[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 18 (Thursday, February 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S611-S632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 38, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) disapproving the rule 
     submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the 
     Stream Protection Rule.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 6 hours of debate, equally divided in the usual form.
  The Democratic whip.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully this morning to the 
statement made by the Republican majority leader, and I was a little 
bit curious as to what he was trying to say because he talked about a 
judicial nominee who rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the 
American Bar Association, who received kudos from Republicans and 
Democrats alike, including Members of the Senate, who went

[[Page S612]]

through the Senate without a hitch, and then he couldn't understand why 
there would be more questions asked now for another appointment.
  I was puzzled. I thought he was talking about Merrick Garland. We 
remember him, don't we? Merrick Garland was, of course, President 
Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.
  Senator McConnell this morning said repeatedly: So what has changed 
since the first time Judge Gorsuch came before the Senate? Senator 
McConnell, what has changed is you, what you did when Merrick Garland's 
name was sent up. For the first time ever in the history of the U.S. 
Senate, Senator McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to a Presidential 
nominee to the Supreme Court. It never happened before, not once in 
history. And if you think, well, maybe the Democrats didn't have a 
chance to show the same steel will, the same political determination, 
in the last year of his Presidency, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony 
Kennedy to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. He sent the nomination 
down to the Senate. I believe Senator Biden was the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee at the time. There was a Democratic majority. In 
the last year of Reagan's Presidency, a so-called lameduck year by 
Senator McConnell's description, the Democratic majority in the Senate 
gave President Reagan the respect of honoring his constitutional 
responsibility to fill the vacancy and sent Anthony Kennedy to serve on 
the Supreme Court. So Senator McConnell has asked what has changed. He 
has changed. He has changed the Senate.
  And here is the good news for him. We are not going to forswear our 
own demands that a Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court is 
deserving of a hearing and a vote. I said that over and over again when 
Merrick Garland was being stonewalled by Senator McConnell and the 
Republicans in the Senate. I will say it again. I do believe the 
President's nominee has a right to a hearing and a vote. That nominee 
also has a responsibility to show us that he is not only qualified to 
serve on an important appellate court but to serve with a lifetime 
appointment to the highest Court in the land.
  On Tuesday night, President Trump announced he would nominate the 
Tenth Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It is 
important to put that nomination in context. This is not a run-of-the-
mill nomination. It is an extraordinary time in America's history. 
President Trump's announcement was actually supposed to happen today. 
Why was it sped up? Why did they hurry it up? Well, because of the 
avalanche of criticism being heaped on the Trump administration for 
their Executive orders on refugees and immigration. They had to change 
the subject. After dozens of legal immigrants were detained at airports 
over the weekend solely because of their country of origin, including 
children, seniors, interpreters who helped our troops, Federal courts 
stepped in to block the President's Executive order.
  We have done some research, and we are going to do some more. We 
think this is the first time in the history of the United States that a 
new President within the first 10 days had an Executive order stopped 
in the Federal courts. It shows how controversial that order was, that 
the Federal courts would step in with this brand new President and say: 
Stop. This has to be weighed as to whether it is legal or 
constitutional.
  Then on Monday there was the unprecedented firing of an Attorney 
General who refused to defend President Trump's unlawful Executive 
order in court. President Trump moved up his Supreme Court announcement 
to try to change the headlines. In doing so, he made it even more clear 
how critical it is that we have an independent judicial system, not a 
rubberstamp for the President. It's especially vital at this moment in 
our history.
  President Trump and his agenda are likely to come before the Supreme 
Court eventually. From his violations of the Constitution's emoluments 
clause to his unprecedented Executive actions, President Trump is 
likely to keep the High Court busy. We need Justices on the Supreme 
Court who are truly independent.
  President Trump's announcement came 10 months and 15 days after a 
White House announcement about another Supreme Court nominee I 
mentioned earlier, Judge Merrick Garland, perhaps the most well-
qualified, mainstream, independent nominee to come before the Senate. 
Merrick Garland is a son of Illinois, a good man, and an outstanding 
judge. Judge Gorsuch himself once described Judge Merrick Garland as 
``among the finest lawyers of his generation.''
  Merrick Garland was subjected to unprecedented obstruction by Senate 
Republicans and Senator McConnell. Republican Senators simply ignored 
their constitutional responsibility to consider this nomination, for 
political reasons. It was worse than a filibuster.
  Do you remember the time when Senator McConnell and a number of 
others in the leadership said they would not even meet with the 
President's nominee--would not even give him the courtesy of a meeting? 
Merrick Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's 
history to be denied any consideration by the Senate--no hearing, no 
vote--nothing. It was shameful.
  I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution--
every Senator does--and to bear true faith and allegiance to it. I take 
it seriously. Even though my Republican colleagues chose to ignore 
their responsibilities when it came to filling that Supreme Court 
vacancy in an election year, I know we have a constitutional 
responsibility to give Judge Gorsuch a hearing and a vote. I will do my 
due diligence as a Senator and give his nomination fair consideration. 
That is what the advise and consent responsibility of article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution requires.
  If my Republican colleagues complain about the process for Judge 
Gorsuch, just remember that no one ran a worse process on a Supreme 
Court nominee than my Republican colleagues themselves did for Merrick 
Garland. They really have no right to complain.
  Now that President Trump has nominated Judge Gorsuch, Senators will 
embark on a thorough review of his record. He was confirmed to the 
Tenth Circuit in 2006, but the level of scrutiny is far higher 
for Supreme Court nominees and lifetime appointments to the High Court. 
He now has a lengthy judicial record which we will review carefully.

  There are parts of his record that already raise questions and 
concerns. In recent years, we have watched the Supreme Court transform 
into a corporate Court, where all too often cases seem to break for the 
big corporations, regularly against the little guy. We need a Supreme 
Court that gives the American people a fair shot against corporate 
elites, corporate special interests. Judge Gorsuch's record as a judge 
and advocate raises concerns as to whether he would hasten that trend 
toward a corporate court.
  I note that yesterday, Reuters published an article entitled ``As 
Private Lawyer, Trump High Court Pick Was Friend to Business.'' The 
article said that while Judge Gorsuch was in private practice, he 
``often fought on behalf of business interests, including efforts to 
curb securities class action lawsuits, experience that could mould his 
thinking if he is confirmed as a [Supreme Court] justice.''
  During his time on the bench, Judge Gorsuch appears to have a 
consistent pattern of favoring companies over workers in cases 
involving employment discrimination, worker safety, and other matters. 
That is why we need to carefully review his record.
  Judge Gorsuch must also answer important questions about his views on 
issues of fundamental importance to American people, such as our right 
to privacy. Is there anything more important? Almost on a daily basis 
we are being asked if we are ready to give up a little more of our 
privacy. We know that corporate interests and business interests are 
collecting data on us. We can find it every time we log on to the 
Internet and there is this cascade of ads on the side of the page 
asking us if we want to buy something that we just happened to buy a 
couple months ago. We know as well that information is being catalogued 
carefully and being used by business interests to promote their 
products and to categorize us as Americans. We also believe--I think 
there are even some Republicans who

[[Page S613]]

believe--that individuals have a right to privacy when it comes to the 
overreach of the Federal Government and when it comes to critical 
decisions so important to our personal lives. At that last 
heartbreaking moment when a family member has to decide about the 
medical care for someone who is nearing death, is that going to be 
subject to a court order or is that going to be a decision made 
privately by a family? At that moment when a family faces the pregnancy 
of a teenage girl in the household, is that a family decision or is 
that a decision where government has the last word? The Supreme Court 
decides this, and we need to ask Judge Gorsuch what he thinks and 
understand clearly what he says.
  We also believe that when it comes to our security--not just our 
privacy but our security--the Supreme Court time and again will have 
the last word. When it comes to the issue of safety, health, and 
environmental protection, where will this new Supreme Court nominee be? 
Is he going to bend toward the corporate interests and look the other 
way as we face climate change, the pollution of streams, the 
contamination of our drinking water, and dangers to our public health? 
If he is going to rule consistently for the corporate interest no 
matter what, he certainly doesn't, as far as I am concerned, represent 
the values we need on the Supreme Court. He needs to answer questions 
as well on immigration, privacy, campaign finance, and voting rights.
  Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch professes to be an originalist. 
Let me address that for a moment. I have been with the Judiciary 
Committee for quite a few years. Time and again, whether it is the 
nominee for Attorney General or nominees for the High Court, here is 
the cliche we are given: We are just going to apply the rule of law, 
whatever the law says. That is what we do. We are originalists. I call 
that the robotic view of justice; that if you just plug in the facts, a 
computer can tell you the answer because a computer compares it to the 
law. Yet we know better. We know judges make decisions based on a 
variety of concerns, and they weigh some facts more carefully and give 
some facts more strength than others. This rule of law by robotic 
justice is a fiction. We know that each nominee, whether from a 
Democrat or Republican, brings views to the Court that will decide how 
many cases will lean.
  Judge Gorsuch has to answer the questions forthrightly. There is a 
cottage industry of teaching nominees to give thoughtful nonanswers to 
important questions. That will not cut it for me or many of my 
colleagues. The American people want honest, candid candidates for the 
bench.
  We know Judge Gorsuch is the hand-picked nominee by President Trump 
and has been lauded by rightwing organizations all over the United 
States. They hope he will be a dependable vote in their favor, but he 
has to demonstrate--to me and to many other Senators--that he will be 
prepared to disappoint the rightwing if the Constitution and law 
require it.
  Since the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, Supreme 
Court Justices have had to show they can pass the threshold of 60 votes 
to get confirmed. I expect nothing less from this nominee. Justice 
Elena Kagan, nominated by President Obama, received 63 votes; Justice 
Sonya Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama, received 68 votes; 
Justice Sam Alito had a cloture vote where he received 72 votes and 
subsequently received 58 votes for his actual confirmation; Justice 
Roberts, 78 votes; Justice Breyer, 87; Justice Ginsburg, 96.
  Judge Gorsuch has a burden to bear. He has to demonstrate that he is 
a nominee who will uphold and defend the Constitution for the benefit 
of all of us, not just for the advantage of a privileged few.
  I take my constitutional responsibility very seriously when it comes 
to the Supreme Court. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am 
reviewing the record and preparing questions to ask the nominee. It is 
going to take some time. It usually does, several months. But my 
Republican colleagues have kept this seat vacant since February of last 
year, so they don't have any basis for arguing and complaining that we 
just have to move on this really fast.
  I am sorry we are not considering the nomination of Merrick Garland, 
an eminently qualified mainstream judge who deserved better treatment 
than he received from Senate Republicans and Senator McConnell. No one 
deserved the treatment Merrick Garland received.
  With my oath to support and defend the Constitution in mind, I will 
consider Judge Gorsuch's nomination pursuant to the Senate's role of 
advise and consent. I will strive to be thorough, fair, and focused on 
the important principles I have discussed today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from the great State of 
Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I come to the floor this morning to speak on the resolution of 
disapproval that is before us, but I want to make just a few comments 
following my colleague, the minority whip.
  I am pleased to hear him say that he does look forward to the 
opportunity for a hearing on Judge Gorsuch and the opportunity for a 
vote. I think we recognize that we have in front of us an individual 
who has truly a stellar legal reputation, who has committed himself to 
the law in a remarkable way. When he was before this Senate for 
confirmation leading up to the Tenth Circuit, he enjoyed very strong 
support. I would like to think that on yet further review of this very 
strong individual, our colleagues will do the due diligence that is 
necessary as we perform our constitutional role of advise and consent.
  There is so much that I will respond to at a later time when I go 
into more detail about my support for Judge Gorsuch and why I think he 
is exactly the type of individual we want to see named to the Supreme 
Court, but the comment has been made, not only by my colleague from 
Illinois but from others, that somehow or other Judge Gorsuch is for 
Big Business and not the little guy. It seems that the criticism is 
based on this viewpoint that courts should not defer to Federal agency 
interpretations of their own rules, and certainly Big Business is a 
frequent challenger of government overreach. But, as the Presiding 
Officer and I both know, so are ordinary Americans--people like John 
Sturgeon, an Alaskan who took on the Federal Government, took on the 
agencies, and took on the Park Service because he was told he could not 
use a hovercraft in an area where he had operated one for decades. John 
Sturgeon, with the help of a few friends, who did everything from 
garage sales to fund his litigation, and with just the generosity out 
of their own pockets, took all the way to the Supreme Court the 
question of whether or not the Park Service's regulation had exceeded 
their legal authority.

  I happen to believe very strongly that Judge Gorsuch is clearly on 
the right track here when he questions the deference that courts give 
to our government agencies. I think most Alaskans would probably agree 
with us on this point--that when we are talking about the scales of 
justice, they should not be tipped in favor of our Federal agencies.
  Again, I am pleased to hear that the minority whip agrees that a 
filibuster is not appropriate, is not the way to proceed with this fine 
nominee. I look forward to learning more about Judge Gorsuch but also 
to be able to share more of my observations at a later point in time.
  Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in support of H.J. Res. 
38 to disapprove and nullify the Department of Interior's so-called 
stream protection rule. I wish to begin my comments by thanking 
Majority Leader McConnell and Senator Capito of West Virginia for 
sponsoring the Senate version of this resolution. I also wish to note 
that I am proud to be listed with the Presiding Officer as a cosponsor 
on this bipartisan measure with 28 colleagues in support.
  Now, by name alone, the stream protection rule may sound pretty 
innocent, pretty well intentioned, but as we have heard and as we will 
hear throughout this debate, the reality is really different. This 
regulation will have severe economic impacts. It will cost us jobs. It 
will cost us revenues as well as affordable energy all across our 
country.
  By way of background, the rule revises longstanding regulations for 
coal

[[Page S614]]

mining under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, something 
around here we simply call SMCRA. Now this rule was finalized in 
December of 2016, and it took effect 2 weeks ago, making more than 400 
changes to existing regulations.
  Now, 400 is just a number that shows the scope of the changes that 
the Obama administration has made, but it hardly does justice to the 
sweeping substance of the changes or the deliberately opaque process 
that the Obama administration followed to make them.
  SMCRA is supposed to be an example of cooperative federalism, and 
many States have approved programs that allow them to regulate coal 
mining within their own borders. But beyond that, the law explicitly 
directs the Federal Government to work with States to engage with them 
whenever any changes are made. So it requires a high level of 
cooperation and collaboration.
  Contrary to the collaborative mood intended by SMCRA, the Obama 
administration chose to draft the stream protection rule behind closed 
doors. It ignored the input and recommendations that were provided by 
States and other stakeholders. It subverted the law, basically, to meet 
its own policy objectives, which was to keep the coal in the ground. 
Ultimately, that is what they wanted to do, and it finalized a rule 
that will shut down coal mining in several regions in our country, 
including possibly in Alaska, if it is allowed to stand.
  Now, the Obama administration claimed that this rule would cost only 
$81 million a year and that it did not qualify as what is considered 
``economically significant'' as a rule, as a result of that. We will 
likely hear that number touted by some of the opponents of this 
resolution and probably some who will claim that we are exaggerating 
the impact. But I don't think we should forget how the Obama 
administration determined that the rule was insignificant in the first 
place.
  In January of 2011, the Associated Press obtained documents showing 
that this rule was projected to eliminate 7,000 direct jobs across the 
country. So instead of going back and fixing the rule to avoid these 
potential job losses, what happened? The Department of Interior fired 
the independent contractor that had made the projection. So, 
effectively, we have a situation where the Department essentially cooks 
the books instead of fixing the rule. It then took steps to rebrand the 
rule, changing the name from the ``stream buffer zone rule'' to the 
``stream protection rule'' making the rule sound rather innocuous.
  So what the American people should know is that there is a real 
discrepancy between the economic impacts the Obama administration 
estimated and what other sources project will happen if the rule is 
left in place. The projection is that up to 30 percent of the direct 
jobs in coal mining will be lost, and domestic coal production will 
fall 29 to 65 percent, with anywhere from $15 billion to $29 billion in 
lost annual coal resource value and $3.3 billion to $6.5 billion in 
lost State and Federal revenue.
  So with estimates like this, it is no wonder that this rule has drawn 
such strong bipartisan opposition from Alaska all the way to 
Appalachia. If you are doubting the statistics--if you are saying, 
well, I am hearing certain things on one side and others on another--
you need to talk to people out there. We did that. Instead of just 
taking what the Obama administration said, we went out and we asked 
people.
  Last March, I held a field hearing of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, and we held the field hearing up in Fairbanks, AK. 
Among our witnesses was a woman by the name of Lorali Simon. The 
occupant of the Chair knows her well. She works for Usibelli Coal Mine, 
an initially family-owned and operated coal mine--which has been very 
successful--and provides coal and power to the residents of the 
Interior, and has been for a long time. Ms. Simon spoke about how coal 
resources contribute significantly to our State by providing jobs and a 
reliable energy source.

