[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17001-17013]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
      CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers 
     and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the 
     definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to 5 USC 802(d)(2), there is 10 hours 
of debate, equally divided, on the joint resolution.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Madam President, I wish to take a quick moment and thank 
my friends, my colleagues for supporting this effort, and I look 
forward to some lively discussion on the EPA's overreach and this WOTUS 
rule. I encourage my fellow Republicans and my fellow Democrats to 
carefully consider what this overreach by the EPA does to their home 
States. Just as it does in Iowa--it covers 97 percent of our land. I 
encourage them to listen to their constituents very carefully as we 
move forward on this debate and this vote.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to congratulate our friend and 
colleague, the Senator from Iowa, on this strong vote on the motion to 
proceed to this congressional resolution of disapproval of this 
overreaching regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. 
I want to talk a little bit about this rule, but I also want to talk 
about how symptomatic this is of the overreach we are seeing coming 
from the executive branch, particularly when it involves rulemaking.
  This rule is a response to a Supreme Court decision and a number of 
other decisions by the lower courts which held previously that the 
Federal Government had overreached when it comes to trying to regulate 
so-called navigable waters of the United States.
  I think there is no real question in anybody's mind that under the 
interstate commerce provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal 
Government has a responsibility when it comes to navigable waters, but, 
as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a decision it handed down 
on October 9, the plaintiffs in the case against the Environmental 
Protection Agency and this particular rule established a substantial 
possibility of success on the merits of their claims where they said 
that the rule's treatment of tributaries, adjacent waters, and waters 
having a significant nexus to navigable waters is at odds with the 
Supreme Court's decision in the Rapanos case, which was handed down in 
2006. It said also that the provisions of the rule make it unclear as 
to the distance limitations, whether it is harmonious with the 
decisions of the Supreme Court. So, for example, if you could say the 
tributary that feeds another body of water that feeds another body of 
water that then feeds another body of water that eventually gets into 
navigable water is subject to the rulemaking authority of the 
Environmental Protection Agency is in conflict with the decision in the 
Rapanos case, and I don't believe it would ever withstand 
constitutional scrutiny.
  Moreover, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said the rulemaking 
process by which the so-called distance limitations were adopted is 
suspect. They said it did not include any proposed distance limitation 
in use of the terms such as ``adjacent waters'' or ``significant 
nexus.'' So under the opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a 
body of water could be far removed from that navigable water and still 
be determined as an adjacent water or have a significant nexus and be 
subject to the far-reaching provisions of the rule.
  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also said that there was no 
scientific support for the distance limitations that were included in 
the final rule.
  The plaintiffs contended and the Sixth Circuit agreed that this rule 
is not the product of reasoned decisionmaking and is vulnerable to 
attack as impermissibly arbitrary or capricious under the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
  Ordinarily, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said, they 
would not issue a stay pending the resolution of the challenge to the 
rule, but they said the sheer breadth of the ripple effect caused by 
the rule's definitional changes counsel strongly in favor of 
maintaining the status quo for the time being. They also noted that the 
rule had already been stayed in 13 different States where previous 
litigation had been filed and decided. So, as a result, on October 9, 
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide stay for the 
very rule that is the subject of this Congressional Review Act vote 
that we just had and that we will have after 10 hours of debate.
  But beyond the arcane provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act 
and what is navigable water and what is adjacent water, what has a 
sufficient nexus and the like, I think what we need to recognize is 
that this rule represents the single largest private property grab 
perhaps in American history because it claims as Federal jurisdiction 
private property that previously had not been thought of as having any 
nexus or connection with Federal authority or even interstate 
commerce--potholes, drainage ditches, culverts, stock ponds, things 
such as that that are arguably now within the ambit of this rule, and 
that cannot be the case.
  That is why so many of us have heard not just from our farmers, 
cattle raisers, and agriculture producers, but we have heard from 
people in the construction business, people who are concerned about 
this private property grab, and they said this cannot be the case. As I 
said, farmers and ranchers, homebuilders, manufacturers, utilities, the 
concrete industry--any entity that builds or develops on real estate 
will likely be impacted.
  I am very happy that under the leadership of the Senator from Iowa, 
we have gotten this far on this congressional resolution of 
disapproval, and I hope that after this debate--perhaps tomorrow--we 
will be in a position to send this to the President of the United

