ditches that do
not threaten to pollute navigable waters should not become a regulatory
burden for States, for municipalities, or for private citizens.
I am a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I
participated in a number of hearings on the WOTUS rule this year. It is
clear the rule should be revised in a way that protects the rights of
farmers, ranchers, and landowners--and the American public, for that
matter.
Senator Ernst is absolutely correct. Her resolution of disapproval
would allow us to send this message to the EPA and the administration:
Americans do not deserve this unnecessary confusion and job-killing
redtape.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in a few moments we will have an
opportunity to vote on the Congressional Review Act, on the final rule
under the Clean Water Act on waters of the United States. Yesterday, I
thought we had a rather robust discussion and debate about this, the
Barrasso bill, which would have not only prevented the final rule from
going forward but also would have changed the underlying bill. Cloture
was not invoked.
Now we are on the CRA--the Congressional Review Act--that would stop
the rule from going forward. Yesterday on the floor of the Senate, I
explained to my colleagues why I hope they will reject this motion and
allow this rule to go forward. My main reason for saying that is that
since 1972, Congress has had a proud record on behalf of public health,
on behalf of our environment and protecting the people of this country
from the dangers of dirty water. Before the Clean Water Act, we saw
rivers that caught fire. In the Chesapeake Bay, we had the first marine
dead zones reported. We made a commitment as a nation that we were
going to do something about clean water, and Congress in a very
bipartisan way passed the Clean Water Act as a commitment to the people
of this country that we would take steps to protect their drinking
water, to protect their public health, and to protect their environment
so that the legacy would be cleaner water for future generations.
This Clean Water Act--the reason why we have this rule is because of
a couple of Supreme Court decisions which basically unsettled what most
people understood to be regulated waters. By a 5-to-4 decision in
Rapanos, the Supreme Court's ruling sent it back to EPA to come up with
additional regulatory guidance, throwing into question the well-
established thoughts that waters generally that flow into our streams,
into our wetlands, and into our water supply were regulated waters. So
this final rule is a response to the Supreme Court decisions in order
to give clarity to those who are affected by the Clean Water Act. So if
we reject the rule, we are, in fact, removing clarity and we will go
back to the stage where people don't know whether a particular water is
regulated under the Clean Water Act.
I was listening to my colleagues on the floor give examples of where
they say regulation will take place, when, in fact, in agriculture,
there is basically no change in the regulatory structure. There are no
new permitting requirements for agricultural activities.
If we don't go forward with the regulation, the risk factor is that
approximately one-half of the stream miles in this country will not be
fully protected. That is a huge risk to the public health of the people
of this country.
Approximately 20 million acres of wetlands will not be regulated.
Wetlands are the last frontier to filter water before it enters our
water systems, our streams, our drinking water supplies. Do we really
want to call into question that type of deregulation of clean water,
which is critically important to public health and the drinking water
supplies of Americans?
If this rule does not go forward, the source of the drinking water of
approximately 117 million Americans will be compromised. One-third of
the people of this country will see that we are not fully protecting
their drinking water, and if we have an episode, they will be asking
what did we do in order to protect their basic health. They expect us
to make sure that when they turn their tap on, they get safe drinking
water, and that when they bathe, they have safe water in order to
bathe, and we are not doing everything we can
[[Page S7742]]
to do that if, in fact, we block this rule from going forward.
In reality, what we are doing is saying: No, we are not going to let
science guide what goes forward; Congress is going to tell us whether
the EPA can regulate our water based upon science. I don't think we
want this to be a political decision; I think we want this to be a
scientific decision.
As I said earlier, agriculture practices are not changed under this
final rule. Many have mentioned the court challenge. Any regulation
coming up by EPA is going to be subject to court challenge. We know
that. And the courts have not been helpful. The 5-to-4 decision left a
lot in question. Ultimately, we are going to have to rely upon a court
decision. Let's get there sooner rather than later and not go back to
the drawing board and delay the necessary regulations for our country.