  She explained that coal is the cheapest source of energy in Interior 
Alaska for everything from the local community to our military bases 
there and how usability has helped to create business for others like 
our Alaska railroad. She also highlighted the broader picture about how 
coal strengthens our national and energy security. So those are all 
good things, in my book.
  But Lorali also testified about the stream protection rule. She said 
that, if the rule was finalized as it was proposed--which it has been--
it will likely kill all coal development in Alaska. She also noted that 
Congress passed SMCRA, but during the Obama administration, she said: 
``We were seeing unelected federal employees violate legislative 
intent, which will kill America's coal industry.''
  Now, Lorali Simon is not alone in her criticisms or her opposition to 
this rule. Our Governor in Alaska, an Independent by the name of 
Governor Bill Walker, recently noted that it was one of the worst of 
many different actions the Obama administration took to limit resource 
development in our State of Alaska.
  The attorneys general of 14 different States wrote:

       The rule would have a disastrous effect on coal miners, 
     their families, workers in affected industries, and their 
     communities. It would also impose very significant costs on 
     American consumers of electricity, while undermining our 
     Nation's energy supply.

  That is pretty tough--not only a disastrous effect on the coal miners 
but the cost on American consumers of electricity, undermining our 
Nation's energy supply.
  The Interstate Mining Compact Commission described this rule as a 
``burdensome and unlawful rule that usurps states' authority as primary 
regulators of coal mining as intended by Congress under SMCRA'' while 
also seeking to impose ``an unwarranted top-down, one-size-fits-all 
approach that does not take into account important regional and 
ecological differences.''
  Then, finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted that the rule 
``exceeds the Department's authority, will cause significant economic 
harm and job losses, and interferes with longstanding and successful 
state efforts to protect water quality.''
  It is very clear to me that this rule simply cannot stand. We have an 
opportunity here to make sure that is the case. So if you are concerned 
about families paying more for their heating and their electricity 
bills, you should support this resolution. If you are worried about job 
losses due to access restrictions and rising energy costs, you should 
support this resolution. And, if you care about States' rights, which 
so many of us do, or overregulation by the Federal Government, which we 
clearly do, you should support this resolution.
  I have noted to a couple of people today that this is a pretty good 
day to be debating a disapproval resolution under the Congressional 
Review Act. It is Groundhog Day, and it is exactly what the last 8 
years have felt like for anyone who has paid attention to the 
regulations that were just churned out by the Obama administration. The 
SPR rule is a perfect place to start as we sort through the major 
burdens that the last administration imposed through its relentless 
regulatory actions.
  So, again, I wish to thank Leader McConnell and Senator Capito for 
sponsoring and leading this legislation, and know that I intend to vote 
for it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I see my colleague from Texas. Did he 
want to make remarks in leader time?
  Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the action today 
in the Senate, which is to try to overrun the clean water rule as it 
relates to the mining industry.
  The bottom line is, polluters should pay for the pollution, and that 
is what the rule says, and that is what is trying to be overrun today 
after a very short debate in the Senate.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to 
say it is about the coal industry and a war on coal. If they are so 
concerned about the coal industry, I would suggest to them

[[Page S615]]

and coal workers that they take up the pension bill they promised to 
take up in the last Congress and have failed to take up.
  Last December, thousands of coal miners came to Washington, DC, and 
asked the Senate to live up to their promise that was made and put 
their health on the line and make sure that they had a pension program. 
More than 20,000 retired coal miners are at risk of losing their health 
care if we do nothing by April, and they have a very small pension--
averaging about $530 a month--that is also at risk.
  I know some of my colleagues would like to believe this is somehow 
entirely related to a war on coal, but that narrative ignores the 
facts. In 2008, right before the financial crisis, the United Mine 
Workers' pension plan was 93 percent funded--in 2008, 93 percent 
funded. Its actuaries projected it was on track to reach full funding 
in several years.
  So this notion that somehow the discussion behind the scenes by the 
Interior Department or the EPA caused an implosion in the mining 
industry and thereby they didn't have resources is not the case. What 
is the case is that the financial crisis hit, and Wall Street 
speculators blew up our economy, costing it $14 trillion--according to 
the Dallas Fed--and many in this body bailed them out. But we did 
nothing to bail out the miner pension program. Those pensions were 
thrown into crisis. By 2009, the United Mine Workers' plan had dropped 
from the 93-percent funded level down to the low seventies--a 20-
percent drop in a single year. So despite the fact that the plan was 
well managed, the investment returns continued to be problematic. Wall 
Street--not the Department of the Interior or EPA--is the reason mine 
workers have so much challenge today.
  If they care so much about the mining industry and the workers, then 
bring that legislation forward on the floor of the Senate today instead 
of trying to overturn a rule that says polluters should pay.
  These safe drinking water issues and fishing issues are so important 
to an outdoor economy that employs a million-plus workers and is a 
vital part of practically every State's economy. The notion that 
somehow this is a jobs issue--if they want to protect jobs in the 
outdoor industry, then please allow people to fish in rivers where they 
don't have to worry about selenium. This is a big issue, whether 
talking about Montana, Colorado, Washington, or the State of Alaska.
  I will say that the Alaskan issues of salmon and habitat far outweigh 
the 113 jobs the Alaska coal industry produces. Both can be seen as 
valuable jobs, but if we want to know about an economic impact to the 
State, it is dwarfed by the issue of making sure salmon have clean 
rivers and streams to migrate through.
  This legislation today is about trying to protect those waters. I 
would again say that the effects of mountaintop removal have been 
called out by the press for a long time. I wish to quote from a 
Washington Post editorial:

       For decades, coal companies have been removing mountain 
     peaks to haul away coal lying just underneath. More recently, 
     scientists and regulators have been developing a clearer 
     understanding of the environmental consequences. They aren't 
     pretty.
       In the 1990s, coal miners began using large equipment to 
     strip away mountaintops in states such as West Virginia. The 
     technique made it economical for them to extract more coal 
     from troublesome seams in the rock, which might be too small 
     for traditional mining or lodged in unstable formations. 
     Environmentalists were appalled, but the practice spread and 
     now accounts for more than 40 percent of West Virginia coal 
     production.
       Burning coal has a host of drawbacks: It produces both 
     planet-warming carbon dioxide and deadly conventional air 
     pollutants. Removing layers of mountaintop in the extraction 
     process aggravates the damage. The displaced earth must go 
     somewhere, typically into adjoining valleys, affecting 
     streams that run through them. The dust that's blown into the 
     air on mountaintop removal sites, meanwhile, is suspected to 
     be unhealthy for mine workers and nearby communities.
       Scientists have recently produced evidence backing up both 
     concerns. Over the summer, a U.S. Geological Survey study 
     compared streams near mountaintop removal operations to 
     streams farther away. In what should be ``a global hotspot 
     for fish biodiversity,'' according to Nathan Hitt, one of the 
     authors, the researchers found decimated fish populations, 
     with untold consequences for downstream river systems. The 
     scientists noted changes in stream chemistry: Salts from the 
     disturbed earth appear to have dissolved in the water, which 
     may well have disturbed the food chain.
       Last week, the Charleston Gazette reported on a new study 
     finding that dust from mountaintop removal mining appears to 
     contribute to greater risk of lung cancer. West Virginia 
     University researchers took dust samples from several towns 
     near the mountaintop removal sites and tested them on lung 
     cells, which changed for the worse. The findings fit into a 
     larger, hazardous picture: People living near these sites 
     experience higher rates of cancer and birth defects.

  Again, all this is from the Washington Post editorial.

       With these sorts of problems in mind, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency is taking a more skeptical look at 
     mountaintop removal mining permits. The Clean Water Act gives 
     the government wide authority over industrial operations that 
     change rivers and streams.

  The EPA has already used its efforts, in some cases where there was 
concern, to revoke a permit and has instructed its branches and offices 
to be more careful.

       The coal industry and its allies--

  And we have heard some of them here--

     are howling. Skeptics of mountaintop removal, one industry 
     pamphlet insisted, ``promote an anti-coal, anti-business 
     agenda that uses environmental issues as a mere pawn to 
     redistribute wealth, grab power, and put forth liberal, 
     social ideology. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that 
     would strip the EPA of some of its permitting power. But just 
     this month--

  Because that was a couple years ago--

     the Obama administration once again prevailed in court, 
     beating back another industry challenge.

  This editorial ends by saying:

       The emerging scientific evidence should cut through the 
     rhetoric. The EPA is right to move more firmly to protect 
     health and the environment.

  We are right to defend this rule and law and say that polluters 
should pay.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday the Senate took up legislation 
to block the stream buffer rule, which is a job-killing regulation from 
the Obama administration--something the Obama administration will be 
long remembered for--a regulatory overreach that strangled the growth 
of our economy and the jobs that come along with it. This is a prime 
example of a misnomer, though. It is not really about protecting 
streams, as it claims, but about killing the coal industry and energy 
production in our country.
  One of the things that have caused our economy to grow historically 
has been access to low-cost energy, but unfortunately this regulation 
has made that not possible in coal country, taking many jobs along with 
it and I think in part, at least, responsible for the vote President 
Trump got in many parts of the country that felt left behind by the 
economy and because of job-killing regulations like the stream buffer 
rule.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Madam President, yesterday I had the chance to meet with Judge 
Gorsuch personally, the man President Trump nominated to serve on the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  It is plain to me now why President Trump selected him to be the 
nominee for the seat vacated by the death of Justice Scalia. Judge 
Gorsuch's experience, intellect, and background make him uniquely 
qualified and qualify him as a mainstream nominee. That seems to be the 
nomenclature that has been embraced by our colleagues across the aisle. 
They said they hope President Trump nominates a mainstream nominee. 
Well, he did. But I fully expect our colleagues across the aisle to try 
to paint him as some sort of extremist, which they can't do based upon 
his distinguished record on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
last 10 years as a Federal judge or his previous life. They are going 
to have to make things up in order to cause people to believe this 
nominee is not a mainstream nominee.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee to do our job of advice and consent and to see the nomination 
come to the floor, where I hope he will be confirmed. I trust he will 
be confirmed one way or the other.
  Unfortunately, Senate Democrats--particularly their leader, the 
Senator from New York--have already announced that they will fight 
tooth and

[[Page S616]]

nail against any nominee put forward by President Trump. Predictably, 
the minority leader has made clear that he will try to filibuster the 
President's choice. It has been ironic to watch him come here and extol 
the virtues of the 60-vote cloture requirement for confirming a Supreme 
Court Justice when he and the rest of his colleagues invoked the so-
called nuclear option to change the Senate rules by breaking those 
rules and reducing the cloture requirement for lower Federal court 
judges and Cabinet members to 51.

  We see what happened as a result of that action. Now they find 
themselves on the receiving end of that 51-vote requirement caused by 
the nuclear option. So much for immediate gratification and not so much 
for taking the long view in terms of how the Senate ought to operate.
  This sort of resistance mentality that has grown up among our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignores the fact that we had 
an election on November 8. The American people made their choice, and 
it is plain that our Democratic colleagues are simply not happy about 
the choice they made and are going to undermine and resist this 
President no matter what, particularly when it comes to staffing his 
Cabinet with the people he has chosen to serve the Nation as part of 
his administration.
  The American people also indicated they wanted us to move forward, 
away from the bickering, away from the gridlock, away from this 
mentality that we were here to serve someone else other than the 
American people. They want results, not politics as usual. I think that 
is the lesson we all should have learned from this last election. The 
sad reality is that it is increasingly clear to me that my Democratic 
colleagues didn't learn the right lesson last November and are trying 
to bring the Chamber to a standstill.
  Thanks to the nuclear option that then-Majority Leader Senator Reid 
championed and which all of our Democratic friends voted for, they are 
not going to be able to stop President Trump's nominees to the Cabinet 
because all it requires is 51 votes. Yes, they can slow it down, but 
they can't stop it. My question is, What purpose is to be served from 
keeping the President fully staffed with the Cabinet that he has 
chosen, knowing that you are ultimately going to lose the fight?
  Unfortunately, this is not about the Senate alone. This is about the 
American people. For 2 days in a row, Senate Democrats on the Finance 
Committee, which has been one of the most bipartisan committees in the 
U.S. Senate--our Democratic colleagues, each and every one of them, 
boycotted the meetings to consider President Trump's nominees.
  I sit on the Finance Committee. As I said, it has historically been a 
bipartisan committee, but our Democratic colleagues chose to relinquish 
their responsibility and ignore their duties to their constituents. 
Unfortunately, this type of behavior has become par for the course 
throughout the first days of President Trump's administration. We have 
seen other examples of slow-walking nominations, invoking every 
procedural rule that there is to deny unanimous consent--the sort of 
normal courtesies that go along with working in the Senate on technical 
or procedural matters.
  We have seen countless examples of their slowing down the nomination 
process intentionally, even for highly qualified candidates.
  On the Judiciary Committee, on which I also sit, there is another 
example with respect to the nomination for Attorney General of Senator 
Jeff Sessions, a well-respected colleague in this Chamber. I am glad we 
were finally able to move his nomination out of the committee 
yesterday. But the truth is that even though many Democrats on the 
committee had worked side by side with Senator Sessions and had 
cosponsored legislation with him, they themselves said what a good man 
he was. They voted against him after slowing down this obvious choice 
to lead the Justice Department.
  President Trump talks about draining the swamp in Washington, DC. The 
biggest swamp in Washington, DC, has been a Justice Department headed 
by Eric Holder and, sadly, by his successor Loretta Lynch. They have 
refused to enforce the rule of law and instead turned that into a 
political outpost for the Obama administration. Attorney General Jeff 
Sessions is going to change that. He is going to enforce the law, and 
he will respect the law no matter who wins and who loses because his 
duty is to the Constitution and laws of the United States and to 
enforce those laws as Attorney General and, yes, to defend those laws.
  Some of our Senate colleagues were shocked when Deputy Attorney 
General Sally Yates--although the Office of Legal Counsel said that the 
Executive order issued by the President was legal and proper in its 
form--wrote a letter saying she was instructing the line lawyers in the 
Justice Department not to defend it in court. President Trump fired 
her, and he should have. That is political grandstanding by somebody 
who should know better, considering her distinguished career at the 
Department of Justice for the last 30 years.
  I don't know who gave her the bad advice, but I am glad that 
President Trump decided to fire someone who basically defied their 
duties to the Department of Justice and to the U.S. Government and 
preferred to take the side of politics and misinformation.
  We know that the Senate is continuing with other nominations as well. 
I see this morning that the Environment and Public Works Committee 
finally voted out the nomination of the attorney general of Oklahoma, 
Scott Pruitt, for Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. 
Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues' bad habits on the Finance 
Committee have spilled over to the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, and they chose to boycott that hearing as well. 
Notwithstanding that boycott, the majority of the committee did vote 
out the nomination, and we will take that up soon.
  This lack of cooperation is unprecedented. It really is 
unprecedented. At this point in 2009, President Obama had 11 of his 
Cabinet members confirmed by the Senate--11. Today we have only five 
confirmed, and many of those who have been confirmed were slow-walked 
by our Democratic colleagues for one lame excuse or another. This is 
not because President Trump's nominees aren't qualified; it is because 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are determined to 
undermine this new President and his administration, no matter what 
cost is paid by the country.
  After the election, President Obama, to his credit, talked about the 
importance of a peaceful transition of power from one administration to 
the next. Some of our colleagues who are now obstructing this 
President's Cabinet members have also paid lipservice to a peaceful 
transition of power. What we are seeing is a hostile transition of 
power--mindless obstruction, foot dragging, and delay for delay's sake.
  Let me remind them once again that the American people voted on 
November 8 and chose a President who has the authority to nominate the 
people he sees fit to serve on his Cabinet. We can't afford to let this 
administration operate with one hand tied behind its back for the 
foreseeable future. We need to do our job and provide the President and 
the country with the experts and advisers that the administration needs 
to keep our country safe and to keep government functioning for the 
people.
  I hope soon--I am not optimistic, but I hope that soon our Senate 
Democrats will start working with us and not against us and, more 
importantly, against the interests of the American people who sent them 
here.


                        Tribute to Linda Bazaco

  Madam President, I want to spend a few minutes recognizing an 
extraordinary public servant on my staff who served in a unique 
capacity that many may not know exists.
  One of the most important things we get to do as Members of Congress 
is to act as the intermediary or intercessor between our constituents 
and a Federal Government that sometimes is not responsive, particularly 
in dealing with Federal agencies. For instance, when somebody isn't 
receiving their proper check from the Social Security Administration or 
is having trouble getting an appointment at a Veterans Administration 
clinic or is in need of assistance with foreign adoptions, where do 
they turn? They turn to people like Linda Bazaco, who heads my casework 
program in Dallas, TX, and is going to be retiring soon.

