[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S143-S147]
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--VETO
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the veto message on S.J. Res. 22, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution
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 10:30
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally between the majority
and the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday,
January 26, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to
consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 306; that there be 15
minutes of debate on the nomination, equally divided in the usual form;
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote without
intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate
then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 2012
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
morning business on Tuesday, January 26, the Senate proceed to Calendar
No. 218, S. 2012, with a period of debate only until 3 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with my Republican colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. President.
We are here today to vote in about half an hour on overriding the
President's veto, a congressional action that would not have allowed
the country to move forward with the so-called waters of the United
States rule.
The waters of the United States sounds like a lot until you look at
the map beside me. This is a map of the State of Missouri and of what
would be covered under EPA jurisdiction, if this rule is allowed to go
into effect.
This is a map from the Missouri Farm Bureau that nobody has taken
issue with, and the red part of our State would be covered by Federal
Government authority. So 99.7 percent of the State would suddenly be
under the jurisdiction of the EPA on all things related to water: water
running off the parking lot, water running off your driveway, water
running off your roof, water falling into your yard, water falling into
a vacant lot if someone wants to build a house on that vacant lot--all
of those things in 99.7 percent of the State. I think that three-tenths
of 1 percent may be some unusual seepage area where the water runs away
in a way that the EPA hasn't yet figured out how to assert jurisdiction
over.
The law passed in the early 1970s, the Clean Water Act, said that the
EPA would have jurisdiction over navigable waters. So, if you believe
the EPA and believe this rule and believe in the President's veto,
navigable waters would apparently be every drop of water in 99.7
percent of Missouri.
If the President and the administration and the EPA want to change
the law where it no longer says ``navigable waters,'' but where it says
virtually all the water, there is a way to do that: Introduce a bill,
come to the Congress, and the Congress votes on that bill. If the House
and Senate approve it--I know this sounds like it is a pretty
pedestrian discussion. But apparently the President and EPA don't
understand that it is the way to change the law. It is not just that
somebody decides that all of the water in Missouri--or to be accurate,
99.7 percent of the water in our State, of the geography of our
[[Page S144]]
State on any water issue--suddenly becomes the jurisdiction of the EPA.
I will assure you that if the EPA gets this jurisdiction, there is no
way that they can do what they say the Environmental Protection Agency
should do. That is the case in Missouri.
I am joined by my colleagues from North Dakota and Wyoming to talk
about this. Certainly, we have been on the floor repeatedly to talk
about this. We also talked about remedies. A great remedy would be that
any regulation that has significant economic impact should be voted on
by the Congress. It is a bill we have all co-sponsored called the REINS
Act. Now the analogy here is pretty good--to put the reins on
government. But what would really happen in the REINS Act is that
anybody who would vote for a rule like this would have to go home and
explain it. Frankly, I think anybody who doesn't override the
President's veto had better be prepared to go home and explain it.
Senator Barrasso and Senator Hoeven have been vigorous in this fight.
As to Senator Hoeven, I know this is something that matters where he
lives and where we live, but it is also a great indication of what
happens when the government somehow believes that no matter what the
Constitution says or what the law says, the all-knowing Federal
Government should be in charge of everything everywhere--in this case,
virtually all the water in the country.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, that is absolutely right. I join my
distinguished colleague from the State of Missouri, as well as my
colleague from the State of Wyoming and our colleague from the State of
Iowa.
This is an incredibly important issue. It is probably the No. 1
regulatory relief that all business sectors need. Starting with our
farmers and ranchers, this is a huge issue. This crosses all sectors
because this is a big-time overreach by the EPA, and it really affects
all property owners. You are talking about private property rights that
are at stake here.
There is a fundamental principle at stake in terms of how our
government works, as well. The EPA has taken through its own regulatory
fiat additional authority that it does not legally possess. It has done
so under a legal theory that it has advanced called ``significant
nexus.'' Essentially, it has gone beyond the jurisdiction it has, which
is regulation with regard to navigable bodies of water, such as the
Missouri River, for example, to, in essence, say it can now regulate
all water wherever it finds it anywhere.