[[Page 17002]]

States stating views of the U.S. Senate and Congress that this rule 
simply is too broad and cannot stand.
  The Sixth Circuit Court's opinion is not a substitute for what we do 
under the Congressional Review Act. It is part of our responsibility as 
Members of the U.S. Congress.
  In my State, as, I am sure, in other places around the country, 
farming and ranching is more than a job. It is a way of life. It is 
part of our culture and very definitely a family affair. In fact, about 
98 percent of all farms and ranches in Texas are family-owned. When I 
am back home and have the chance to visit with those who provide the 
food and the fiber to feed and clothe us, they are very concerned about 
this legislation--as they should be--because it not only represents a 
threat to their way of life and their ability to provide for their 
families and for our States and our country, it is a power grab 
unprecedented in U.S. history.
  In May, the Environmental Protection Agency released the final rule 
that is supposed to protect our water. Who could be opposed to that? 
Well, nobody if they had done it within the Constitution and within the 
law. That sounds innocuous enough. But in reality, it acts as a Federal 
land grab, one which would add significant costs to our farmers and 
ranchers and which has the potential to greatly intrude on the private 
property of landowners.
  While we all can agree that clean water is a priority, the Obama 
administration has overstepped that goal and pitted the EPA and the 
Army Corps of Engineers against the hard-working farmers and ranchers 
in Texas and across the country. But it is not just the agriculture 
sector, as I mentioned a moment ago. I have been hearing from a lot of 
stakeholders back home who are incredibly concerned about the negative 
potential impact this rule will have on their business. This rule is 
such a vast expansion of Federal jurisdiction that multiple sectors of 
our economy could be adversely affected--as I said, homebuilders, the 
oil and gas industry, mining companies, and manufacturers.
  This rule is not just some simple, straightforward provision to 
protect water; it is a veiled threat against the private sector and a 
blueprint for stifling economic growth in our country.
  In 2014 the economy in my State grew roughly 5.2 percent. We were 
among the most fortunate States in the Nation to see a lot of job 
growth and opportunity. That is why people are moving to Texas--because 
that is where the jobs are. Conversely, in 2014 we saw across the 
country our economy grow at roughly 2.2 percent.
  While we have been encouraged to see the unemployment rate tick down 
little by little, the truth is that when you start getting into the 
numbers, you realize that the labor participation rate--the percentage 
of people actually actively looking for work--is at a 30-year low, thus 
making that lower unemployment rate look better than it really is.
  This is an important piece of legislation, and I know a lot of people 
are paying attention to it back home and across the country because of 
its impact. I am frustrated we weren't able to move the earlier 
legislation forward due to a filibuster by the minority, in this case, 
who are clearly trying to do everything they can to protect this 
administration and its overreach, but of course all of us are going to 
be held accountable at the ballot box, as we should be. Anyone who has 
voted against proceeding with this commonsense legislation to rein in 
an out-of-control Federal agency, I believe, will live to regret that 
decision.