[[Page S617]]

  I am proud to say that we do our very best to make sure that the 28 
million people I have the privilege of representing get the very best 
help possible to help navigate the very real and very personal issues 
that involve the Federal bureaucracy. That way, my office--specifically 
my constituent services or what we call my casework team--can help 
ensure that no Texan who reaches out to us slips between the cracks.
  In some circles, apparently, we have a reputation for bragging in 
Texas, but I have to say my staff are some of the absolutely best in 
the field when it comes to getting responses for Texans from Federal 
agencies. I like to say that if it can be done, it will be done. In 
that way, we play an important role in holding the bureaucracy 
accountable and reminding the Federal Government who their customer 
really is. It is the taxpayers to whom they ought to be responsive. 
They shouldn't need to call their Senator or their Congressman or 
Congresswoman in order to get responses from the Federal Government, 
but, in fact, sometimes they do, and sometimes--well, it is our 
privilege to help.
  As I indicated, the person who has led this effort in my office for 
the last many years is Linda Bazaco, someone whom I came to know after 
she worked for my predecessor, Senator Phil Gramm. Linda fervently 
believes in the concept of government accountability and has developed 
a way to get the answers that Texans need and deserve.
  As I indicated, she started under my predecessor, Senator Phil Gramm, 
about 27 years ago. Today, Linda's system has become the gold standard 
for other elected officials to get results on behalf of their 
constituents and, in doing so, has impacted constituents' lives in 
profound ways: benefits, checks, expedited passports, medical care, or 
even the most basic--simply a return phone call from an agency. All the 
while, Linda has done this with enthusiasm and with an eye toward 
quality and getting results for the people of Texas.
  Linda, along with the team she has built, has pushed the government 
to be more accountable and responsive to the tens of thousands of 
Texans who have reached out to my office and, in most cases, will never 
know she was their secret weapon.
  Soon Linda will be taking on another challenge. After serving the 28 
million people of Texas for nearly 27 years now, she will take up an 
even more important role; that is, a full-time grandmother 
extraordinaire. I couldn't be prouder of having someone of her caliber 
as a leader on my team, and I wish her and her husband Val and her 
three children and her five beautiful grandchildren the absolute best 
in the next chapter of their lives.
  On behalf of all the generations of Texans you have helped over the 
decades, the staff members you have led along the way, and at least two 
U.S. Senators, Linda, thank you for your service.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I know we are going back and forth. I wish to inquire 
if my colleague seeks to speak.
  Go ahead because we are expecting someone on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business 
for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss President 
Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch.
  As you know, the vacancy exists because last year Supreme Court 
Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly at the age of 79, leaving an 
unexpected vacancy on our Nation's highest Court.
  As I said at the time of his passing, replacing Justice Scalia, one 
of the Court's strongest defenders of our Constitution, would be 
extremely difficult. For nearly three decades, with his brilliant legal 
mind and animated character, Justice Scalia fiercely fought against 
judicial activism and legislating from the bench. To say our next 
Justice has big shoes to fill would be an incredible 
understatement. That is why the decision was made early on by Leader 
McConnell and others to give the American people a voice in this 
process, by waiting to confirm the next Justice until the 45th 
President was in office and able to nominate someone him or herself. We 
held that belief, even when it looked like our party would not win the 
Presidency.

  As we have been reminded before, elections have consequences. The 
American people chose to elect President Trump, who throughout his 
campaign said that he would nominate someone in the mold of the late 
Justice Scalia. With his pick of Judge Gorsuch, President Trump made an 
excellent choice in fulfilling that promise. We believe Judge Gorsuch 
espouses the same approach to constitutional interpretation as Justice 
Scalia and has a strong understanding of federalism upon which our 
country is built.
  Because the current makeup of the Court is evenly split between 
conservative- and liberal-leaning Justices, this ninth spot is as 
important as it has ever been. The next Justice has the potential to 
hold incredible influence over the ideological direction of the Court 
for a generation to come. The Supreme Court is the final authority for 
interpreting Federal laws and the Constitution. It is one of the most 
important responsibilities found within our federalism.
  Since our very first Supreme Court--Justice James Wilson took the 
oath of office in October of 1789--there have been just 112 Justices to 
serve on the Court. These lifetime appointments are established under 
article III in the Constitution and are the ultimate authority over all 
of the Federal courts and State court cases involving Federal law.
  Since it was established, the decisions the Supreme Court has made 
have guided and altered the course of our Nation. The decisions it 
makes often have long-lasting ramifications, that in one vote can 
dramatically alter the course of our country. Based on what I know of 
Judge Gorsuch, I believe he has the aptitude for this lifetime 
appointment. He is greatly respected on both sides of the aisle. In 
fact, he was previously confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Tenth Circuit unanimously, and not a single Republican or Democratic 
Member of the Senate dissented. As such, we expect the Senate will 
continue its tradition of approving highly competent, qualified 
individuals to the Supreme Court in an up-or-down vote, following a 
thorough vetting process.
  I thank President Trump for nominating to the Supreme Court a judge 
who has lived up to the Scalia gold standard. I also thank the American 
people who voted in November in support of our efforts to retain 
Scalia's legacy on the Court when his replacement is confirmed.
  Perhaps most importantly, I thank Judge Gorsuch for his lifelong 
commitment to defending our Constitution and applying the law as it was 
written. If confirmed, I am confident he will be an outstanding member 
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I would like to continue the debate on 
the measure before the Senate, which is to basically overturn a 
provision that would require coal polluters to make sure they clean up 
the damage they do to the clean water streams of our Nation.
  We are here today because the agency who is in charge of setting 
these rules has finalized a rule. They did so after more than 5 years 
of discussion. They set it because there was so much scientific 
information about the great degradation to our streams caused by 
mining, when rocks are blown up and selenium is introduced into the 
stream. I have pictures I showed last night of deformed fish, pictures 
of river streams that are polluted. I have pictures of obvious 
degradation of the environment around them.
  The real issue is, the rule is now in place, and my colleagues want 
to exempt the coal industry from such regulation. Why would you want to 
exempt anybody from cleaning up their mess? Polluters should pay. I 
know my colleagues are starting to chorus on some refrain about the 
economy, which makes no sense. Natural gas has driven a very 
competitive market to consuming more natural gas than coal,

[[Page S618]]

and Wall Street blew up the pension program of the miners, and now it 
is in jeopardy. If you want to help miners, then come address their 
health and safety and their pension program. If you want to make 
natural gas more expensive, maybe you could make coal competitive 
again, but I don't think that is what we really want in America.
  My colleagues somehow ignore the fact that the people of the United 
States of America are going to demand clean water one way or another. 
You can protect the coal industry here with special interests and the 
amount of lobbying they do, or you can step up this process and have a 
regulation that works for the United States of America so the outdoor 
industry, sportsmen and fishermen--who have many more jobs--can 
continue to thrive. Why do I say that? Because my colleague from Texas 
brought up the EPA nominee, Mr. Pruitt, who is coming to us from 
Oklahoma. I found, with great pleasure, the same arguments that the 
other side of the aisle is trying to make, they tried to make in 
Oklahoma. ``Oh, my gosh. It is environmental regulation that is 
stopping us from producing a greater, more robust farming economy. We 
need to do something to stop those untoward regulations.''
  What did they do? They had a big initiative for the ballot that 
basically said: Let's make it really hard for anybody to regulate in 
regard to farming, unless they show it is somehow in the greater State 
interest. Even in red-state Oklahoma, they got it. They knew it was a 
fast run on the Clean Water Act, and they defeated that basically 60 to 
40.
  If we want to have a debate by debate, State by State, a discussion 
about clean water because people here will not defend the right for 
people to have clean streams, then we will have that debate. My 
colleagues sometimes try to say: Well, this is what attorneys general 
are concerned about. Some of them don't like the rule. You have ample 
opportunity to change the rule. You could come here and propose 
legislation. You could ask your colleagues now to do something and move 
forward on an alternative, but that is not what is happening. This 
egregious approach is not only getting rid of a rule that currently 
protects us, for safe streams, but because it is a Congressional Review 
Act overriding that rule, it will prohibit us from taking up, in the 
same fashion, an approach to make sure this is regulated in the future. 
That is right. Turning down the rule this way will stop an agency from 
doing the job it is supposed to do. Why not just leave it to the 
States? That is like saying: I am going to leave clean air, clean 
water, or nuclear waste cleanup to whatever a State decides. That is 
not what Federal law is about.
  Here is an editorial from Kentucky where a ``proposed $660,000 
settlement of the Clean Water Act violations between the State's 
environmental agencies, and two of its largest companies, underwent a 
30-day review.'' What was that about? That was about the State of 
Kentucky failing to implement the old law. This was in 2010. The State 
of Kentucky's Attorney General--they were such laggards at this--people 
sued the companies in the State because the State wasn't doing its job. 
Eventually, they uncovered, as the article says, ``massive failures by 
the industry to file accurate water discharge monitoring reports. They 
filed an intent to sue, which triggered the investigation by the 
State's energy and environmental cabinet.'' The notion that States are 
on the job and doing their job in Kentucky--they weren't.
  A State case was provoked by other people who were monitoring for 
clean water. It is our prerogative to set a standard for miners to 
clean up their mess. That is what we are talking about. Now the other 
side of the aisle wants to overturn that, saying that polluters don't 
have to pay.
  How did we get to this situation? As mentioned, the past 
administration worked hard at coming up with a stream protection rule. 
Why did they come up with a new stream protection rule? Because it had 
been 33 years since we had a stream protection rule. The old rule did 
not prohibit mining through streams. Guess what? Neither does the new 
rule. The new rule says you are not prohibited from mining through a 
stream, but by gosh you ought to be required to mitigate the mess you 
create in the water system by mining through that stream.
  We are talking about mitigation requirements, and we are talking 
about measurements. Why do we need that? Because since 1983, when the 
previous rule was put in place--we now know that things like selenium 
cause very bad things to happen in water, with rocks and the discharge. 
We know selenium can cause the deformation of fish and that eating 
those fish can make you sick. That is why we want to have a rule to 
understand the impacts and to mitigate for them. I think about this 
particular picture, and the deformation in the fish tail and in the 
fish lip--the front end of the fish--are extreme examples of what 
selenium is doing in our water supply. Why would you not want--as 
someone blowing up a mountaintop and creating this kind of stream 
damage, why would you not want them to mitigate that? Why would you 
want to protect them? Because you think you are protecting some coal 
industry jobs that basically have fallen off because natural gas has 
become a cheaper product? Your economic strategy is a race to the 
bottom. You think if you have the lowest environmental standards in the 
United States of America, that is somehow going to generate jobs? I 
think it is just the opposite. I have so many people in Washington 
State who say: I can't attract employees unless we have a clean 
environment here because people want to live in a clean environment, 
they want to fish, they want to hunt, they want to recreate, and they 
want an opportunity to do so. As a company, I can attract the best and 
the brightest because they know they are going to live in that kind of 
environment.
  The notion that this kind of ``let us make sure the coal industry 
doesn't have to play by the rules, they get an exemption from clean 
water'' is some sort of economic strategy for the future of coal 
country, it is absolutely not.
  Saying that AGs are going to do the job, we have many examples of 
where they haven't. There are also examples from Ohio and Pennsylvania, 
where the degradation is so bad it is nearly impossible to clean up.
  Let us talk a little bit about the comparison of jobs from outdoor 
industry and the coal industry. It is not to demean the jobs of the 
coal industry and the individuals who have worked their whole lives in 
that sector or to say that one job is better than the other. There are 
over 6 million jobs directly in the outdoor industry. They generate $80 
billion in tax revenue, but if you come to Montana and there is a mine 
on top of a stream and people don't want to go there to fish and 
recreate anymore, then you have caused damage. What are we talking 
about by State? Let's look at it. Montana, there are 64,000 jobs 
related to outdoor recreation. Why? Because Montana is beautiful. It 
has so many streams. I mentioned last night that wonderful movie called 
``A River Runs Through It.'' It doesn't say, ``A River Runs Through It 
and a Mountaintop Mine Sits on Top of It.'' That is not what that movie 
was about. It was about the beauty of the great outdoors. There are 
122,000 recreation jobs in Utah. There are 125,000 in Colorado, 50,000 
in Wyoming. There are 28,000 in North Dakota. Are people down here 
defending those jobs? I am defending them because a clean stream is a 
great source of recreation for people. I don't want to fish or hike in 
a stream with selenium that could poison me or poison other people. 
What is wrong with polluters paying? I say nothing.
  The economic cost of this legislation is very minimal. The industry 
would be responsible for less than .01 percent of the economic cost; 
that is, the pollution that would be required to clean up from this 
type of effort would be minimal to the industry. So what are they 
complaining about? What are they complaining about? They don't want to 
measure selenium in the water. They don't want to be responsible for 
mitigating it.

  The economic challenges that the industry faces from natural gas have 
nothing to do with this issue. This issue is about whether polluters 
should pay and whether we as a body are going to not only overturn this 
rule that is about clean water and safety for our communities by having 
streams protected. It is also about whether we are

[[Page S619]]

going to preclude another administrative approach to fixing this issue.
  The Congressional Review Act is a very large cannon blowing a hole in 
the clean water requirements for the coal industry. Once you turn this 
down, you cannot easily reinstate something new. So our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, if they truly wanted to do something about 
this, could come to the floor today and say: I propose something 
different. President Trump, if he wanted to propose something different 
that both guaranteed clean water and moved us forward, he could propose 
something. Instead, they simply want to repeal this.
  So this chart shows just what I have been referring to; that coal 
basically now in 2016 is getting beat by natural gas. It is getting 
beat by natural gas because it has become a cheaper source. We are not 
going to get into the details of how that happened, but we are going to 
say here today that the notion that you want to let them off the hook 
from meeting environmental rules and regulations as a way to be 
competitive is a dangerous, dangerous precedent for the United States 
to be setting.
  We will not win, and our economy will not win from that situation. 
What we have to do instead is make sure that we are taking care of our 
environment and being competitive in all sorts of industry issues. For 
example, this story was about, in West Virginia, how mountaintop mining 
caused a fish species to disappear. ``We are seeing significant 
reductions of the species of abundant fish downstream from mining 
operations.''
  To me, that would be an anathema in the Pacific Northwest. Fishing is 
everything. If somehow we were involved in a mining process that was 
killing fish, that would be the worst thing that could happen to our 
economy. There is no reason for us not to set rules and regulations to 
make sure the mining industry cleans up their mess.
  I hope our colleagues will understand how detrimental this rule is. 
Do not give the mining companies an exemption from cleaning up messes 
in their streams. Let's say that we are going to do the public interest 
and not special interests.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today we are going to be voting on the 
first of what will be many resolutions of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act to roll back the avalanche of Federal 
regulations that the Obama administration placed on the U.S. economy 
and, most importantly, the working men and women of this great country.
  Nowhere have these regulations been more of a burden than on the 
energy industry of America, which employs millions, millions of 
Americans--Democrats, Republicans, good, hard-working Americans, and 
thousands of hard-working Alaskans, my constituents. So I am 
particularly pleased that the first of these actions--and we are going 
to be using the Congressional Review Act a lot because the economy and 
families in America need relief--in the Senate is to nullify the so-
called stream buffer rule of the Department of Interior.
  My colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, Ms. 
Murkowski, was down on the floor a little bit about ago. She described 
just how sweeping this rule was in scope and how despite the Federal 
law called SMACRA, which requires cooperative Federalism, working 
closely with the States, the Obama administration did not give the 
States any input--certainly not my State.
  But what I wanted to talk about on this rule in particular and why it 
is so important to have not just Republicans but Democrats--and I am 
going to encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
please support this resolution of disapproval--why it so important we 
vote for this resolution of disapproval today is because of the coal 
miners in America--the coal miners in America, who have been under 
incredible strain and their families.
  The vote we take today is going to offer them the first signs of 
relief in years. Now, there were projections by the Department of 
Interior's own contractors--as my colleague, Senator Murkowski, 
mentioned a little bit ago--that thousands of coal miners would lose 
their jobs because of this rule--thousands.
  A study showed that estimates would be one-third of coal miners, 
coal-mining jobs in the country were at risk because of this rule. That 
is a big deal. That is a big deal. One-third. Studies are showing that 
by the Department of Interior's own contractor. But not to worry, the 
Obama administration issued the rule anyway. Again, as my colleague 
Senator Murkowski mentioned, there were concerns--very legitimate 
concerns in my State--that this rule could literally kill every coal-
mining job in Alaska, at the Usibelli coal mine in interior Alaska.
  So what was the so-called stream buffer rule really about? What was 
it? Well, I think we all know. It was the last salvo in the Obama 
administration's arsenal in the war on coal miners, a war that has left 
thousands of hard-working Americans out of work, injured, in despair in 
its wake. That is what happened. Just look at what happened. Look at 
our own Federal Government going to war against hard-working Americans. 
That is what happened for 8 years--disgraceful in my view.
  Now it is time to fight back. Now it is time to fight back. Now it is 
time for this body to show coal miners in America that we are actually 
on their side and not against them and not trying to ruin them and 
their families. I want to recount a recent colloquy by a bunch of my 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle from last December--right 
before recess.
  Many of my colleagues--all of whom I respect highly--on the other 
side of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues, came down to the floor. 
They were saying how coal miners of America were under siege, how they 
needed help. They were talking about my good friend and colleague 
Senator Manchin's bill with regard to protecting coal miner pensions, 
which, by the way, I am a cosponsor of.
  So I agree about protecting our coal miners, but I watched a lot of 
those remarks. My colleagues were down on the floor for several hours, 
but what I found very ironic was that I looked at a lot of these 
Senators and asked: Where were you during this 8-year war against coal 
miners? What were you doing? I hate to say it, but a lot of them were 
allies in the Obama administration's assault on hard-working families 
and coal miners.
  I am not saying that about my good friend from West Virginia, Joe 
Manchin, but there were a lot who were. Heck, some were even leading 
the charge, but, nevertheless, several were down here on the floor 
right before the holidays lamenting about what has happened to the coal 
miners in America. So to my colleagues who were down here shedding 
tears for America's coal miners in December, I want to offer a 
challenge to you. Here is your chance. Here is your chance. This is a 
rule that our own Federal Government has said will put thousands of 
coal miners out of work. If you really care about the coal miners of 
America, whether in West Virginia or Alaska, come down on the Senate 
floor this afternoon when we have this vote and vote for this 
resolution of disapproval, if you want to help the coal miners, if you 
want to turn this around so there is no war against them, led by the 
Federal Government. Its own studies said: Yep. Sorry. You and your 
families are going to be out of work. If you really care like you were 
saying in December, then come down to the floor today and vote for this 
resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I think my colleague from 
Massachusetts is here on the floor to speak. I will let him have some 
time.
  I would say to my colleague from Alaska, the real bait-and-switch is 
the side of this aisle that allows the Finance Committee to pretend 
like it is going to do something on the pension program and votes a 
month before the election, and then after the election, fails to act on 
such an important issue. I hope people are not advocating pollution as 
an economic strategy because it will not work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington 
State for her tremendous leadership on all of these environmental 
issues, which are now on the table in our

[[Page S620]]

country for the first time in a generation.