Now think about that. If part of the executive branch or a regulatory
agency can unilaterally say, ``You know what, we are not just going to
operate under our legislative authority; we are just going to take
additional authorities that we don't legally have in order to do what
we think is our job,'' then we have a fundamental problem because that
defies the underlying concepts of the checks and balances of our
government, where the legislative, judicial, and executive all offset
each other in order to protect private property rights. That is
absolutely what is at stake here.
Essentially, the EPA has set a rule where they can regulate water
anywhere in any capacity. So if a farmer, after a rain storm, goes out
and wants to move water in a ditch, or even an individual private
property owner wants to do that, do they have to apply to the EPA for a
permit? How do they know? To whom do they go? Are they going to get
consistent rulings? Why in the world should they be subject to an
agency without legislative authority, just deciding that they are going
to have jurisdiction or authority in cases where they don't have it? It
is a very important principle in terms of protecting private property
rights as well as the fundamental fact that it has a devastating impact
on farmers, ranchers, and every sector of our society.
I would turn back to my colleague from Missouri and ask him to touch
on, maybe for just a minute, what we can do about it. We are on the
floor today to have a vote, and I think we need to point out how
important it is that our colleagues join us in making sure that we
override this Presidential veto.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I appreciate that. This is a bill that has
been on the President's desk. It passed the Senate, which means that 60
Senators were supportive of this rule not being able to go forward in
its current status. The President vetoed the bill. This would be a time
for the Congress to stand up. If you didn't have any other interest in
this fight, it is the time for the Congress to stand up and say: If you
are going to change the law, the only way to change the law is for the
Congress to change the law. The President appears to be willing to
discover all sorts of ways that can't be found in the Constitution to
change the law. But even if you were on the other side of this issue,
even if you want to come to the floor of the Senate and vigorously
argue that the EPA needs the jurisdiction of all the water in the
country, as a Member of the Senate, the Senate should do that, the
House should do that, and the Constitution should work.
Senator Barrasso, it is clearly not working here.
``Navigable waters'' has been used in Federal law since about 1846,
and until the last couple of years when the EPA asserted differently,
everybody always thought they knew what that meant. If you could move
something on it, navigate it, then the Constitution says the Federal
Government has the obligation for interstate commerce. So debating how
much of the Missouri River, as Senator Hoeven brought up, is navigable
is a constitutional debate to have because it is a commerce issue.
I say to Senator Barrasso, suggesting that all the water in the
country is navigable doesn't make sense. The Senator has been one of
the leaders in trying to point out for months and years now that this
rule will be ruinous to economic activity.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I want to agree and second everything
that my colleague from Missouri, Senator Blunt, had to say--that 99.7
percent of his State is underwater according to the EPA.
We had a hearing, and I looked at a map of Wyoming that the EPA
presented. It looked like the entire State of Wyoming was underwater,
according to the EPA. This is an incredible overreach on the part of
this administration, this EPA.
It is so interesting, because the President of the United States
said: Well, if you have better ideas, bring them. If you have better
ideas, bring them. Well, we did. A number of us cosponsored bipartisan
legislation--a number of Democrats supported it, as well--to allow for
Congress to establish the principles of what a new EPA rule would look
like. It didn't say to get rid of the whole thing. It said there are
ways to make it better; let the people on the ground make those
decisions.
Who are the best stewards of the land? Here we are. The Presiding
Officer, the former Governor of South Dakota, knows that the people of
his State have a much better love of the land of South Dakota, just as
the former Governor of North Dakota, who is on the floor, knows that
the people on the ground in North Dakota have a much greater love of
the land and respect for the land and desire to protect the land and
the water and to keep the water clean, just as we do in Wyoming and in
Missouri. That is what this is about.