      Congratulating Senator Grassley On casting His 12,000th Vote

  Madam President, I just have one other thing to say on a different 
topic. It has sort of been the quiet after we celebrated the 15,000th 
vote by the Senator from Vermont very publicly the other day. Our more 
reticent, and perhaps even occasionally shy, Mr. Chuck Grassley, the 
senior Senator from Iowa, celebrated his 12,000th vote in the Senate.
  Senator Grassley is well known for his consistency and steadfast 
commitment to the people of Iowa. I have to say, I don't know of any 
Senator who works harder to get and to keep the trust and confidence of 
the people he represents. This 12,000th vote should come as no 
surprise. He actually hasn't even missed a vote since 1993. Every year 
for more than 30 years, Senator Grassley has demonstrated his 
commitment to the people of Iowa by visiting every one of the State's 
99 counties.
  I know he keeps his colleague, the junior Senator from Iowa, Mrs. 
Ernst, running just trying to keep up with him. That is an impressive 
record for anyone, and one that many--including our Presidential 
candidates--sometimes need to try to duplicate.
  I will speak, for just a second, beyond statistics about Senator 
Grassley because I have the honor of serving with him on both the 
Finance and Judiciary Committees. He has worked tirelessly, not just 
for the people of Iowa but for all Americans. Indeed, my colleague 
shares my concern for creating a more open and transparent government. 
As somebody who is conservative by ideology and by nature, I was not 
sent by my constituents in Texas to pass more rules and regulations. I 
am here to hold the government, and particularly the bureaucracy, 
accountable. One way we can do that, without adding additional 
regulations, rules, and costs to the taxpayer, is by encouraging an 
open and more transparent government because with that comes 
accountability.
  Senator Grassley has used his role as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee to advance these values and to hold government and the 
bureaucracy accountable for the benefit of not just Iowans but for the 
benefit of the American people.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for the great example he sets for the 
rest of us and applaud him for casting his 12,000th vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the CRA, 
Congressional Review Act amendment on the waters of the United States, 
of my colleague from Iowa. West Virginia is no stranger to the crushing 
consequences of harmful regulations. Our unemployment rate is the 
largest in the Nation. Layoff notices keep coming and declining 
revenues from coal severance taxes are eroding our State's budget. I 
read an article earlier today saying that this far into the fiscal year 
in the State of West Virginia we have a deficit of $91 million.
  The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers waters of the United States 
rule, known as the WOTUS rule, is just the latest example of a 
regulatory environment that threatens to put West Virginians and other 
Americans out of business. Everyone can agree--and the Senator from 
Texas just talked about this and I know the Senator from Iowa has 
talked about it frequently--that we must protect our drinking water 
resources, and we also must protect our precious natural resources, but 
a rule that subjects puddles and ditches to regulations just goes too 
far. The EPA's unprecedented expansion of Federal authority has very 
serious consequences, both in the State I represent, West Virginia, and 
throughout the rest of the country.
  In my State of West Virginia, the steep mountainous terrain means 
that the EPA would have oversight over any land located in the valley 
or low-lying area. If you have been to West Virginia, you know you are 
either on a mountain or in a valley in a low-lying area. There is very 
little flat land.
  The West Virginia Coal Association pointed out that the WOTUS rule 
would trigger ``an alphabet soup of statutes, regulatory programs and 
federal regulatory agencies'' involved in traditionally nonregulated 
activities. Something as simple as digging a ditch on a farm or 
building a home on privately owned property could be under the purview 
of the EPA and a failure to comply with that rule could result in fines 
as high as $37,500 a day.
  A county commissioner from Monongalia County recently wrote to my 
office expressing concerns that this WOTUS rule would impede the 
county's attempt to create developable tracks of land needed to attract 
large employers in West Virginia.

[[Page 17003]]

  I will remind everyone that developable land in a State like mine is 
very difficult to create because it is not natural and it would create 
a lot of those low-lying areas, ditches, and puddles that this 
regulation goes way beyond to regulate.
  A small business owner in Scott Depot, WV, shared her concern that 
small businesses were not adequately considered in the WOTUS rule. She 
said:

       Government regulations, like the proposed rule, are 
     complicated, expensive to navigate, and a real obstacle to my 
     growing business. This change, and its ridiculous overreach 
     and restrictions could decrease land value and hinder my 
     ability to expand, develop and use my own private land.