                      Tribute to Bill Bonnavillian

  Before I turn to the resolution the Senate is debating, I want to 
take a minute to recognize the contributions of Bill Bonnavillian to 
advancing America's science and technology policy. Last month, Bill 
stepped down as the head of the Washington office of the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology after 11 years.
  Bill's leadership of the office continued MIT's historic role of 
providing a vision for advancing science policy and ensuring that 
knowledge generated at MIT was relevant and available for policymakers 
in Washington, DC. His leadership will be missed at the MIT Washington 
office, but I am glad to know he will be staying engaged with the MIT 
community. I hope he will continue to provide guidance to this body 
since now, more than ever, we need science to inform the decisions we 
are making on the Senate floor.
  Today, Madam President, congressional Republicans are beginning the 
process of going one by one to overturn commonsense rules that have 
long been opposed by the oil and gas, coal, and other industries in the 
United States of America. The majority is trying to undo these rules by 
deploying a rarely used procedural tool known as the Congressional 
Review Act.
  In fact, the majority is talking about using the Congressional Review 
Act, or CRA, so often that it could actually get hard to keep track of 
which industry is benefitting from week to week to week from the 
Republicans' use of the CRA. I brought down a helpful tool so the 
viewers at home can keep track of which industries are benefitting each 
week from Republicans using the CRA to roll back protections for public 
health, for clean air, for clean water, for clean soil, for the health 
of the families in our country.
  So let's consult our wheel to see who is the big winner of the GOP 
giveaway this week.
  Up first are the mining and the coal industries. They are the first 
big winners of the GOP Congressional Review Act wheel of giveaways. 
That is right. First up for repeal by the Republican Congress are 
public health protections against the toxic practice of mountaintop 
removal coal mining.
  These protections were put in place by the Obama administration 
because a Bush-era rule was thrown out by the courts. These commonsense 
rules to monitor and ultimately restore streams impacted by coal mining 
are despised by the coal industry. Those that created the problem 
despise any rules that would require remedying the problem, as it 
affected public health--no surprise.
  Mountaintop removal mining is one of the most environmentally 
destructive practices on Earth. Mountains are turned into barren 
plateaus. Streams in the bottoms of nearby valleys are filled with 
debris and buried. Heavy metals destroy water quality for nearby 
residents and ruin ecosystems.
  The rule that the Republicans are attempting to repeal today protects 
the public health and drinking water of millions of American citizens 
in Appalachia and elsewhere across our country.
  The rule requires that lead, arsenic, selenium, and other toxic 
pollutants are monitored. It requires that streams that are damaged or 
destroyed must be restored.
  Now, the majority likes to say that there is a war on coal, but the 
only war that coal is losing is in the free market to natural gas, to 
wind, to solar. These are the sources of electricity that the utilities 
of our country, that the citizens of our country have been moving to 
over the last 10 to 15 years. There is a war going on in the 
marketplace.
  Adam Smith is spinning in his grave as he listens to the Republicans 
trying to protect an industry from market forces. Adam Smith is 
actually spinning so fast in his grave that he could qualify as a new 
energy source for our country. That is how shocked he would be about 
this attempt to undermine the public health and safety in our country 
on behalf of an industry that is losing a battle in the marketplace.
  It is the free market that ultimately is causing these changes, and 
the coal industry is saying: Please protect us from having to protect 
the public health and safety--clean air, clean water. Please protect us 
from having to protect families affected by our industries.
  A few years ago, we generated roughly 50 percent of our electricity 
from coal. Now it is down to 30 percent of all electricity generated in 
our country from coal--50 percent to 30 percent of all electricity in a 
handful of years.
  Coal has been replaced in the free market by natural gas, which has 
grown from a little over 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation a 
decade ago to 35 percent today. That is coal's big problem--natural 
gas, another fossil fuel, but one that emits one-half of the greenhouse 
gas pollutants as does coal.
  Coal has also been replaced by clean energy, by wind, especially, 
which has grown by 5 to 6 percent of our generation, and by solar, 
which is now 1 percent of our generation.
  In other words, if you go back to 2005 and you look at our country, 
natural gas was a relatively small percentage of electrical generation, 
and so were wind and solar. As we debate this issue here today, wind 
and solar are now up to 7 percent of all electricity generated in our 
country, up from 1 percent just a little bit more than 10 years ago. It 
is growing so fast as a preference for American industry, American 
utilities, and American homes, that it poses a marketplace threat.
  So what we need to do now, finally, is to have the big debate out 
here as to what are the implications for public health and safety and 
what do we have to do in order to maintain the high standards that we 
have created for the protection of families over the last generation.
  Last year, electricity generation from natural gas surpassed that 
from coal for the first time since 1949, when data collection began. 
Why? To quote the Department of Energy:

       The recent decline in the generation share of coal, and the 
     rise in the share of natural gas, was a market-driven 
     response to lower natural gas prices that have made natural 
     gas generation more economically attractive.
       Between 2000 and 2008, coal was significantly less 
     expensive than natural gas. However, beginning in 2009, large 
     amounts of natural gas produced from shale formations changed 
     the balance.

  While the cost of coal has risen by 10 percent since 2008, the cost 
of natural gas has fallen by more than 60 percent. For a power producer 
considering new generation capacity, the lifetime cost of electricity 
from a new coal-fired powerplant is 67 percent higher than from a new 
natural gas powerplant and 17 percent than from a newly constructed 
wind farm, according to the National Academy of Sciences.
  The reason no one is building coal-fired powerplants is very clear: 
It is the free market. Coal cannot compete in the free market. In 2016, 
we added more than 14,000 new megawatts of solar. We are going to add 7 
to 8,000 new megawatts of wind. We are going to add nearly 9,000 new 
megawatts of natural gas, and we added virtually no new megawatts of 
coal-fired generation in our country. We are projected to add no new 
coal generation this year as well. It will be more natural gas, more 
wind, and more solar.
  The marketplace is rejecting coal as a source of electricity. The 
marketplace is doing that. This isn't a conspiracy. It is competition 
in the free market.
  Lest my colleagues think that this is just happening in the United 
States, it is not. More than half of all electrical generating capacity 
added in the world last year was renewable.
  Let me say that again. More than half of all new electrical 
generating capacity added in the world last year was from renewable 
energy--wind and solar--across the planet.
  China recently announced that it intends to invest $360 billion on 
renewable energy by 2020. They intend to create 13 million Chinese jobs 
in renewable energy in that time.
  This isn't a conspiracy. It is competition, and the competition for 
those clean energy jobs is global.
  When we started carrying iPhones, it wasn't a war on black rotary 
dial phones; it was a technological revolution. When we started using 
Macs and PCs, it wasn't a war on typewriters; it was a technological 
revolution. The horseless carriage wasn't a war on horses; it was a 
technological revolution that moved us to automobiles.
  The move away from coal and oil toward clean energy and natural gas 
isn't

[[Page S621]]

a war; it is a revolution--an American-made free market revolution.
  We now have more than 400,000 Americans employed in the solar and 
wind industries. By 2020, there are projected to be 600,000 Americans 
working in these clean energy industries. It is not a war. It is a 
revolution.
  Now, next there is going to be another industry to win in the CRA, 
the Congressional Review Act giveaway game. That is right. The next 
winner will be the oil and gas industries.
  Republicans intend to move to overturn a bipartisan requirement under 
the Dodd-Frank bill that publicly traded oil, gas, and mining companies 
disclose to their investors when they make payments to foreign 
countries, but that requirement is vigorously opposed by ExxonMobil, 
the American Petroleum Institute, and the oil and gas industry.
  Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act was a bipartisan provision authored by Senators Cardin 
and Lugar. It requires oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose 
payments to foreign governments, and that is now in jeopardy.
  The Dodd-Frank disclosure rule goes to the core of the Securities and 
Exchange Commission's mission of investor protection. Secret payments 
can easily be expropriated by corrupt governments. They can also be a 
signal that a company is involved in risky business overseas--risks 
that investors need to know about when making investments.
  By eliminating this disclosure requirement, using the Congressional 
Review Act, we are potentially allowing for oil companies to make 
secret, undisclosed payments to foreign governments. Those could 
include payments intended to gain an advantage over other companies or 
even bribes to foreign officials.
  Eliminating this disclosure requirement could allow for oil companies 
to make secret payments to foreign nations that could have serious 
implications for these nations and for investors.
  I urge my fellow Senators to reject these resolutions and keep in 
place the commonsense protections for public health, clean water, and 
financial disclosure.
  Earlier today, the Republicans on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee reported out the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General 
Pruitt.
  Democrats on the committee have grave concerns about his ability to 
uphold the EPA's mission to ``protect human health and the 
environment.''
  So what we are talking about here is the totality of a picture. The 
use of the CRA to--one by one by one--go after these environmental 
protections that have been put in place to increase the health of 
Americans, to reduce their exposure to arsenic, to lead, and to other 
dangerous chemicals. This first one that we are debating goes right to 
the heart of that issue. What the coal industry is doing is using the 
justification of their need to be competitive with the natural gas, 
wind, and solar industries, a battle they are losing in the financial 
marketplace, as a justification for undermining the public health of 
our country so they can be more competitive.
  In other words, the price to be paid to make the coal industry more 
competitive with other industries to which they are losing market share 
in the electrical generation market is that the public health has to be 
compromised and we have to turn a blind eye to the impact on the 
children and the families in our country who are being exposed to these 
dangerous chemicals.
  That is the price we have to pay as a nation? It is unacceptably 
high.
  So Adam Smith looks on, and Adam Smith judges us here today.
  This marketplace defeat of coal by natural gas, wind, and solar is 
one that is being used to hurt children and hurt families in our 
country. I do not think it is an acceptable position for our Nation to 
take. I urge a rejection of that motion.
  I yield back to the leader of this effort on the Senate floor, the 
great Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity 
to get wedged in here. There are a number of very interesting things 
happening today. One is the CRA that I am very much concerned about. I 
know that my good friend from Massachusetts did not misrepresent 
something intentionally; however, this is a little bit more complicated 
than people think it is.

  I spoke earlier this week on our need to roll back a lot of these 
regulations that were handed down during the Obama administration. They 
are all a part of that War on Fossil Fuels, and as you hear, that war 
is still going on with some of those individuals. However, President 
Obama is gone, and now we have to look at some of these 
overregulations.
  For a number of years, I chaired the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. During that period of time, that particular committee had 
the jurisdiction over the EPA, which is where most of the bad 
regulations came from. When I say ``bad regulations,'' I am talking 
about the overregulations that make it very difficult for our companies 
to compete with foreign companies that don't have these types of 
regulations.
  Let me share something that is not very well understood, and that is 
what a CRA really is. There are a lot of people of the liberal 
persuasion who would like very much to have everything they could 
regulated in Washington, DC. For example, one of the fights we had was 
the WOTUS fight. If you ask any of the farmers and ranchers in 
America--not just in my State of Oklahoma but Nebraska and many other 
States--what is the most serious problem they have, they would say it 
is the overregulation of the EPA. If you ask them, of all the 
regulations, which ones are the most difficult for the farmers out 
there trying to scratch a living, they will say it is the regulations 
on water.
  Historically, the jurisdiction of water is a State jurisdiction. Now, 
a liberal always wants that jurisdiction to be with the Federal 
Government in Washington. That is their nature. I don't criticize them 
for that. They believe that. But if you ask the farmers in my State of 
Oklahoma, they will say they don't want that to happen. Historically, 
water has always been the State's jurisdiction, with the exception of 
navigable water. We understand that navigable water should have a 
Federal jurisdiction. In fact, I would have to say there was a real 
effort 6 years ago by a Senator who at that time was representing the 
State of Wisconsin and a House Member who was representing a district 
in Minnesota. Those two individuals introduced legislation to take the 
word ``navigable'' out of water regulations so the Federal Government 
would have jurisdiction over all of the water in the States as opposed 
to the State having that jurisdiction. Not only did we defeat the 
legislation, but both of those Members were defeated in the polls when 
they came up for reelection on that issue. The people are clearly on 
our side.
  Where does a CRA come in? A CRA is something that has been used to 
shed light on what we are doing here. I am talking about with respect 
to our elected representatives. If there are regulations that are 
punitive to the businesses back home, when the Senator goes back to his 
or her State, they can say: Well, that wasn't I, that was an unelected 
bureaucrat who did that. I am opposed to it. They have a shield so 
people don't really know where they stand. A CRA takes away that shield 
because the CRA challenges a regulation, and it has to be voted on, 
forcing Members of the Senate and the House to be responsible for how 
they are really voting. It is a way of shedding light.
  We have a lot of CRAs coming. One is going to be a CRA that I 
sponsored having to do with a regulation in the Dodd-Frank bill, in 
section 1504. As I mentioned, most of the overregulations come from the 
EPA, but this particular regulation didn't come from the EPA. It came 
from the Dodd-Frank banking legislation having to do with financial 
services. It is in a section that had nothing to do with financial 
services. Section 1504 requires all information to be made public that 
would come from a bid. In the United States of America, our oil and gas 
companies are in the private sector, but in China it is run by the 
government. If we are competing for an oil and gas issue that might be 
in Tanzania and we are competing with China, China would be competing 
as a government, and we would be doing it

[[Page S622]]

in the private sector. Section 1504 requires the private sector to 
disclose all elements of their bid when they are competing for a 
contract with China. The reason for this initially was to preclude a 
country's leaders from attempting to steal money that was given to them 
for a certain oil project. With this disclosure, they would not be able 
to do it. Well, you don't have to have all the components of the bid. 
All you have to have is the top line, how much money was actually sent 
to, in this case, the country of Tanzania.
  The courts came along in 2014 and said this regulation was wrong. 
There are a couple of problems. One problem is that there is no reason 
in the world that you should have a mandate to disclose all the details 
of a bid because that is giving away information to the competition, 
giving the other side an advantage. The other problem is the expense of 
it. We are talking about $600 million a year that would be borne by the 
private sector in America that China would not have to pay. So it only 
punishes those within the United States.
  After the courts threw this out, the SEC should have reworked the 
rule. They were instructed to rework the rule so every detail of the 
bidding did not have to be disclosed, just the total amount. That 
solved the problem that was perceived to be out there because then it 
would be known that so much money, for instance, maybe a check for $50 
million, would go out, and we wouldn't have to break down the details 
of it. The main thing is, we need to know, in good government--and that 
was the intention in the first place--how much money was going to a 
foreign government.
  Some have argued that the CRA is motivated by companies who want to 
get around transparency. That is clearly not the case. The courts have 
said it is not the case. Oil and gas companies in particular are 
longstanding supporters of greater transparency initiatives such as the 
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the EITI, that is a 
multilateral, multistakeholder global initiative composed of energy 
companies, civil society organizations, and host governments. The EITI 
rules would apply equally to all companies that would be operating in a 
country. That would level the playing field.