It is about letting people who have the best interests and who are
the best stewards of the land make those decisions--not, again, a
Federal grab. It is absolutely absurd, and it shows a President of the
United States who is acting in a way that I believe is lawless to the
point that the courts have now weighed in.
The courts have begun to weigh in on the concerns with this rule that
we are going to vote on today. We hope we override the veto of the
President, because the courts have said: Hey, we need to take a pause.
Judge Erickson of the District of North Dakota on August 27 issued an
injunction that blocked the waters of the United States rule in 13
States because he said the rulemaking record was ``inexplicable,
arbitrary, devoid of a reasoned process''--devoid of a reasoned
process. Yet the President is saying: Oh, no, they have got it all
right. The President is wrong. The United States Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals put a nationwide stay on the rule in October. The court stated
in granting the stay that ``the sheer breadth of the ripple effects
caused by the rule's definitional changes counsels strongly in favor of
maintaining the status quo for the time being.''
[[Page S145]]
Yet the President of the United States ignores it all. Congress needs
to have a say. The courts are having a say. The President needs to
realize that his actions have huge impacts--negative impacts--on the
economies of our States, our communities, and certainly of the entire
country. So it is a privilege to be here to join my colleagues from
South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, and soon my colleague from Iowa
who will weigh in, supporting the effort to override the President of
the United States on this specific piece of legislation.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, we are urging our colleagues to do just
exactly that--vote to override and reassert the constitutional
authority of the Congress. To finish up our part of our discussion this
morning is somebody who also understands the importance of the land,
what it means to love and appreciate the land, how you can do that
closer to the land than farther away, the Senator from Iowa, Mrs.
Ernst.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues--the
Senators from Missouri, North Dakota, and Wyoming--for their colloquy.
This is a big deal, not just for those of us from these States but for
all Americans. We have a choice today. We do have a choice. We can
stand with our farmers, our ranchers, our small businessmen, our
manufacturers, our homebuilders, or we can stand with an overreaching
Federal agency that is committed to expanding its reach to over 97
percent of our lands in Iowa and, as my colleague from Missouri stated,
99.7 percent of the land in Missouri.
I know what I am going to do. I am going to stand with my
constituents. I am going to stand with Iowans who have told me time and
again that their voices were not heard in this process and that their
livelihoods are being threatened.
Instead of listening to those who will be most impacted by this rule,
the EPA thought it would be better to use taxpayer dollars to illegally
solicit comments in an effort to falsely justify their power grab.
A little over a week ago, President Obama, in his State of the Union
Address, pledged a willingness to work with Congress on cutting
redtape. This bipartisan legislation presented a great opportunity to
do just that, but instead he sided with unelected bureaucrats and an
unchecked Federal agency. So apparently he must have already forgotten
what he had said.
I would also like to remind everyone that in November, 11 of my
Democratic colleagues voted to uphold President Obama's rule at the
behest of liberal special interests. Then immediately they ran for
cover by sending a letter warning the EPA that they may oppose the rule
in the future if it is not fixed. Only in Washington could someone
reserve the right to do their job at a later time. Here we are 3 months
later, and this rule is not fixed. Well, I say to those colleagues:
Today is that later time. Join me in helping to fix this rule today.
In closing, we all want clean water. That is not disputable. I have
continuously emphasized that the water we drink needs to be clean and
safe. However, this rule is not about clean water; it is a regulatory
power grab that harms our farmers, ranchers, small businesses,
manufacturers, and homebuilders. Stand up for them today, not for a
Federal agency gone wrong.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote to scrap this ill-conceived
waters of the United States expansion.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, by vetoing Senator Ernst's Congressional
Review Act resolution, President Obama is ignoring the pleas of States,
local governments, farmers, small businesses, and property owners all
over this country. He is ignoring the conclusion of legal counsel for
the Corps of Engineers that the rule is ``inconsistent with the Supreme
Court's decisions in Rapanos and SWANCC.''