  We talk a lot about creating jobs in this country. This is a quote 
from a small business owner who is concerned about her ability to 
control her own destiny with her own small business on her own 
privately owned land. I think this is the reason that 31 States, 
including West Virginia, are suing to overturn this misguided rule, and 
two courts have already found it likely illegal.
  Rather than incorporating thoughts from Congress and concerned 
Americans, this misguided rule doubles down on overreach and threatens 
to impede small businesses, agriculture, manufacturing, coal, natural 
gas production, and many other vital sectors of the economy as the 
Senator from Texas just talked about.
  The decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to block the 
implementation of the WOTUS rule nationwide confirms that WOTUS was the 
wrong approach to protecting our water resources and reinforces the 
need to rein in this administration's unprecedented and overreaching 
regulations.
  Along with colleagues on both sides of the aisle--just this afternoon 
at 2:30 p.m.--I proudly supported Senator Barrasso's Federal Water 
Quality Protection Act, which would have directed the EPA and the Corps 
of Engineers to withdraw this rule, go back to the drawing board, and 
issue an alternative approach that is crafted in consultation with 
State and local governments and small businesses.
  The bill we voted on earlier today received bipartisan support from 
57 Senators but only partisan opposition. Both Republicans and 
Democrats supported moving forward on the Federal Water Quality 
Protection Act because we wanted to offer a real solution that would 
bring clarity and common sense to the protection of our Nation's 
waters.
  This legislation would have provided certainty to farmers, 
manufacturers, energy producers, State and local governments, and 
anyone seeking to do virtually anything on private land. Unfortunately, 
41 Democrats stopped a bipartisan majority from considering this bill. 
We must now consider other options to block the misguided WOTUS 
regulation issued by the EPA and Corps of Engineers.
  I am glad we will have the opportunity to vote on a Congressional 
Review Act resolution of disapproval offered by the Senator from Iowa. 
This resolution would protect hard-working West Virginia families, 
small businesses, energy producers, and others across the country who 
would be unfairly burdened by this onerous and deeply flawed WOTUS 
rule. The WOTUS rule would lead to a massive expansion, again, of 
costly permitting requirements and hinder our already struggling 
economy, an outcome West Virginia and the Nation simply cannot afford.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me and the Senator from Iowa, who 
is leading the charge in such an admiral way in supporting this 
important effort to block the harmful WOTUS rule.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                 Federal Water Quality Protection Bill

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise not only in support of the 
critical bipartisan legislation that was before the Senate earlier 
today but also in support of the proposal of the Senator from Iowa that 
is before us now. While the measure failed to secure the necessary 
votes earlier today, the fight is not over.
  The Federal Water Quality Protection Act would have enabled American 
citizens to maintain control over their water resources, and it would 
have stopped the administration's WOTUS rule. Congress has already 
limited the Federal Government's regulatory authority under the Clean 
Water Act to only navigable waterways, but instead of following the 
law, this administration has broadened the definition of ``waters of 
the United States'' and extended Federal authority far beyond the law's 
original intent.
  The rule, which is commonly referred to as WOTUS, exponentially 
expands Federal jurisdiction over all water--from prairie potholes to 
ditches and everything in between. Ultimately, this rule prevents State 
and local agencies from effectively regulating our water by placing 
control in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
  I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on a bipartisan effort 
to overturn this dangerous rule and force both the EPA and the Army 
Corps of Engineers to go back to the drawing board. Our legislation, 
known as the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, would have required 
the administration to consult with States and local stakeholders before 
imposing the Federal regulations on our State-owned water resources. 
Additionally, the bill would have ensured a thorough economic analysis 
to make sure that was conducted before restricting States from managing 
their own natural resources.
  The importance of allowing our States to manage these resources hit 
home during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee field 
hearing that I chaired in Lincoln, NE, this past March. At the hearing, 
a wide variety of Nebraska stakeholders provided personal accounts of 
how this will affect families, businesses, and communities all across 
our State.
  One witness from the Nebraska State Home Builders Association noted 
that 25 percent of the current cost associated with building a new home 
are due to existing regulations. Adding more Federal rules and 
regulations will only put that American dream of owning a home out of 
reach for most of us. That is not right, and that is not the kind of 
government people want.
  Additionally, the Common Sense Nebraska Coalition noted that the 
sweeping impact of this rule would affect everyone, from county 
officials trying to build a road to farmers trying to manage that 
rainwater runoff.
  The WOTUS rule affects much more than rural America. Our 
municipalities are charged with wastewater, storm water, and flood 
control systems, as well as providing drinking water, electricity, and 
natural gas to our citizens. Taxpayers will shoulder these added costs. 
We are going to pay more for road construction. We will pay more for 
levees that protect our drinking water. We will pay more for wastewater 
improvements, and that will cost our families. Those higher taxes will 
hurt our families.
  With the expanded definition of ``navigable water'' under this rule 
and our extensive aquifer system, the Federal Government can assert 
control over nearly all the water in the State of Nebraska. Nebraskans 
take their role in protecting and conserving our natural resources very 
seriously. Responsible resource management, including the careful 
stewardship of our water, is the cornerstone of my State's economy.
  We all also understand that the people closest to a resource are the 
ones who manage it best. That is a principle that is shared across this 
country. That is why I am committed to working with my colleagues to 
manage responsibly our Nation's water for our current and future 
generations. I don't believe the Federal Government should focus on 
ways to make life harder for people. That is not what we were sent to 
do. Instead we need to explore policy options that will promote growth 
and conservation.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Federal Water Quality 
Protection Act. This important bipartisan legislation would have set 
clear limits on the Federal regulation of water. I am disappointed the 
Obama administration would force this irresponsible,