  We have also heard from those on the left saying that voting to 
repeal the rule would be a vote in favor of corruption. Yet, 
importantly, the United States already has in place the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act, which prohibits the paying of bribes to foreign 
officials to assist in obtaining or trying to retain business. The 
Federal Government is able to bring civil enforcement actions against 
companies that violate this rule, and section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank 
Act did not change that. That was in place before and is still in place 
now. If we pass the CRA and eliminate section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank 
Act, it is not going to change things.
  There are others in the humanitarian community who have expressed 
concern to me that the CRA will undermine efforts to fight corruption 
in other governments around the world. Let me assure you that I support 
your goal.
  The courts were emphatic when they said this regulation should be 
repealed. In fact, it was taken down by the court way back in 2013. 
Well, it has come back up again. What we want to do is merely comply 
with what the courts told us to do in 2013, and that is to use the CRA 
to knock out this section 1504 and go back and rewrite it to take out 
merely the requirement for a breakdown of all the individual elements 
of a contract. That is something we intend to do.
  I see my good friend from West Virginia, who I think would understand 
just as well as anyone that when I go back to my State of Oklahoma, 
they say to me: You have a President--this was back when President 
Obama was President--who has a War on Fossil Fuels. Fossil fuels are 
coal, oil, gas, and I would include nuclear. Coming from my State of 
Oklahoma, they ask: Explain how, if 89 percent of the power that is 
generated in America comes from fossil fuels and nuclear and they are 
successful in doing away with it, how do we run this machine called 
America? The answer is, we can't. We have to have it.
  I think we all understand what we want to do is have this rule 
changed so we are not put at a competitive disadvantage so we are able 
to go ahead and compete with countries that have a government-run 
system. To be able to do that, we need to rewrite this particular act. 
Again, the courts have already agreed to that and that is what we are 
attempting to do.
  For those concerned about the timing and speed of the CRA, I have 
good news. The actual rule is not set to go into effect until 2018 
anyway. The more swiftly we can enact the CRA, the more time it will 
give us and the SEC to rework it. This is something that is perfectly 
acceptable.
  Some of my critics say we can't come back with a rule that is 
substantially the same. This will not be substantially the same. 
Actually, this is what the court recommended in 2013.
  In closing, I want to ask this question: If we put forth a rule that 
makes it harder for U.S. companies overseas, who will fill the void? 
The U.S. companies have the best environmental standards, the best 
labor practices, and the least corruption of many of the other 
countries. However, if this vacuum is there, the business will go to 
companies from China, India, and Mexico that don't care about pollution 
and don't care about labor standards. That is not what we want to have 
happen. What we need to do is foster a strong competitive environment, 
with reduced corruption overseas, for the benefit of those living under 
these governments.
  So I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort to do away with 
this regulation through the CRA and to repeal section 1504 of Dodd-
Frank and rewrite it so it accomplishes the goal of stopping corruption 
and at the same time is not going to put us at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise also to speak about the rule. I 
want everyone to know that the State of West Virginia has been a heavy-
lifting State. We are a construction State. We mined the coal that made 
the steel that built the guns and factories that enabled our Nation to 
defend us and gave us the great country we have.
  We have done everything. There is no one in West Virginia, Oklahoma, 
or any extraction State who wants dirty water or dirty air. Pitting 
people against each other is just wrong. The way this comes down is 
that this is a duplicative rule, this stream protection rule that was 
put in place.
  My colleagues know that last year the Department of Interior Office 
of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement basically decided to send 
the final stream protection rule to the White House without fulfilling 
their obligations or even a request by myself to contact and work with 
the local authorities and to work with the States that are involved. 
They did nothing. They would not reach out to us whatsoever. This was 
one of many of President Obama's administration's regulations that 
absolutely crippled West Virginia families and businesses with no plan 
to replace or create new jobs or help these communities.
  Not only is this rule very alarming in its scope and potential 
impacts, the rulemaking was executed in a very flawed way. The rules by 
the Department of Interior and Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation 
must be based on comprehensive data that is available to stakeholders, 
particularly when those rules threaten to eliminate thousands of jobs. 
All we have asked was to come to the DEP, the West Virginia Department 
of Environmental Protection, and tell us what is not working, tell us 
what you want us to do differently, work with us and help us strengthen 
where there is a flaw.
  Not once did we ever get that type of courtesy. States critical to 
the implementation of this rule were left out of the process in any 
meaningful way. The Office of Surface Mining failed to work with States 
throughout this process, despite the clear congressional intent. 
Furthermore, agencies should not be assuming duplicative rules that 
overlap regulations under other environmental laws such as the Clean 
Water Act.
  This rule is excessive and duplicative. It has over 400 changes to 
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act--which is what we refer 
to as SMCRA--that duplicate existing practices and protections that the 
EPA and the Army Corps already oversaw.

[[Page S623]]

  So, basically, we already have two agencies that have to do with any 
type of permitting that goes through the EPA, in conjunction and in 
alliance with the Army Corps. This overstepped and took all the powers 
away from them completely. Why would we want to duplicate? If we have 
an agency that is not doing its job, either change the personnel or get 
rid of the agency; don't just create another duplicative role and 
another agency to oversee it.
  During my time in the Senate, I have been committed to policies that 
protect our coal-mining communities and economies, and that is why I 
introduced this resolution of disapproval to undo this harmful, 
duplicative regulation.
  I am a firm believer in the balance between the economy and the 
environment. I believe that everything we do in life should have a 
balance, and we should try to find that balance. But when you are 
trying to basically use overreach, duplicative rules--a nuisance--which 
do nothing but create havoc and make it almost impossible to go 
forward, you can't hire enough lawyers and enough accountants to get 
through the paperwork the government can put on you.
  But never once, from any of us--from West Virginia or any other State 
that does the heavy lifting--none of us think that we should discard 
the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act. Those are things that we will 
cherish and we will protect, and those came about by Republicans and 
Democrats working together--Republican administrations. We are all for 
that; we are just not for beating us over the head with a hammer when 
we can work to fix things if we think there is an error.
  The consequences of this regulation will have far-reaching impacts on 
the future of coal mining and therefore all other things we can count 
on. I think, as the Senator from Oklahoma just said, in West Virginia, 
we have what we call ``all of the above'' energy. We want all of the 
above to be used, and use it in the cleanest fashion, and design and 
develop new technologies that we can use and depend on. We depend on 
coal, we depend on natural gas, and we depend on nuclear power for the 
majority of our energy.
  The other thing I have said is that I believe we should be developing 
renewables also, and we are doing that. Wind, solar, biomass--we do 
everything. But if you believe that is going to run the country in the 
energy you use every day and take for granted, then tell me what 4 
hours of the day you want your electricity to run. What 4 hours of the 
day do you want your refrigerator to stay cold? What 4 hours of the day 
do you want to heat your home? Tell me what 4 hours of the day you take 
for granted that anything and everything you want works 24 hours a day, 
because you will not have baseload. Those are the facts. If you don't 
like it, then let's continue to work to make it better, but don't just 
put your head in the sand and say: I am going to have whatever I have. 
This will work fine. And I have no fossil. I don't need fossil.
  I am sorry, the world doesn't work that way. This country doesn't 
work that way. The grid system--your light switch--doesn't work that 
way.
  So today once again I am standing on behalf of West Virginians and 
commonsense people all over this country, and we have a lot of them in 
West Virginia. I ask my colleagues to hear their voices and vote in 
support of this resolution that gets rid of these overreaching, 
duplicative rules that do nothing but create havoc on the economy and 
the well-being of the citizens of our great country.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I think all of us understand the gravity 
of moving forward on a CRA. It is not a usual procedure; it is limited 
in terms of filibuster rules, and it is extraordinary. In this case, 
unfortunately, it is necessary. Had the previous administration 
actually listened and worked constructively with Senator Manchin and me 
and my utilities and the coal industry in North Dakota, we would not be 
standing here now.
  This was a rule that had a specific intent of addressing mining 
practices in Appalachia. Yet the former administration made the rule 
applicable to the entire country.
  I don't know that any of those folks drafting the rule had ever been 
to North Dakota to see just how different our mining practices and 
geology are compared to Appalachia, so I invited former Assistant 
Secretary Schneider out last year to take a look for herself. When she 
came out, she heard directly from North Dakota utilities, regulators, 
and coal companies, and she saw how our operations differ and how my 
State is a national leader in reclamation. Based on the final rule, it 
is apparent that the rule was already made before her visit, and the 
input of the folks back home in my State, quite honestly, was not taken 
seriously.
  North Dakota coal stakeholders estimate that the rule could cost coal 
producers in North Dakota alone approximately $50 million annually in 
additional compliance costs and take more than 600 million tons of 
otherwise mineable, affordable coal off the table.
  I will tell you, when you look at the landscape of North Dakota and 
you are sitting there and you are explaining this and you are showing 
how one rule would require equipment to be moved, draglines to be 
moved, and how all of that makes absolutely no sense in terms of the 
resource and, in fact, in terms of the difficulty of actually doing 
reclamation that needs to be done in that situation; when you are 
standing out there and you actually look at it, the only conclusion you 
can come to when you see the net result of this rule is that it was 
intended to shut down coal mining. That is the only conclusion I could 
come up with. It wasn't about clean air and clean water; it wasn't 
about protecting this resource; it was about shutting down the coal 
mines.
  So this impacts not only the ability of our utilities to access this 
affordable and abundant resource, it hits thriving rural communities 
throughout North Central North Dakota, communities like Hazen, 
Washburn, and Beulah that rely on coal for good-paying jobs, for 
funding our schools, for fire protection, for law enforcement and other 
community resources that allow our rural communities and healthy middle 
class to thrive in the State of North Dakota.
  One-size-fits-all rules do not make any sense. And when you look at 
the application of this rule and once-size-fits-all, it clearly makes 
no sense. The beautiful mountains, forests, and streams that dominate 
the West Virginia landscape, as just described by my great friend 
Senator Manchin, are nothing like the rolling prairies, the buttes, and 
the prairie potholes of North Dakota. How anyone can look at these two 
States and think that a rule which is promulgated which will be 
universally applied can logically be applied to those two different 
landscapes--the logic of that completely escapes me.
  A rule that requires enhancements to the land, including trees and 
permanent fencing to keep livestock away from streams--well, in North 
Dakota, we are pragmatists. Not only do we return the land to the same 
or better condition, we usually convert that land from farm or 
ranchland to this beautiful landscape we see here.
  I want everyone to understand what reclamation looks like. I want you 
all to understand that this used to be a strip mine. This used to be a 
big hole in the ground producing coal. And over generations, and 
restoring this to the topography--the biggest challenge we have in 
North Dakota is convincing the original landowner, who would love it to 
be straight so it is easier to farm, that we have to put it back the 
way it was.
  My colleagues can look at this landscape, and they cannot tell me 
that the company that did this and the State that set the standards and 
the commitment that was made to reclamation was not honored; that it is 
not working in North Dakota and that we need a one-size-fits-all stream 
regulation to fix a problem that doesn't exist--a problem that is going 
to cost us $50 million and hundreds of jobs in my State. This is 
exactly why the people of this country get frustrated, and the people 
of this country do not understand why Washington, DC, thinks they know 
it all.
  As a matter of fact, our reclamation programs are highly regarded, 
and we are, in fact, recognized for doing the best reclamation in the 
country. I would point to the 2016 Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation 
Small Project

[[Page S624]]

Award that went to our mine reclamation project in Bowman, ND.
  Our coal industry and our utilities are always willing to work with 
the Federal Government on regulations that focus on actual results, on 
improving environmental safety and standards. They are willing to do 
that again. They have never had an issue with updating this regulation. 
All that was asked was that the former administration listen to them, 
actually believe their eyes when they see the work we are doing and 
understand the impact of that rule.
  It was done in haste, it was done hurriedly, and it was done so they 
could check a mark and say: See, we really are leaving it in the 
ground.
  If you want to be leave-it-in-the-ground, then have the courage to 
come here and say that this country, in the next 20 years, will not 
extract one fossil fuel from the ground.
  I have great respect for Senator Markey. He was just here talking 
about how we have made progress because of the conversion from coal 
mining to natural gas. It is a little disingenuous, I would say, 
because the whole while, we are talking about how this conversion would 
not have been made possible if it weren't for industry practices of 
utilizing fracking to extract natural gas.
  This is a structured movement using bogus regulations to promote a 
national policy without having the courage to just advance that 
national policy forward, which is to leave it in the ground.
  We heard from Senator Manchin. I want everyone who says: We are going 
to pursue a leave-it-in-the-ground national policy--I want them all to 
think about what that does to women and children who live on fixed 
incomes. I want you to think about what that means for reliable, 
redundant, and affordable power generation in our country. We are going 
to let the market decide.
  We have moved toward wind energy, which, ironically, the big movement 
of wind energy was facilitated by a compromise we reached over a year 
ago that dealt with allowing for the export of crude oil out of this 
country--the lower 48--in exchange for more permanency and for 
production tax credits and investment tax credits. We can, in fact, 
achieve a public policy result if we work together and if we don't have 
hidden agendas like ``leave it in the ground.''
  This rule was wrong, it was structured wrong, and it attacks an 
industry that does this. I will tell my colleagues, I have been out 
there. I have worked in this industry and I have been a regulator of 
this industry. This is not unique. This is what reclamation looks like 
in North Dakota. And to suggest that we have not been good stewards, to 
suggest that somehow we are contaminating this beautiful resource by 
what we are doing, is wrong on so many levels. It is costly to our 
consumers. It costs us jobs, and it is wrong on so many levels.
  With that, I would say, please--this is a process that should only be 
used very rarely but I think is being used appropriately in this 
situation with the stream rule. So I stand with my friend Joe Manchin 
in helping sponsor this CRA. We will continue to fight for our 
industry, fight for our good-paying jobs, and fight for commonsense 
regulation that actually achieves the purpose of protecting this 
beautiful resource we have in North Dakota.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about efforts 
underway to use the Congressional Review Act to eliminate protections 
that have saved lives and cleaned up our environment. I certainly 
respect the views of my friend and colleague from North Dakota, but 
there are other perspectives to consider. And while today it is a 
stream buffer rule, tomorrow it will be some other rule intended to 
protect the health of our communities and our citizens.
  The Congressional Review Act is a rarely used tool that can erase 
rules that have taken years and much public input to develop. Passing a 
CRA resolution, as we are being asked to do in this instance, also 
prevents us from implementing similar protections in the future. The 
reason is that by passing this kind of resolution, it prevents us from 
implementing any kind of other rule that is similar in nature.
  Regardless of whether you voted for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, 
nobody wants to live in a dirty environment where we don't have clean 
water, clean rivers, clean streams, or clean air. Once again, we are 
being told to choose between a clean environment and creating jobs.