Yesterday on the floor, I quoted from business leaders, environment
leaders, small business leaders. Let me share a couple other quotes
about why it is important for us to allow this rule to go forward. Let
me talk about a business concern. This is a quote from Travis Campbell,
president and CEO of Far Banks Enterprises, an integrated manufacturer
and distributor of fly fishing products. He says:
My company depends on people enjoying their time recreating
outside, especially in or near watersheds. Clarifying which
waterways are protected under Clean Water Act isn't a nice-
to-have, it is a business imperative.
Allowing this rule to go forward helps America's businesses, helps
our economy.
I will give two quotes on the health issue.
This is from Dr. Alan Peterson, a family physician in Lancaster
County, PA. He said:
Because it would protect the streams that are the
headwaters of drinking water supplies for 1 in 3 U.S.
residents, this rule is a health imperative.
Lastly, a person who used to be our health secretary in Maryland, Dr.
Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health
Association, stated:
Our nation relies on clean water for basic survival--it's
essential for daily activities including drinking, cooking,
bathing, and recreational use. When that water is polluted,
Americans are at risk of exposure to a number of harmful
contaminants. We are pleased that EPA has moved forward with
this strong, evidence-based rule that will be vital to
protecting the public from water pollution and keeping our
nation healthy.
For the sake of our public health and the sake of our environment,
for the sake of our economy, and for the legacy of this Congress to
protect the people of this Nation, I urge my colleagues to reject the
motion that would stop the final waters of the United States rule from
going into effect.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. ERNST. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on the
joint resolution that is before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, we have a choice today to stand with our
farmers, ranchers, small businesses, manufacturers, and homebuilders,
or stand with an overreaching Federal agency pushing an illegal rule
greatly expanding its power. That is an easy choice for me. I am
standing with my constituents. I am standing with Iowans.
Rolling back this harmful WOTUS rule is hugely important to my State
and, I know, to many others. I especially wish to thank the junior
Senator from Wyoming and the senior Senator from Oklahoma for all their
hard work on this issue. I also wish to thank those from the other side
of the aisle who recognize the harm this rule will have and are
supporting this bipartisan effort to halt an expanded WOTUS.
I am proud to stand with them and all of my other colleagues who have
decided to act today to push back against yet another power grab by the
EPA. This is what the American people expect. They expect us to take
the votes and debate the issues of the day, not simply put in writing
how we may do our job tomorrow when it is more convenient or wait for
the courts to solve a clear problem.
Every community wants to have clean water and to protect our Nation's
waterways. No one is disputing that. I grew up on well water. I
understand that clean water is essential, but that is not what this
vote today is about.
To build on what the junior Senator from North Dakota, my colleague
from across the aisle, said yesterday, to suggest that 31 States,
agricultural groups, the Association of Counties, our Governors,
municipalities--that we are all wrong is absolutely insulting.
Look at this grass waterway behind me. This is from Iowa. This was
taken by one of my staff members as he was out on RAGBRAI, the
Register's Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa. This is what we are
debating. This is what the rule is about. Should Washington, DC,
bureaucrats control the land in this farmer's field? The clear answer
is no, they should not.
As so many of my colleagues mentioned yesterday and this morning,
this confusing WOTUS rule threatens the livelihoods of rural
communities and middle-class Americans. It threatens to impede small
businesses and manufacturing. It impacts middle-class Americans. These
people are the backbone of this country. How can these industries
flourish when under this rule they will be faced with excessive
permitting requirements that will delay future projects and
conservation efforts? They can't.
Yesterday we saw many of our colleagues across the aisle block a
commonsense bipartisan measure designed to stop the harmful impacts of
this rule. They claimed this rule is grounded in science and the law.
Science and the law? Really? The Army Corps' memos show that the
science was blatantly ignored by the EPA in favor of politics, and two
Federal courts have already called into serious question the legality
of this WOTUS rule and the science behind it.
This claim is in spite of the fact that Members on the other side
voted for Senator Barrasso's legislation yesterday. This is in spite of
the fact that Members of the other side also support this legislation,
and this is in spite of the fact that 11 Democrats sent a letter to the
EPA yesterday stating their concern over serious issues with this rule.