He is ignoring determinations by two Federal courts that EPA's
``waters of the United States'' rule is likely illegal and therefore
should not go into effect until the 32 States that have sued to stop
this rule have their day in court. Finally, he is ignoring a legal
decision issued by the Government Accountability Office that, in
developing this rule, EPA broke the law.
According to GAO's December 14 decision, EPA's attempts to defend and
promote their rule were not legitimate. In fact, GAO found that EPA's
actions constituted illegal covert propaganda and grassroots lobbying.
EPA conducted covert propaganda when they drafted a message of support
for the WOTUS rule and then convinced 980 people to send that message
to their social media network. GAO estimates that this message reached
about 1.8 million people who had no idea that they were receiving a
message that was written by EPA. In fact, the public was encouraged to
send the EPA-written message back to EPA--the ultimate echo chamber.
This is covert propaganda taken to a new extreme.
EPA engaged in grassroots lobbying activity when they posted messages
on their official government website that directed the public to visit
the websites of environmental activist groups who were soliciting
opposition to congressional efforts to send this WOTUS rule back to the
drawing board. In fact, EPA linked their government website to ``action
alerts'' issued by these activist groups.
Because EPA's covert propaganda and lobbying efforts are illegal,
they also violated the Anti-Deficiency Act. This act prohibits the
unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars.
EPA issued a statement disagreeing with GAO, but their opinion is
irrelevant. We live in a world of law. Federal agencies don't get to
decide what laws they chose to obey. EPA does not get to decide what
constitutes a violation of the ban on propaganda and lobbying. EPA does
not get to decide what constitutes a violation of the Anti-Deficiency
Act. GAO does, and GAO has issued its legal decision.
If EPA continues with this illegal activity, they will do so knowing
and in willful violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and a knowing and
willful violation is a crime.
By vetoing S.J. Res. 22, President Obama is aligning himself with an
illegal rule and is encouraging illegal agency activities and the
unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars. This has to stop. No Member of
this body should associate himself or herself with these activities.
Please join me in voting to override this veto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to
oppose the joint resolution that we will be voting on shortly, to
support the Clean Water Act, and to support the clean water rule.
I was listening to my colleagues. First, let me say that the basis of
the regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency is based
upon the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress
because Congress recognized that it had a responsibility to the
American people for clean water. For public health reasons, for
economic reasons, for reasons of generations, we needed to make sure we
have clean water supplies for drinking, recreation, public health, and
our environment. So the authority to issue this clean water rule comes
from an act of Congress.
Administrations have been enforcing the Clean Water Act for many
years. It was fairly well understood--the waters of the United States--
until there were a couple of Supreme Court cases. The Rapanos case was
in 2006. It required further clarification; otherwise, decisions were
made on a case-by-case basis, giving great uncertainty as to what is
covered and what is not covered. That was a decade ago. Congress could
have acted during that decade, but Congress chose not to act. We could
have clarified the law and therefore given EPA specific instructions,
but instead the uncertainty has remained.
I have often listened to my colleagues talk about how one of the most
demanding problems we have is that we create uncertainty--a short-term
extension of tax provisions, a short-term CR--that we don't give
predictability, and that is one of the things we need to do. For
farmers and ranchers and developers and the American people to be able
to take full advantage of the opportunities of this country, they need
to know the ground rules.
That is exactly what this clean water rule does. It sets the
parameters of what is going to be regulated and what
[[Page S146]]
is not. It uses the prior application--before the Supreme Court cases--
as its guideline. It does not pave new ground. It is basically what the
stakeholders and the public thought was the law before the Supreme
Court cases, which added to the uncertainty.
If you listen to some of my colleagues, you would think they just
pulled this regulation out of thin air. They had over 400 meetings with
stakeholders--a 2-year process. Millions of comments were reviewed
before the final regulation was issued. So this went through a very
deliberative process.
