[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S2249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



    Unanimous Consent Request--Coast Guard Authorization Legislation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senate routinely reauthorizes the 
Coast Guard, much like the Defense act. It shouldn't be a terribly 
partisan issue. It never has been. We all deeply respect the work of 
the Coast Guard and recognize the heroism of the men and women who 
serve in that capacity.
  But, unfortunately, the Republican majority slipped a poison pill 
rider into this otherwise noncontroversial bill that would repeal part 
of the Clean Water Act. That is why the Coast Guard reauthorization 
bill failed today.
  The rider would prohibit the EPA and the States from regulating 
pollution and invasive species from the ballast water of large vessels. 
Instead, it would let the Coast Guard set regulations--an agency that 
doesn't have the environmental expertise of the EPA. This is a massive 
change to the Clean Water Act.
  The Clean Water Act has worked well for decades because the States 
drive innovation and enforcement in partnership with the EPA. Under 
this law, States would no longer be able to do that. The idea of 
States' rights goes out the window.
  I have visited many different parts of my State, in Upstate New York, 
where invasive species have long plagued communities, or parts of Long 
Island, where toxic chemicals and algae plague the bays and beaches. 
They hurt our clamming industry severely. They hurt businesses, they 
hurt tourism, and they hurt fishing as well--you name it.
  We believe the rider will cost many States tens of billions of 
dollars in lost economic activity. Let me repeat that. Many States will 
lose tens of billions of dollars in economic activity because of this 
rider.
  Let me also say this about small recreational fishermen--and New York 
State is third in the number of recreational pleasure boats. No one is 
proposing to hurt the little guy. That is why Democrats are ready to 
permanently exempt them from vessel discharge requirements.
  Finally, let me make a point about progress and regular order. The 
vessel discharge provisions in this bill violate the regular order of 
the Senate. This is a matter under the jurisdiction of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, not the Commerce Committee. There was no 
consultation with the EPW minority on this provision. There were no 
hearings. Instead, the Commerce Committee inserted these provisions 
into the Coast Guard reauthorization bill over the objection of many 
Democrats.
  So I will be offering shortly to pass a clean Coast Guard 
reauthorization bill by unanimous consent. It includes a permanent 
exemption from discharge requirements for small recreational fishermen. 
Democrats are ready to pass this Coast Guard bill as is, without the 
poison pill environmental rider.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment at the desk to the McConnell motion to concur with 
amendment No. 2232 be called up and made in order; that the amendment 
be agreed to; that the motion to concur with amendment No. 2232, as 
amended, be agreed to; and that the motion to refer and all other 
amendments be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is 
no objection to the Senate considering an amendment to strike the VIDA 
language. We have offered our colleagues the opportunity to vote on 
this amendment all week, and if the Senate needs to speak on the 
question of whether to include the VIDA language in the Coast Guard 
bill, I would welcome that debate and a fair up-or-down vote. There are 
many supporters of this language from both sides of the aisle, and I am 
confident the amendment would be defeated.
  I would ask the Senator to revise his request: That the Senate resume 
consideration of the Coast Guard legislation; that the amendment to 
strike the VIDA provision be made pending and the Senate vote on the 
amendment prior to a vote on the motion to concur with further 
amendment.
  So would the Senator be willing to modify?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.