Yet this administration continues to unilaterally enforce its harmful
agenda on the American people.
We must take a stand, put our constituents first, put American jobs
first, and say: No more, Mr. President. It is time to put politics and
ideology aside and start listening to the commonsense voices of the
American people. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I haven't talked about the popularity of
the Clean Water Act, but every poll has shown that the overwhelming
majority of Americans support what EPA is doing in protecting our water
supply. They are for this rule. They are for a commonsense, science-
based way to protect their drinking water. They are for a
scientifically based, commonsense way to make sure that their rivers
are clean. Whether it is because of their concern for the environment
and their children and grandchildren's health or whether it is their
concern about our economy, recognizing that clean water is necessary
for agriculture and for our activities--recreational activities along
our waterways which are critical to our economy--for all of those
reasons they support the Clean Water Act.
I urge my colleagues to look at the rule. It doesn't regulate new
activities in agriculture. It doesn't require anything different than
has been historically the role of the Clean Water Act in protecting our
waters. It deals with waters that are affecting our water supply. It
doesn't deal with isolated ponds. It doesn't deal with ditches. They
are not regulated under this law any differently than they were in the
past.
I urge my colleagues to look at what is in this regulation, not the
claims that have been made. The EPA listened to the different interest
groups. There were over 400 meetings with stakeholders across the
country to provide information, hear concerns, and answer their
questions. EPA officials visited
[[Page S7743]]
farms in Arizona, Colorado, my home State of Maryland, Mississippi,
Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Vermont.
The 207-day public comment period on the proposed rule resulted in
more than 1 million comments. All of this public input helped to shape
the final clean water rule. The act does not require any new permitting
from the agricultural community. There is an exemption under the
existing Clean Water Act, which is preserved by this final rule. Normal
farming, silviculture, and ranching practices--those activities that
include plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting
for production of food, fiber, and forest products--are exempt. They
are not covered under this final Clean Water Act. Soil and water
conservation practices and dry land are exempt. Agricultural storm
water discharges are exempt. Return flows from irrigated agriculture,
construction, and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation
ditches on dry land are not covered under the rule. Maintenance of
draining ditches is not covered under the rule. Construction or
maintenance of farm, forest, and temporary mining roads are not
covered.
When my colleagues come in and say that this ditch is being regulated
under the Clean Water Act, it is not the case. Only those flows of
water that directly impact our streams, impact our wetlands--those you
want to make sure we cover because they affect our drinking water
supply for one out of every three Americans, because they affect our
public health for those of us who swim in our streams and our lakes,
and because they affect those of us who enjoy the recreation of clean
water. That is why we have small business owners. That is why we have
the businesses that depend upon clean water. That is why we have a lot
of people around the country saying: Look, it is in our economic
interest to make sure this rule goes forward.
The bottom line is, the stakeholders need clarity. This rule will
allow that process to go forward so that we can get clarity in the
implementation of the Clean Water Act, which was jeopardized not by
Congress and not by EPA but by the Supreme Court's decisions. It is our
responsibility to make sure that clarity exists.
If Congress blocks this clean water rule from going forward, we are
adding to the uncertainty that is in no one's interest, whether it is a
person who depends upon safe drinking water or the safe environment or
a farmer who wants to know what is regulated and what is not. All of
that very much depends upon clarity moving forward.
EPA listened to all the stakeholders, and it is important to allow
this rule to go forward. I urge my colleagues to reject this effort to
stop the final act from going forward. Let our legacy to our children
and grandchildren be safe, clean water for drinking and recreational
purposes for our economy. Since 1972, we have had a proud history of
allowing and building upon safe and clean water. I urge my colleagues
to reject this effort to stop this rule from going forward.
I yield the floor.
I yield back my time.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The joint resolution having been
read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
NAYS--44
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Graham
Rubio
Vitter
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) was passed, as follows:
S.J. Res. 22
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and
the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Clean Water
Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' (80 Fed.
Reg. 37054; June 29, 2015), and such rule shall have no force
or effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________