First and foremost, it offers certainty on the application of the law
and uses the prior application as the main way of determining what is
covered, and it rejects the case-by-case uncertainty that is under
existing law.
The rule protects public health, our environment, and our economy.
Let me talk a little bit about that. One out of every three Americans
would be getting drinking water that would not be covered if we don't
get the Clean Water Act in full application--67 percent of Marylanders.
There are millions of acres of wetlands that are at risk of not being
regulated. Wetlands are critically important for flood protection in
many of our States, to recharge groundwater supplies--important to many
of our States--to filter pollution. That is very important. It is
important in Maryland. The Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay's
environmental future very much depend upon the quality of the upstream
waters and wetlands. It is at risk if we don't move forward with the
full application of the Clean Water Act.
It is certainly important for wildlife habitat. I hear all of my
friends talk about how important it is to preserve our wildlife. Well,
that is very much engaged in what we are talking about. It also deals
with our economy. Some of my colleagues have talked about that.
Certainly I can talk about the wildlife recreation benefits in my State
of Maryland--a $1.3 billion-a-year industry in Maryland and over $500
million in fishing alone. Well, let me tell you something. If you have
polluted waters, you are going to lose your wildlife recreational
industry. It is critically important for recreation. I think my
colleagues understand that.
My colleagues talk about agriculture. Agriculture, of course, needs
clean water. We would be the first to acknowledge that clean water is
very important to agriculture. As it relates to the agricultural
community, there are so many special exceptions in the clean water
rule.
Let's at least be straight as to what is covered and what is not
covered. Many of the examples that have been given on the floor of the
Senate are not covered bodies of water under the clean water rule that
is being proposed.
The bottom line is that this rule is not only good for our
environment, it is not only good to make sure people have safe drinking
water, it is not only good to make sure that we have clean streams,
that wetlands are protected, and that water bodies that flow into
navigable waters are protected so we have clean water for the purposes
of our environment, but it is also important for our economy because of
the direct impact it would have, and it is important to many industries
that depend upon clean water supplies. Many of them are very much
dependent upon clean water supplies in order to produce the products in
agriculture that are critically important.
For the sake of our environment, for the sake of our economy, I urge
my colleagues to reject this resolution.
Let me add one last point. We are all proud Members of the Senate. We
are all proud Members of this Congress. I would hope one of the
legacies we want to leave when this term is over is that we have added
to the proud record of those who served before us in protecting our
waters and in protecting our air because that has been the legacy of
the Congresses before us--the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Chesapeake Bay Program, the Great Lakes. Congress was responsible for
many of these programs.
On the Chesapeake Bay, but for the actions of Congress, that program
would not be what it is today. The funds would not be there. We
initiated it. It was not even in the administration's budget. We did
that because we recognized that the Chesapeake Bay is a national
treasure, the largest estuary in our hemisphere. We understood that, so
we acted.
So what is going to be the legacy of this Congress? Is this going to
be a Congress that moves in the backward direction in protecting our
clean water? I hope that is not the legacy of this Congress.
I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of clean water, to be on
the right side of what Americans expect us to do and to protect the
water supply of our Nation and to vote against this joint resolution.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the veto message
on S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution 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.
Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, John Thune, Johnny Isakson,
Steve Daines, Roy Blunt, Cory Gardner, Deb Fischer, Pat
Roberts, Thom Tillis, John Cornyn, Joni Ernst, David
Vitter, Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso, Ron Johnson,
Thad Cochran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
veto message on S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution 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,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cruz), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Scott).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have vote ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--40
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
[[Page S147]]
NOT VOTING--8
Alexander
Boxer
Coons
Cruz
Rubio
Sanders
Scott
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are
40.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Cloture not having been invoked, under the previous order, the veto
message on S.J. Res. 22 is indefinitely postponed.
The Senator from Kansas.
____________________