[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S2251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Unanimous Consent Request

  I have a bill at the desk related to the application of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act and ask unanimous consent that, as in 
legislative session, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply say this is peeling out pieces of the bill that one Senator in 
this Chamber likes and basically telling every other Senator on both 
sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats who negotiated this, to 
go pound sand: We don't like the provisions that have been negotiated 
on both sides, very carefully, over months.
  I might add, this bill has been introduced and dealt with at the 
committee level during five different Congresses--five different 
Congresses. This year, it has passed not once, but twice, out of the 
Senate Commerce Committee by a voice vote.
  It seems to me, at least, that even after it came out of the 
committee, the fact that we negotiated this with the Senator from 
Washington and multiple Senators on the other side of the aisle, both 
on and off the committee, to come up with a balanced package that 
enjoyed broad bipartisan support--65 votes--until this afternoon, 
suggests to me this is purely politics being played with this 
legislation.
  This is an important bill. This is the Coast Guard. This is VIDA. 
VIDA was referred to the Commerce Committee by the Parliamentarian. We 
have worked with the Commerce Committee; we have worked with the EPW 
Committee; we have worked with the EPA. The EPA is supporting the 
solution. This is not the political-level EPA; these are the career 
folks at the EPA who support the solution we have come up with. Yet we 
run into these objections that are all of a sudden--all of a sudden--
coming up out of thin air.
  So, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I see my colleague from the Midwest is 
on the floor, and I am sure he has something to say about this. But I 
would just say to the chairman of the Commerce Committee: You are 
right. Years and years of discussion about ballast water has been a 
challenge.
  The question tonight is whether we are going to hold up other 
legislation just to get that language or to push through a proposal 
that really doesn't give security for our waters not to be polluted or 
to be greatly impacted or to threaten the sea life and the 
opportunities for a vibrant waterway in many parts of the country.
  All I am trying to do, as I have always tried to do, is be 
constructive in the process--both in the Commerce Committee with this 
issue and for the very issues that affect the Coast Guard and the 
Pacific Northwest.
  I know this will not be the last time we hear about the fishing 
vessel issue. I am sure we will hear about it many times because it has 
been on the calendar. So we will continue this discussion, but I thank 
him for at least coming here tonight to discuss these issues. There are 
other issues that are being held up as hostage in this legislation, and 
they shouldn't be held hostage.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.