  In Hawaii, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the 
country and some of the most robust protections for our environment. 
Today's debate over the stream buffer rule and future debates under the 
Congressional Review Act are not about States' rights. Today's debate 
is not about regulation for the sake of regulation. It is not about a 
war on coal; it is about preventing fossil fuel companies from creating 
unhealthy communities by polluting the water we drink and the air we 
breathe.
  The Department of the Interior has been working on this rule for 7 
years--7 years. It replaces an outdated regulation that was written 
during the Reagan administration in 1983.
  Science has come a long way in 34 years. In that time, we have 
learned a lot about the detrimental impacts of coal mining on clean 
water and public health. Clean water is essential, and politically 
expedient decisions we make now will have lasting impacts for years to 
come, as families in Flint, MI, know all too well.
  The stream buffer rule that we are being asked to undo requires coal 
companies to monitor water for contaminants. Communities have a right 
to know what is in their drinking water. They have a right to know that 
their water is clean. They have a right to know what kind of 
contaminants are in their water. I don't think this is an unreasonable 
expectation. Why are we making this debate a fight between supporting 
jobs for coal miners and clean water?
  Divide and conquer is a time-tested tactic that ends up hurting 
vulnerable populations and communities. Let's not fall prey to such 
divisive tactics. This is why I am perplexed as to why we are voting to 
undo the progress we have made. I will be voting against the CRA and 
any other CRAs that harm our environment and public health and force us 
to make a false choice.
  Again, while I respect the views of my colleagues who have a 
different perspective on what we are being asked to do today, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in defeating this resolution.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to oppose the resolution of 
disapproval on the stream protection rule. Each Congress has an 
opportunity to promote having cleaner air and cleaner water. Our job 
description shouldn't include hollowing out the protections for clean 
air and clean water which previous Congresses have provided.
  Clean air and clean water are vital not just to human health and the 
environment, but to our economy as well. The number of premature deaths 
due to poor water quality affects our economy. The number of school or 
work days missed due to health problems affects our economy. The 
ability of industries to have access to clean water affects our 
economy.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am proud to represent part of 
Appalachia, in the western part of Maryland. I have enjoyed skiing, 
hiking, and simply enjoying one of the most beautiful places in our 
country. Recreational activities along the Appalachian Mountains depend 
upon clean air and clean water. And recreation is a huge part of 
expanding economic opportunities in Appalachia.
  Over the years, I have met with many people directly affected by the 
mining practice known as mountaintop removal, and I have worked very 
hard to address their concerns in a bipartisan manner. For instance, in 
the 111th Congress, I introduced S. 696, the Appalachia Restoration 
Act, with the senior Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, to help 
protect streams and rivers.
  The stream protection rule updates 33-year-old regulations to 
implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The update 
establishes clear requirements for responsible surface coal mining that 
will protect 6,000

[[Page S625]]

miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests over the next two decades, 
preserving community health and economic opportunities, while meeting 
the Nation's energy needs.
  The stream protection rule includes reasonable and straightforward 
reforms to revise three-decades-old coal mining regulations to avoid or 
minimize harmful impacts on surface water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, 
and other natural resources. There are a number of very positive, 
reasonable, and economically feasible changes in the proposed stream 
protection rule that make it an improvement over the existing 
regulations.
  The rule incorporates the best available science, technology, and 
modern mining practices to safeguard communities from the long-term 
effects of pollution and environmental degradation that endanger public 
health and undermine future economic opportunities for affected 
communities.
  The final Rule gives regulators more tools to measure whether a mine 
is designed to prevent damage to streams outside the permit area.
  The rule would require companies to avoid mining practices that 
permanently pollute streams, destroy drinking water sources, increase 
flood risk, and threaten forests.
  It would also require companies to restore streams and return mined 
areas to the uses they were capable of supporting prior to mining 
activities and replant these areas with native trees and vegetation, 
unless that would conflict with the implemented land use.
  To help mining companies meet these objectives, the rule requires 
testing and monitoring the condition of streams that might be affected 
by mining before, during, and after their operations to provide 
baseline data that ensures operators can detect and correct problems 
and restore mined areas to their previous condition.
  Using the Congressional Review Act, CRA, to attack a rule that 
protects people and communities from harmful impacts of irresponsible 
coal mining operations, such as buried streams, floods, and subsidence, 
will benefit coal companies that cut corners at the expense of the 
people who live in Appalachia. And if the resolution is passed, 
agencies will be prohibited from promulgating any other ``similar'' 
rule, unless Congress passes enabling legislation.
  Opponents of the rule call it a ``job killer.'' That is myth. The 
regulatory impact analysis, RIA, for the rule estimates that, overall, 
employment will increase by an average of 156 full-time jobs. According 
to the RIA, the rule will create more than twice as many jobs as it 
will eliminate by requiring operators to perform more duties for 
reclamation, including stream monitoring. Likewise, the impact on an 
average household's monthly electricity bill is slight: just 20 cents 
per month.
  Coal miners and their families need jobs, and they need clean water. 
The two aren't mutually exclusive. What they don't need is this attempt 
to gut a reasonable rule designed to protect them from an environmental 
disaster, which is much more likely to occur if the Senate passes this 
resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I oppose the Republicans' current efforts 
to gut environmental protections that put industry profits before 
public health. In repealing the EPA stream protection rule, Republicans 
are again choosing to put the health and well-being of average 
Americans in jeopardy in favor of the interests of the Big Coal 
industry.
  This bill seeks to unravel clean drinking water protections 
implemented by the Obama administration. The last time I checked, no 
one voted to pollute the environment in the last election. The majority 
of Americans do not agree that we should be dismantling protections 
that ensure clean air and clean water.
  The stream protection rule shields communities from toxic pollution 
from coal mining, updating regulations that are more than 30 years old. 
These protections bolster those in the Clean Water Act and establish a 
long-overdue monitoring requirement for water pollutants--including 
lead, arsenic, and selenium--known to cause birth defects and other 
severe human health impacts. The rule was updated to better protect 
public health and the environment from the adverse effects of surface 
and underground coal mining.
  This rule would protect or restore about 6,000 miles of streams and 
52,000 acres of forest over two decades. It would prevent water 
pollution by authorizing approval of mountaintop removal mining 
operations only when natural waterways will not be destroyed, requiring 
protection or restoration of streams and related resources, such as 
threatened or endangered species. It gives communities in coal country 
much needed information about toxic water pollution caused by nearby 
mining operations. Long-term, the rule would ensure that premining land 
use capabilities are restored and guarantee treatment of unanticipated 
water pollution discharges.
  Mountaintop mining destroys communities. Let's be clear. This rule 
helps protect communities from the pollution caused by mountaintop 
removal coal mining. In Appalachia, mountaintop removal coal mining has 
been responsible for the destruction of 2,000 miles of streams and 2.5 
million acres of the region's ancient forests. States have issued 
advisories that people should not eat the fish in mined areas because 
of chemical contamination. In dozens of peer-reviewed studies, 
mountaintop removal mining has been linked to cancer, birth defects, 
and other serious health problems among residents living near these 
sites. According to Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, the public health 
costs of pollution from coal operations in Appalachia are $75 billion 
every year.
  According to a 2011 study in the Journal of Community Health, in 
counties where mountaintop removal occurs, cancer rates are almost 
twice than those nearby where there is none. As many as 60,000 
additional cases of cancer are linked to the practice within those 1.2 
million Americans who live in these areas.
  In addition, a 2011 study in the scientific peer-reviewed journal 
Environmental Research found that, even after accounting for 
socioeconomic risks, birth defects were significantly higher in 
mountaintop mining areas compared to non-mining areas.
  Likewise, a 2011 study in the Journal of Rural Health found that 
areas in Appalachia with mountaintop removal have significantly higher 
death rates from heart disease than other areas with similar 
socioeconomic conditions. Researchers in the same Rural Health study 
estimated that more than 700 additional deaths occur annually.
  Yet the rule is dogged by many myths and falsehoods spurred by the 
fossil fuels lobby. Almost a quarter of a billion dollars have been 
spent by opponents of the rule--the coal mining industry, electric 
utilities, National Association of Manufacturers, railroads, and the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce--on political lobbying and campaign donations. 
They--and Republicans--claim that implementing this rule will kill coal 
production--not true. Coal production is impacted by many factors, 
including low natural gas prices. The CEO of the coal company Murray 
Energy even said, ``I've asked President-elect Trump to temper his 
comments about . . . bringing coal back. It will not happen.''
  In comparison, this rule could actually create jobs. Many of the jobs 
created by the rule will be construction-type jobs easily conducted by 
former coal miners.
  Another myth is that the rule is a huge economic burden on industry--
not true. The economic impacts of implementing this rule are small 
relative to the size of the coal industry. Industry compliance costs 
are estimated to average only 0.3 percent or less of the coal 
industry's $31.2 billion 2015 estimated annual revenues. Conversely, 
the costs of repealing the rule are borne by Appalachian families and 
small businesses. Families in these communities will be the ones to 
endure significant health impacts. Businesses like restaurants, farms, 
and the outdoor recreation industry rely on clean water and are 
jeopardized by coal contamination in their community's streams.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this effort to kill the important 
protections provided by the stream protection rule. We must reject 
efforts to put the interests of the Big Coal industry above the health 
and well-being of the American people.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, with the resolution on the floor 
today, our Republican colleagues are beginning their effort to roll 
back critical

[[Page S626]]

health, safety, and environmental safeguards that the Obama 
administration put in place.
  The tool that they are using, the Congressional Review Act, is a 
particularly blunt instrument. The Congressional Review Act allows the 
majority to rush a resolution of disapproval through the Senate with 
limited debate and only a limited opportunity for Americans to see what 
Congress is doing.
  But a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act 
does not just send a rule back to the drawing board. Instead, the 
resolution repeals the rule and prohibits the Agency from ever 
proposing anything like it again. An analysis in the Washington Law 
Review reported that it is ``conceivable that any subsequent attempt to 
regulate in any way whatsoever in the same broad topical area would be 
barred.''
  The rule before us today, the stream protection rule, deals with how 
waste from surface mining, also called ``mountaintop mining,'' is 
handled. The rule prevents this waste from being dumped near streams. 
The waste from these mining operations includes toxic pollutants like 
lead and arsenic. And these pollutants can cause serious health 
problems in surrounding communities. A 2008 study in the Journal of the 
North American Benthological Society found that 98 percent of streams 
downstream from mountaintop mining operations were damaged. This rule 
limits pollution near streams, requires monitoring of water quality, 
and creates standards to restore streams after a mining operation ends.
  The Reagan administration first put forward stream protections in 
1983, exercising authority under the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act of 1977. Today more than 30 years later, we better 
understand the effects of surface mining, and it makes sense to update 
our standards to protect public health. The Bush administration 
revisited the issue in 2008, but a Federal court vacated the Bush 
administration rule because they failed to fully consider effects on 
wildlife.
  Under the Obama administration, in 2009, the Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement, or OSMRE, began considering options to 
bring these stream protections up to date with the current scientific 
understanding. In the course of developing the updated rule, OSMRE 
shared information and solicited comment from State regulatory 
authorities and incorporated their feedback. The Office of Management 
and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs continued the 
stakeholder engagement process. The Obama administration considered the 
issue deliberately, for 7 years, before publishing the final rule in 
December.
  OSMRE acted appropriately with the Stream Protection Rule. But the 
question before us today is not whether the rule is perfect. Today we 
are considering whether the Agency should be permitted to update the 
old 1983 rule at all. I believe that it was right for the government to 
update this outdated regulation and use the best available science to 
protect drinking water and safeguard public health. Therefore, I urge 
my colleagues to join me to vote against this resolution to disapprove 
the rule.
  Ms. HIRONO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold her suggestion?
  Ms. HIRONO. Yes, I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of 
Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.
  I will address Mr. Gorsuch's qualifications and his extensive legal 
experience in a moment, but first, I invite my Senate colleagues to 
consider: What do we seek in a nominee to our Nation's highest court?
  Maybe it is easier to say what we don't want. We do not want a 
lawmaker. Washington has plenty of those, 100 Senators and 435 Members 
of Congress. We do not want a crusader for a cause. Most of all, we do 
not want a trailblazer.
  What we want is a follower of the Constitution. We want a Supreme 
Court Justice who will follow the laws, as written, and uphold the rule 
of law. This demands discipline; it requires the rarest of virtues: 
humility. There is no room for hubris on the Supreme Court.
  We do not want a Justice who believes he knows better than our 
Founders. That is not his job. A Supreme Court Justice should neutrally 
apply the laws as written by Congress and as understood by the Framers 
of our Constitution. They must not impose their personal preferences 
upon the law or upon the American people. I want to say again that we 
want someone who will follow the law and uphold the rule of law.
  We also seek a keen legal mind. A nominee must possess the sharpest 
intellect and only the most rigorous academic qualifications. This 
person may be one of nine human beings who will resolve questions 
affecting the freedoms and the rights of millions. Therefore, in 
addition to ironclad commitment to the rule of law and brilliant 
intellect, this person must be a known quantity. There must be a 
reliable record for us to carefully assess.
  In exercising our constitutional power of advice and consent, we 
don't make guesses here in the U.S. Senate. We hold hearings; we ask 
probing questions. This is how we will determine if Mr. Gorsuch is the 
legal disciple, brilliant mind, and known quantity the American people 
need and the person the American people deserve. The evidence so far 
suggests that he is.
  As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Mr. 
Gorsuch has served 10 years in extraordinary fashion. He was confirmed 
by a voice vote here in the U.S. Senate. His opinions reflect a history 
of upholding the rule of law. His conduct on the bench demonstrates an 
exemplary judicial temperament. He is enormously well qualified. His 
educational background is impressive: an undergraduate degree from 
Columbia, a law degree from Harvard, and a Ph.D. from Oxford 
University. Judge Gorsuch clerked for the Supreme Court. Further, he is 
well within the mainstream.
  Among his many impressive academic distinctions, he is a Truman 
Scholar. This sizeable financial award is given by the Harry S. Truman 
Scholarship Foundation to young people pursuing a career in public 
service. I note that my colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, is a 
Truman Scholar. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright serves as 
president of the Truman Foundation. Senator McCaskill of Missouri is a 
board member. All are highly respected Democrats. It should be telling 
that the organization, now headed by Secretary Albright and Senator 
McCaskill, helped Mr. Gorsuch fund his graduate studies.
  Jeffrey Rosen of the nonpartisan National Constitution Center had 
this to say about the judge: ``He sometimes reaches results that favor 
liberals when he thinks the history or the text of the Constitution or 
the law require it, especially in areas like criminal law or the rights 
of religious minorities.''
  Norm Eisen, Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform in the 
White House for President Barack Obama, attended law school with Mr. 
Gorsuch. He called him, simply, ``a great guy.''
  There is much more that can and will be said about the nominee in the 
days to come. Much of it will contribute to a vigorous confirmation 
process. Sadly, I suspect much of it will not. Many, including some in 
this Chamber, have said they will oppose any nominee, no matter how 
qualified.
  Americans deserve better than this bitter feud in the U.S. Senate. 
The Presidential campaign is over. As the Washington Post recently 
editorialized, ``A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a 
presidential election.'' The newspaper's editors urged against ``a 
scorched-earth'' response.
  Senate Republicans gave President Bill Clinton an up-or-down vote on 
his first two Supreme Court nominees. Senate Republicans gave President 
Obama an up-or-down vote on his two first Supreme Court nominees. This 
is a chance for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to show how high-
minded they can be. They can permit a similar up-or-down vote on this 
President's first Supreme Court nominee.
  I invite them to engage with me in a respectful, civil dialogue as we 
carry out our duty of advice and consent. We need a vigorous 
confirmation process, and I will work for that vigorous, open, 
respectful, and transparent process. I

[[Page S627]]

hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
that.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remaining proponent debate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponent's time is yielded back.
  The Senator from Delaware.


                        Nomination Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would just remind my colleagues that a 
lot of folks in my State and people I talk to around the country 
believe it is outrageous that the last President nominated a candidate 
for the Supreme Court for almost a year--a full 10 months--before 
stepping down before his term ended, and that nominee never got a 
hearing.
  We had a National Prayer Breakfast this morning, as our Presiding 
Officer knows. One of the occurring themes of the speakers at the 
Prayer Breakfast was the Golden Rule, the obligation to treat other 
people the way we want to be treated. I think that should apply to this 
nominee from this President. I also believe it should have applied to 
the last nominee from the last President. I think the way Merrick 
Garland was treated was outrageous, and he was roundly praised by 
Democrats and Republican, Members of this body, alike. The fact that he 
never got a vote I think is appalling. It runs against everything I was 
taught to believe.
  Perhaps the Presiding Officer's parents raised him the same way. My 
parents raised us to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. Two 
wrongs don't make a right. Folks on our side believe--although deeply 
troubled by the way the last nominee for the last administration was 
treated--this nominee deserves a hearing. My hope is that he gets one 
and there is time set aside to prepare for that hearing. My hope is 
that he will take the time to come and meet with us, particularly those 
of us who have concerns about his nomination.
  I think he should be subject to the same 60-vote margin the last 
several Supreme Court nominees were subjected to and passed; I think in 
one case it was 62 votes, and in another case, 63 votes.
  I just want to let my friends on the other side--and they are my 
friends--know that we and, frankly, a lot of people in this country are 
still troubled, looking back. We are going to look forward with the 
Golden Rule in mind. My hope is that our colleagues will do the same in 
the future.
  Mr. President, I rise on a subject that some of my colleagues have 
talked about here today. It is one that we have been discussing for 
almost the last 24 hours. It is a Congressional Review Act resolution 
to disapprove the stream protection rule.
  People may wonder, What does this mean? There once was a Senator from 
Nevada named Harry Reid. He once wrote a law that said: If Congress 
doesn't like a particular rule that has been approved and has gone 
through the process--drafting, all the approval processes--published in 
the Federal Register, and something like 60 days on the legislative 
calendar have run, then that rule is official; it is in full effect. 
However, if a Member of this body or the House wants to use the 
Congressional Review Act authored by Senator Harry Reid, they can 
repeal a rule for which the 60-day legislative clock has not run since 
that rule or regulation was published in the Federal Register.
  In this case, 60 legislative days have not passed since the stream 
protection rule was promulgated, printed in the Federal Register, and 
one or more of our colleagues has said: Let's use the CRA--
Congressional Review Act--to see if we can block or repeal it.
  I spoke on this yesterday, and I am happy to have a chance to talk a 
little bit about it again today.
  A prevailing argument in favor of this resolution to kill the rule is 
the significant negative economic implications of managing mining 
operations and site reclamation in such a way that life and economy 
continue along with and after extraction ends.
  Let's take a few minutes to reflect on the other side of the coin. I 
can assure you that hunters, fishermen, birdwatchers, and recreation 
enthusiasts of all ages, sorts, and varieties in my home State of 
Delaware--and I am sure in every State in our Nation--value an 
environment that supports the places they treasure and the species they 
seek. That is not the legacy of mining.
  Because of historically weak reclamation and restoration 
requirements, Appalachia now has more than a million acres of 
economically unproductive grasslands that cannot support farming, 
ranching, or the hardwood forest products sectors. That is one of the 
reasons for and one of the many strengths of this rule: to focus on 
post-mining economic uses of land, which could include ranching, 
forestry, tourism, birdwatching, hunting, fishing, and the list goes 
on.
  In America today, there are 47 million men, women, and children who 
hunt and fish. We all represent them. According to a 2014 report from 
the National Wildlife Federation, these activities deliver an 
astonishing $200 billion to the country's economy, and they support one 
and a half million jobs.
  I wish to also point out that mining impacts on headwaters are 
particularly important, as they represent the very foundation of our 
water system that supports all these activities and generates all of 
these benefits. Just to illustrate this point, Appalachia--a region in 
which I grew up--is the world's leading hotspot of aquatic 
biodiversity. I was born in Beckley, WV, and we lived there for 6 years 
or so after I was born and I came back a whole lot over the years to 
hunt and fish with my grandfather, but I had no idea there was this 
kind of biodiversity in that region.
  There are more species of freshwater fish in one river system in 
Tennessee than in all of Europe. Think about that--more species of 
freshwater fish in one river system in Tennessee than all of Europe. 
Yet surface coal mining has destroyed more than 2,000 miles of streams 
in this region alone. Cutting the heart out of our ecosystems is no way 
to do business.
  The question is, Would mining companies respect and consider these 
values and benefits as part of their operations and reclamation efforts 
without surface mining and clean water laws and the effective 
protections provided by the stream protection rule? I would say 
probably not. It is no surprise, then, that conservation and 
fishermen's organizations, such as Trout Unlimited, the American Fly 
Fishing Trade Association, the Izaak Walton League of America, and 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, so strongly support this 
rule and robust implementation of the Clean Water Act. In fact, 82 
percent--over 8 out of 10--of America's hunters and anglers feel that 
we can protect water quality and also have a strong economy and good 
jobs at the same time. It is a false choice to say we can't have both 
at the same time.
  The stream protection rule would protect and restore an estimated 
6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forest over two decades--
areas important for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation.
  All these activities would provide local citizens and communities 
with economic opportunity to replace or build upon what often are one-
industry regions. They, in turn, support local economies and create 
accessible work opportunities for residents, many of whom would 
otherwise struggle to make ends meet, care for their health, and 
support their families. In the end, this is a much more valuable and 
sustainable future for everybody concerned.
  These truths hold in their unique ways in mining States across our 
country, whether they involve ensuring salmon runs in Alaska or 
ranching in Wyoming.
  I will close by repeating a point I made previously in support of 
this stream protection rule. This past year, the Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
completed consultation under the Endangered Species Act, resulting in 
what is known as the 2016 Biological Opinion. This new Biological 
Opinion smooths the way for more efficient Endangered Species Act 
compliance and provides some important protections to industry and 
State regulators regarding possible impacts of mining operations on 
protected species.
  I think it is important to note that if we kill this rule--and I hope 
we will not--that protection for industry and State regulators will go 
away, and those players will have to resort to a more cumbersome case-
by-case review under the Endangered Species Act for all activities that 
might affect protected species. That would be a shame.

[[Page S628]]

That would be a shame, especially for a struggling industry.
  For this and for so many other reasons, this is a job-creating, 
economy-expanding rule. Why wouldn't we support it? Once again, I urge 
a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, yesterday I had the chance to come to the 
floor and talk about the changes I have seen in the streams and rivers 
in my home State of Oregon as we worked to clean them up, restore them 
for wildlife, restore them for swimming, restore them for boating, and 
restore them for drinking water, and how terrific it was to see this 
occur.
  We are now considering a parallel provision--a provision designed 
really to protect the streams near intense mining zones. I had a chance 
yesterday to go through the details of the regulation and how it made, 
for example, the coal slurry ponds more secure so they wouldn't 
rupture. As I pointed out, one ruptured and killed over 100 people and 
injured more than 1,000 people, not to mention the damage it did to the 
ecosystem for an extended length downstream. I talked about the toxic 
chemicals that are leaching out of improperly developed piles, as they 
are called. Today I want to share a few more of the stories of folks 
who live in the area and how important it is for them.
  Sam Needham, who lives near Appalachia, VA, talks about the changes 
he has seen in rivers near his home since he moved there in 1978. Sam 
said that when they first moved there, ``Callahan Creek that runs near 
our house . . . was full of different kinds of fish. Now I don't see 
any fish in the water. I wish it could be like it was in the 70's and 
80's, but with all the runoff from sediment ponds and mines, I don't 
think it will ever be like that again.'' Sam supports the stream 
protection rule. He said: ``I would like to see regulations to protect 
our waters and maybe one day be able to fish in Callahan Creek again.'' 
He is not asking for a tremendous amount.
  Chad Cordell of Charleston, WV, said that he has ``been concerned 
about the impacts of mountaintop removal since learning the beautiful 
valleys and streams of my home state were being buried under hundreds 
of feet of rubble.'' He said he wants ``strong, science-based 
protections for the creeks, streams, and rivers that are the lifeblood 
of our state,'' and he noted that ``attacking the Stream Protection 
Rule isn't the way to build strong, healthy, resilient communities or a 
strong, stable economy.''
  John Kinney of Birmingham, AL, said:

       I have lived most of my life in Jefferson County, Alabama, 
     enjoying the outdoors, particularly canoeing and fishing on 
     the Black Warrior and Cahaba River.
       While it seems that many folks in regulatory agencies don't 
     consider Alabama to be part of Appalachia, and don't 
     understand the extent of coal mining in our state, I have 
     seen the devastating impact of coal mining in our state . . . 
     first hand.

  He goes on:

       I have seen lakes turned gray downstream of mines. I have 
     seen streams turned bright orange downstream of coal 
     preparation plants. I have seen sloughs that once formed deep 
     channels (perfect spots for largemouth bass) filled in with 
     sediment.

  John wants to see Federal protections ``that help protect water 
quality for all uses downstream of coal mines and associated 
industries'' and wants to see the stream protection rule stay where it 
is.
  Here is a final story. It is from Chuck Nelson, a fourth-generation 
coal miner from West Virginia who dug coal underground for 30 years. He 
became an advocate for environmental rules like the stream protection 
rule after a coal processing plant was built near his home. Thick, 
black coal dust was always coating his home inside and out. His wife 
developed very bad asthma problems, and his kids couldn't use the 
swimming pool because of a thick black skin always on the top of the 
water. He decided to make his voice heard, and he came to DC from West 
Virginia 25 times to talk to lawmakers and regulators. He was a regular 
citizen. He saw a problem impacting his wife, and he wanted us to work 
to fix it. He finally succeeded when the stream protection rule was 
finalized in December.
  It amounts to this: The way that one conducts mountaintop coal mining 
has a huge impact, just as it does with other industries. Having basic 
rules about how that work is done ensures sustainability of the nearby 
streams. This was done with a tremendous amount of involvement of 
stakeholders, tremendous number of meetings, 6 years of coordination, 
trying to find a way that doesn't paralyze coal mining but does protect 
the streams. That is the balance which was being searched for, 
discovered, and implemented with this rule, and we should leave it in 
place. We shouldn't destroy these years of work to protect our 
beautiful streams with just a few hours of debate, with no public 
notice or awareness of what is going on. If we want to review this 
thoughtfully and seriously, let's have it done in committee, where the 
public can participate and Senators can take a deliberate stand and not 
destroy this work to protect these thousands of miles of streams in a 
blink of an eye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is a provision in the law which 
allows the Congress to review regulations within 60 days after they are 
written and decide up or down. That is what we are doing here.
  This is about the stream rule that has a direct impact on mining 
operations, particularly coal mining operations. This has been a battle 
that has been going on for decades--decades--trying to establish a fair 
environmental standard for those in mining operations. Efforts have 
been made, some with limited success. Courts have thrown out earlier 
versions. So the Obama administration decided they would tackle this. 
They spent 6 years rewriting 380 pages of rules. Over 150,000 public 
comments were solicited and received.
  This is a pretty controversial matter, as you can tell. I have been 
amused by the critics of this rule who said: Well, Obama just did that 
as he was going out the door. No. They worked on it for years. There 
were, as I said, over 100,000 public comments. It is not easy. It is 
tricky and it is challenging, but they produced it. Now today the 
Republicans in the Senate and the House want us to wipe it away.
  What difference would it make? If you don't live next to a coal mine, 
do you think, well, what difference does it make in my life?
  I listened to Jeff Merkley, my friend from Oregon, talk about the 
streams and the rivers. Maybe I don't fish, and I don't care. I don't 
go out camping, either, and I haven't been hiking. Whether the fish are 
alive or dead or the streams are polluted or not, who cares? I guess 
some people feel that way. I don't, even though I don't use our natural 
resources as much as some. But there is a bigger issue here. This is 
not just about whether there will be fish alive in the stream or the 
lake.
  Let me tell you what that issue is. The issue is the safety of our 
drinking water. Do you know what is going on when these mining 
operations dump all this debris into the streams? It rains. Water is 
flowing. The stream water goes downstream. Now follow the water from 
the dumping of the mining operations to the chemicals included in that 
dumping--arsenic, for example. As it goes downstream, it doesn't just 
kill the fish. In my State, 1 out of 10 people in Illinois depend on 
those internal river and stream sources for their drinking water. If 
you don't have honest, realistic, and safe standards when it comes to 
drinking water, you have decided to up the risk of the people who are 
drinking the water that comes out of the tap.
  I think that is a problem. Have you had a conversation with your 
family at any point about what is going on? Why do we have so much 
cancer in this area? Why do we have so many problems in this area? 
Could it be the drinking water? We have asked that question ourselves 
in our own area of Central Illinois, and many other families have asked 
the same.
  If we take the approach which we are being asked to today and wipe 
away the safety standards for the water that is ultimately flowing into 
the taps where we drink it, shame on us. Shame on us. Is it too much to 
ask the mining operations not to dump their trash into the streams? Is 
it too much to ask

[[Page S629]]

them to restore vegetation after they have chopped off the top of a 
mountain in West Virginia? In Illinois, I can tell you the strip 
mining, which went on for years and decades left a lot of areas of 
beautiful farmland in Illinois forever blighted.
  Whatever happened to the coal companies that stripped off that land, 
took the coal, and left the mess behind? Long gone. You couldn't find 
them if you wanted to.
  What Senator Cantwell has said, and we ought to remember, we believe 
polluters should pay. We believe that the ultimate responsibility, when 
it comes to keeping our environment clean, our drinking water safe, is 
on the polluter. The Republicans disagree.
  They say: Well, it is just Obama's War on Coal.
  All right. If you want to bring it down to that level, then it is 
Trump's War on Clean Drinking Water. That is what this vote is all 
about. That is what it is all about. Shame on us if we decide to 
eliminate this protection for families and run the very real risk that 
the pollution in those streams could cause public health issues, as 
well as the death of wildlife and fish downstream. That is why I think 
this vote is so important.
  This is a first. You heard what Republicans have said is the reason 
American business is not growing--overregulation. You get this picture 
of some mettlesome, busybody bureaucrat dreaming up some other way to 
make life more difficult for people who own businesses. I will tell you 
there is some of that, and I am not going to defend it, but there is 
also a conscientious effort by people who are scientists to try to make 
sure that those of us who are not scientists live in a world that is 
safe, safe for the air we breathe, safe for the water we drink. If we 
start sweeping that away, rejecting the science that proves 
overwhelmingly that we are going through global warming and climate 
change, rejecting the science that says the runoff in these streams and 
rivers could ultimately hurt not only wildlife but ultimately hurt the 
American people and the water they drink, shame on us.
  Well, we will get rid of regulations, coal mining operations will 
make more money, and maybe they will continue on--I am sure they will 
in some respect--but will we be better off as a nation?
  This is day 14 of the Trump Presidency. It seems like a lot longer to 
some of us. Republicans in the Senate and the House have decided to 
strike a blow for eliminating science-based regulation to protect the 
public health. It is a shame, but it is going to happen. They have the 
votes on the Senate floor. They are in control and now the American 
families are going to ask us: Were you there? Were you standing up for 
us when the safety of our drinking water was at stake?
  I will be voting no on this effort to repeal this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
being on the floor to speak. He is right. We are going to keep score. 
There are going to be attempts by the Trump administration and the 
other side of the aisle to level the score against clean water; that is 
to say, polluters don't have to pay. So if we pass this override of 
existing clean water rules--yes, this will be the start. Trump 1, clean 
water 0.
  Unfortunately, it is probably not going to the end because what is 
happening now is, Republicans control everything in Congress. They want 
to use their ability to have very little debate and to then override 
rules that are on the books to protect streams in the United States of 
America.
  I so appreciate my colleagues coming to the floor to explain this 
issue, as this is critical. It is critical because the impacts of 
mining destroy headwaters. Between 1992 and 2000, coal mines were 
authorized to destroy about 1,200 miles of headwater streams, and this 
resulted in the loss of 4 percent of our upper headwater streams in 
areas of Appalachia in a single decade.
  The surface mining impact on water from fractured rocks above coal 
seams react chemically with the air and water and produce higher 
concentrations of minerals, irons and trace metals, and those 
headwaters in West Virginia typically measure with electricity 
conductivity on an order of magnitude of those downstream. What that is 
saying is, these chemicals react in the water to create problems. 
Understanding what has been going on with that level of conductivity is 
one of the big advances in science in the last 10 years. That is why we 
want to update the rule because we now know what goes on when selenium 
is in the water. The conductivity is highly correlated with the loss 
and the absence of various species that are very pollution sensitive.
  This level of stream degradation comes from the various fractured 
rock. When sulfate is present, you get acid mine drainage. That acid 
mine drainage then mobilizes metals toxic to fish--such as iron and 
aluminum and zinc--and that is where we start to have problems. A 2008 
study found that 93 percent of streams downstream of surface mining 
operations in Appalachia were impaired, and our colleagues don't want 
to make sure that the mining companies monitor that and do stream 
restoration?
  Another study found that adverse impacts of Appalachian mines 
extended on an average of 6 miles downstream; that is, this acid mine 
drainage is flowing 6 miles downstream. Why not have the mines measure 
this at the top of the stream, understanding what the selenium impact 
is, and doing something to minimize the impact on our streams that we 
are going to have to live with forever.
  What is wrong with selenium? It causes very serious reproductive 
problems, physical deformities, and at high concentration it is toxic 
to humans. Basically, it is the similar effect to arsenic poisoning.
  These coal mines are transforming our landscape, lowering our ridges, 
and raising our valley floors. One study in 2013, in Central 
Appalachia, found that mining lowered these ridgetops by an average of 
112 feet. What we are trying to say is, you are impacting wildlife 
downstream; that the deforestation of these sites allows the flow of 
these rivers to increase flooding. The effects are worsened because the 
compacted soil on these sites also causes a problem. It is not much 
better than just plain old asphalt; that is, it means that plants and 
forests cannot grow back, it means that it impairs these various 
species, and it causes problems.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan. 31, 2017]

        A Plume of Pollution Discolors Part of Monongahela River

                             (By Don Hopey)

       An iron-orange acid water discharge from a long-abandoned 
     coal mine discolored the Monongahela River for a four-mile 
     stretch along the Allegheny County-Washington County border 
     over the weekend, raising public concern but causing no 
     problems for public water suppliers downriver.
       The discharge from the Boston Gas Mine, its volume boosted 
     by recent rains, enters the river in the small Sunfish Run 
     tributary at Sunnyside, in Forward, 34 river miles from 
     Pittsburgh's Point. Beginning Saturday evening and continuing 
     through Sunday, it was visible flowing downriver in a 75-foot 
     wide plume that hugged the east bank until blending into the 
     river near New Eagle.
       ``It was orange, and it had to be an enormous amount of 
     water to color the Mon,'' said Janet Roslund, a resident of 
     Monongahela, where she viewed the plume. ``Something about 
     that is just not right.''
       Neil Shader, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of 
     Environmental Protection, said the plume likely contained 
     iron, aluminum and manganese, and the department is 
     continuing to take water samples. ``At this time there is no 
     concern for drinking water, and water systems have systems in 
     place to remove the contaminants,'' he said.
       The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation commission notified 
     all downriver water suppliers on the Allegheny and Ohio 
     rivers, but the closest, Pennsylvania American Water, with 
     intakes 10 miles down the Mon in Elrama and 18 miles 
     downriver at Becks Run, reported no water quality problems.
       ``We've been monitoring the intakes for the past 40 hours 
     and have found no impacts to the water supply,'' Gary 
     Lobaugh, a water company spokesman said Monday. ``We've 
     increased our sampling of source water to every hour but seen 
     nothing impacting our water quality.''
       According to Joe Donovan, a geologist at West Virginia 
     University who studies abandoned mine discharges in the Mon 
     Valley, the abandoned Boston Gas mine is a large

[[Page S630]]

     mining complex that has approximately eight outcrop 
     discharges along the river between Donora and Monongahela. 
     The one on Sunfish Run that created the orange plume in the 
     river is the largest, he said.
       ``Nothing new here,'' he said. ``(The) flow may be up this 
     time of year, especially right after a precip event.''

  Ms. CANTWELL. The discharge from the long-abandoned Boston Gas Mine 
in Pennsylvania turned a 4-mile stretch of the Monongahela River 
orange. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said 
the plume likely contained iron, aluminum, and manganese. A geologist 
at West Virginia University who studies abandoned mine discharges said 
the abandoned mine is a large mining complex that has approximately 
eight outcrop discharges and created this large plume.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an AP story dated January 28, 2017.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Associated Press, Jan. 28, 2017]

       Underground Fires, Toxins in Unfunded Cleanup of Old Mines

                         (By Michael Virtanen)

       Preston County, W.Va. (AP).--An underground coal mine fire 
     burns beneath a sprawling hillside in West Virginia, the 
     pale, acrid smoke rising from gashes in the scarred, muddy 
     earth only a stone's throw from some houses.
       The fire, which may have started with arson, lightning or a 
     forest fire, smoldered for several years before bursting into 
     flames last July in rural Preston County. The growing blaze 
     moved the mine to the top of a list of thousands of problem 
     decades-old coal sites in West Virginia awaiting cleanup and 
     vying for limited federal funds.
       State officials say $4.5 billion worth of work remains at 
     more than 3,300 sites abandoned by coal companies before 
     1977, when Congress passed a law establishing a national fund 
     for old cleanups. That program was part of an effort to heal 
     the state from the ravages of an industry that once dominated 
     its economy but has fallen on hard times.
       ``West Virginia is right at the top for needs,'' said Chuck 
     Williams, head of Alabama's efforts and past president of the 
     National Association of Abandoned Mine Lands Programs. He 
     said Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia--all states 
     with a mining history that extends back two centuries--
     account for the lion's share of unfinished work among the 28 
     states and Indian tribes in the program.
       Despite being one of the most affected, federal officials 
     have only one-third of West Virginia's proposed cleanup costs 
     on their $7 billion national list of high-priority work. The 
     sites include old mines that leak acidic water into streams 
     and kill wildlife and dangerous holes that attract children. 
     Tunnels and caverns beneath homes also need to be shored up 
     and new water lines are needed where wells are polluted.
       ``Our program exists to abate health and safety hazards,'' 
     said Rob Rice, chief of the West Virginia Office of Abandoned 
     Mine Lands and Reclamation, which is handling the mine fire. 
     ``We have so much need. It's frustrating for us.''
       Environmental improvements are a secondary but major 
     benefit, he said.
       ``This whole area has been extensively mined,'' said 
     Jonathan Knight, riding recently through the exurbs east of 
     Morgantown. A planner for the state office, he said housing 
     developments have been built above old mines that many 
     homeowners don't even know about.
       The state will get $23.3 million from the federal 
     reclamation fund this year, which is replenished by fees on 
     mining companies. The mines pay 12 cents per ton of 
     underground coal mined and 28 cents per ton from surface 
     mining, but the funding has dropped the past three years with 
     a downturn in coal production.
       It will cost about $1 billion just to extinguish all of 
     West Virginia's 43 fires in abandoned mines, according to the 
     state office. They could have been caused by forest fires, 
     arson, lightning strikes or even old underground explosions 
     that never went completely out.
       About $5 million will be spent to extinguish the Preston 
     County fire, smoldering a stone's throw from houses in a 
     mostly rural area near the hamlet of Newburg. In October, the 
     office spent $209,400 to cut trees and plug holes feeding the 
     fire with oxygen.
       The state office, with about 50 staff, is paid from the 
     federal Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund along with the 
     contractors it hires. Together they close mine portals, 
     extinguish fires, support collapsing hillsides and sinking 
     houses, and treat acidic water leaking out along with 
     dissolved metals. The need for drainage work won't end for 
     centuries. The grants also fund water lines to replace 
     polluted wells.
       ``There's more water within mine pools in West Virginia 
     than there is in the lakes of West Virginia,'' Rice said. 
     ``More than 2,500 miles of streams are severely degraded 
     because of mine drainage in West Virginia.''
       The state program has brought several back to life with new 
     treatment systems.
       The federal program is scheduled by law to expire in 2021, 
     leaving behind about $2.5 billion in a trust fund expected to 
     pay for any ongoing work needed by 25 states and three Indian 
     tribes to address problems from pre-1977 abandoned coal 
     mines. West Virginia has set aside about $55 million of its 
     grant money received already for continuing water treatment 
     funded by the interest.
       The federal program has collected more than $10.5 billion 
     in fees from coal production and distributed more than $8 
     billion in grants to states and tribes, according to the 
     federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 
     It will provide nearly $181 million in fiscal 2017.
       ``We continue to discover threats from left-behind mine 
     pits, dangerous highwalls, acid mine drainage that pollutes 
     our water supplies, and hazardous mine openings,'' federal 
     director Joe Pizarchik said earlier this year. An Obama 
     administration appointee, he resigned effective last week.
       Pollution and lurking underground dangers from mining since 
     1977 fall into a different category because the federal 
     government made them the responsibility of the companies. 
     They were required to post bonds before opening mines, with 
     the state taking over if they default.

  Ms. CANTWELL. The article talked about Preston, WV, and a fire in an 
abandoned coal mine that smoldered for several years. This mine is one 
of ``thousands of problem decades-old coal sites in West Virginia 
awaiting cleanup.''
  These abandoned sites include old mines that leak acidic water into 
streams and killing wildlife. Tunnels and caverns beneath homes 
threaten water sources where wells are polluted.
  All of these are examples of the kind of damage that is being done by 
these mines.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
another article from the Columbus Dispatch.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Columbus Dispatch, July 20, 2014]

    In West Virginia, Mountaintop Mining Is Causing Fish Species To 
                               Disappear

       Washington.--In West Virginia's Appalachian Mountains, fish 
     are vanishing. The number of species has fallen, the 
     populations of those that remain are down, and some fish look 
     a little skinny.
       A new government study traces the decline in abundance to 
     mountaintop removal, the controversial coal-mining practice 
     of clear-cutting trees from mountains before blowing off 
     their tops with explosives.
       When the resulting rain of shattered rock hits the rivers 
     and streams that snake along the base of the mountains, 
     minerals released from within the stone change the water's 
     chemistry, the study said, lowering its quality and causing 
     tiny prey such as insects, worms and invertebrates to die.
       ``We're seeing significant reductions in the number of fish 
     species and total abundance of fish downstream from mining 
     operations,'' said Nathaniel Hitt, a research fish biologist 
     for the U.S. Geological Survey's office in Kearneysville, 
     W.Va., and one of the study's two authors.
       Hitt and his co-author, Doug Chambers, a biologist and 
     water-quality specialist in the Charleston, W.Va., office of 
     the USGS, took a 1999 study of the Guyandotte River basin's 
     fish populations by Penn State researchers to compare them 
     over time.
       For two years starting in 2010, they sampled the 
     populations in waters downstream from an active mountaintop 
     coal-mining operation. In one of the sample areas, the Mud 
     River watershed, which contains the largest tributary of the 
     Guyandotte River, at least ``100 point-source pollution-
     discharge permits associated with surface mining have been 
     issued,'' the study said.
       North America's central Appalachian Mountains, where the 
     basin lies, are considered a global hot spot of freshwater-
     fish biodiversity, but few researchers have investigated the 
     impact of mountain strip mining on stream fish, and the 
     effects ``are poorly understood,'' the study said.
       Hitt and Chambers found that the number of species was cut 
     in half and the abundance of fish fell by a third. The 
     silverjaw minnow, rosyface shiner, silver shiner, bluntnose 
     minnow, spotted bass and largemouth bass, plus at least two 
     other species detected before their study, were no longer 
     there.
       Another fish species--the small and wormlike least brook 
     lamprey, never before detected--had moved in.
       In areas of the river basin where there was no mountaintop 
     mining, fish flourished. In addition to species that had been 
     in those waters previously, seven new ones were found, 
     including the spotfin shiner, the spottail shiner and the 
     golden redhorse.
       ``I think if we only focus on the fact that it's fish . . . 
     some people will say, `So what?'??'' Chambers said. But fish 
     and the invertebrates they eat are canaries in a coal mine 
     for researchers, ``indicators of the water quality,'' he 
     said.
       The USGS looks ``at the nation's water resources . . . 
     their significance to the nation, and tries to understand 
     processes that are degrading water quality. Tainted water may 
     not be suitable for additional uses.''
       Research such as the USGS' study of mountaintop mining, 
     published online this month by the Society for Freshwater

[[Page S631]]

     Science, is viewed with suspicion in coal country, where 
     mining operations provide thousands of jobs.
       ``The people opposed to the coal industry are trying to 
     pile on with more studies,'' said Bill Raney, president of 
     the West Virginia Coal Association. ``It sounds like this is 
     one of those studies that sets out to show there's harm done. 
     It sounds like perhaps more of the same.''
       Raney said he has not seen the USGS study and cannot 
     strongly criticize its methods or conclusions, but people 
     ``don't just wake up in the morning and decide they are going 
     to do mountaintop mining,'' he said. ``It takes three to four 
     years to get a permit. Every aspect of the operation is 
     analyzed.''
       Mountaintop removal as a way of extracting coal has been in 
     practice since the 1960s, but its use has expanded in the 
     past two decades, and it now takes place in the Appalachian 
     regions of Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia in addition to West 
     Virginia.
       The coal that the process produces provides power to 
     hundreds of thousands of homes, industry advocates say, and 
     creates about 14,000 jobs that pay middle-income salaries in 
     regions where work is hard to find.
       ``The average mining wage is more than $66,000 per year . . 
     . 57 percent higher than the average for industrial jobs,'' 
     according to the National Mining Association. ``Mountaintop 
     mining accounts for approximately 45 percent of the entire 
     state's coal production in West Virginia.''
       Raney's association disputes allegations that mining 
     destroys streams and mountains, saying that state permits and 
     government regulations require the land to be restored after 
     use.
       But the Sierra Club Eastern Missouri Group called the 
     practice ``quite possibly the worst environmental assault 
     yet'' because of the amount of landscape it removes and the 
     effects on people and animals.
       Homeowners in one West Virginia community, Lindytown, were 
     bought out by a company before the town essentially 
     disappeared after mountaintop removal. Homes and a grave site 
     were left behind. Cascading debris has buried streams, 
     affecting a diversity of wildlife, a major concern raised by 
     the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
       Often, companies are granted exemptions that ease 
     requirements to restore land. Conservationists call the 
     practice a plunder, and protesters, including Quakers in 
     Appalachia and demonstrators at the White House, have called 
     on the government to end it and banks to stop funding it.
       ``Mountaintop-removal mining is one of the fastest-changing 
     land-use forms in the region,'' Hitt said. ``One of the main 
     questions for our research lab is how biological communities 
     respond to land-use changes.''
       In the case of the fish, they seemingly do not respond 
     well, Chambers said. ``To sum up, 10 fish species were 
     apparently extirpated from the mined sites,'' meaning they 
     were wiped out, he said.
       Fish with a more diverse diet appeared to fare well, but 
     those that relied primarily on invertebrates, such as small 
     aquatic insects, tended to fare poorly.
       ``It's telling us that the water quality is changing,'' 
     Chambers said. Water in that area is not used for drinking, 
     he said, but ``if you look at it from a regulatory 
     perspective, you have to determine if the water is fishable, 
     swimmable, drinkable--all of these are benchmarks.''

  Ms. CANTWELL. The article states: ``The report found that the number 
of species was cut in half and the abundance of fish fell by a third, 
downstream from these mining operations.''
  I wish to talk about a mine now owned by Murray Energy that in 2009 
spewed pollution in Pennsylvania, killing 43,000 fish and 15,000 
mussels. Seven years later, the fish and mussels are still missing and 
not returning. They have paid a fine, but we are still living with the 
damage.
  As my colleagues can see, this issue is about overriding a rule that 
helps protect our streams and rivers and makes sure that the wildlife 
there has safe drinking water and to make sure that we enjoy these 
natural areas. As I have pointed out through this debate, there are 
many jobs in the outdoor industry, and that is why sportsmen such as 
Trout Unlimited and the wildlife federations that are coalitions of 
hunters and fishermen all support this rule and don't want it 
overturned.
  I know that the coal industry has spent $160 million over the last 
dozen-plus years trying to defeat regulation of its industry. Actually, 
the 0.1 percent they would have to pay was a lot lower than what they 
were spending on their lobbying issues. Instead, they should help us 
all get to the bottom.
  But why have we done this by trying to fight today? That is because 
the science has told us that since 1983, we have a lot more information 
about the toxic level in the streams because of these products. We 
simply want a rule that reflects that the mining industry must measure 
and mitigate that impact. What is wrong with allowing science to lead 
the way?
  I know our colleagues like to say that States should be left to do 
this, but you do have to have a Federal standard. You do have to have a 
Federal standard that they adhered to. It would be as if today I said: 
Let's override what we have done in this Nation in setting a miles per 
gallon for automobiles and just leave it up to the States instead.
  Well, we are saying we should have fuel efficiency but let's just 
leave it up to the States about how many miles per gallon we really 
should have in automobiles.
  If we did that, how many regulations do you think we would have? Do 
you think we would have the same fuel efficiency we have today?
  What is happening is these coal companies are going into States, 
going into their areas, and lobbying lawmakers there against 
regulation, and in a couple of cases I have discussed today they were 
successful in getting Kentucky to fall asleep at the switch so the 
citizens brought the lawsuits to clean up the mines. They were 
successful because they finally caught the attention of people who 
should have been doing their job.
  This rule, as it has been put in place, does give States flexibility. 
Its key definition says States get discretion to establish an objective 
criteria for measuring standards and restoring the streams. It 
basically says the final rule has several options to demonstrate 
compliance on the area of fish-and-wildlife. States can use their 
judgment about the types, scope, and location of enhancements. It says 
on groundwater, States can choose their sampling, protocol, subsequent 
analysis, and baseline. On rain measurements, States can choose whether 
to require mines to prepare a hydrologic model about the mine, and 
States can choose to allow mining companies to change their drainage 
patterns as they look at rebuilding ephemeral streams.
  There is a lot of flexibility for the States. A lot of them haven't 
been doing as good a job as we would like, but you have to have a 
Federal standard. Your Federal standard is decades old. Science is 
telling us we have a problem. Please, please, do not pass this override 
of an important clean water law. Instead, if we want to fix it, let's 
sit down and do that legislatively. Let's not allow the polluters to 
get away with having their way on so many streams across America.
  Mr. President, my comments here reflect my understanding as ranking 
member of the Senate committee of jurisdiction over the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA.
  I am strongly opposed to disapproving the Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement's stream protection rule because I both 
support the substance of the rule and I believe the Congressional 
Review Act is an inappropriate and extreme legislative tool.
  While my opposition to H.J. Res. 38 and its Senate companion, S.J. 
Res. 10, is clear, in the event that either resolution is enacted, I 
would look forward to a timely reissuance of a new rule. 
Notwithstanding the delay resulting from enactment of either 
disapproval resolution, the authority SMCRA grants to OSMRE through the 
Secretary of the Interior will persist--so will the clear obligations 
in the statute.
  The provision in the Congressional Review Act that prohibits 
reissuance of a future rule ``in substantially the same form'' as the 
rule being disapproved, unless specifically authorized by another 
future law, does not diminish my confidence. Under the ample authority 
granted to the Secretary of the Interior under SMCRA, a large variety 
of forms of implementing its obligations under SMCRA remain available 
to the Agency.
  The resolution represents a major setback for many communities 
affected by coal mining that had participated in an extensive 8-year 
rulemaking process. But it does not limit OSMRE's ability or obligation 
to implement SMCRA's statutory requirements fully, including but not 
limited to regulations that define material damage to the hydrologic 
balance outside the permit area; give effect to the SMCRA's 
prohibitions against material damage to the hydrologic balance outside 
the permit area; prohibit harmful mining activity within a certain 
perimeter, including the stream buffer zone as under the 1983 
regulations; require permitting decisions to be based on full and 
complete information; ensure protections

[[Page S632]]

for fish and wildlife; and guarantee that adequate financial assurances 
are put into place to provide for full and complete reclamation.
  I expect any Secretary of the Interior to follow the law and fully 
implement the ongoing obligations under SMCRA.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. 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. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. BURR. 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sessions
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________