[[Page 17004]]

overreaching rule on hard-working Americans. We have a duty to roll 
back this rule. We have a duty to prevent the harm it will inflict.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to come together on this so we can 
ensure that job creators, communities, and families from across the 
country can continue to prosper.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  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.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, there is a saying by Thomas Hornsby 
Ferrill engraved on the walls of the Colorado State Capitol that reads, 
``Here is a land where life is written in water. . . . '' I come to the 
floor to talk about the most precious natural resource in the West; 
that is, of course, our water. Water in the West has helped shape 
communities, agriculture, tourism, and industry. The management of that 
water has been traditionally controlled at the State and local level, 
not the Federal Government.
  Colorado is the State of origin for four major river basins: The 
Colorado, the Arkansas, the Platte, and the Rio Grande. These water 
basins help make for a robust agricultural economy throughout the 
State. According to the Colorado Department of Agriculture, this 
industry contributes nearly $41 billion to the State economy and 
employs nearly 173,000 people. Colorado has more than 35,000 farms and 
ranches and more than 31 million acres for farming and ranching.
  The State ranks in the top five nationwide for production of products 
ranging from potatoes and cantaloupes to sunflowers and wheat. 
Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided to put 
forth a rule that would endanger many of these farms as well as the 
jobs and local economies they help support. The waters of the United 
States rule, known as WOTUS, would significantly expand the definition 
of navigable waters under the Clean Water Act. With this rule, the EPA 
and the Army Corps of Engineers have unilaterally decided that isolated 
ponds and irrigation ditches may be subject to the same Federal 
oversight as the Mississippi River. They are doing all of this based on 
authority passed by Congress more than 40 years ago.
  Instead, this rule could have significant negative impacts on 
agriculture, industry, local utilities, and water districts, merely by 
the uncertainty it creates with local entities trying to determine if 
their water is subject to Federal oversight.
  According to the Colorado Farm Bureau, an additional 1.3 million 
acres of land and an additional 170,000 stream miles in Colorado alone 
could be subject to Federal Government jurisdiction. It is important to 
point out that Colorado is a lower 48 State, one of the only lower 48 
States that has all water flowing out of it and no water flowing into 
it. Farmers and ranchers would likely be subjected to increased 
permitting requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to 
canals and ditches on their own land. Even if their land is exempted, 
as some would have you believe from the WOTUS rule under the proposed 
exclusions, there is already an air of uncertainty for these farmers 
and ranchers who will have to try and navigate the Federal bureaucracy 
to determine if they have to apply for the increased permitting 
requirements.
  It is no secret that the Environmental Protection Agency often works 
very slowly in the regulatory and permitting process. Two water 
projects in Colorado with bipartisan support, the Northern Integrated 
Supply Project and Gross Reservoir Expansion, have languished in the 
regulatory process for more than a decade. The waters of the United 
States rule is simply not the answer.
  The Federal Government should not be passing expansive new laws 
without the consent of Congress to regulate every drop of water. The 
EPA wants you to believe that the proposed WOTUS rule is not a major 
expansion of power and that this rule does not add any new requirements 
for agriculture or interfere with private property rights or include 
the regulation of most irrigation ditches.
  Fortunately, our Nation maintains a separation of power. On October 
9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide 
stay for the waters of the United States rule after a lawsuit was filed 
by 18 States, including the State of Colorado. The order of stay 
specifically states that the rule effectively redraws the 
jurisdictional lines over our Nation's waters and that the States and 
others would be harmed if the justice system did not act.
  I applaud the Sixth Circuit for their action and for the 18 States 
that moved forward to protect control of the water within their 
boundaries. Now I believe it is time for Congress to act. 
Unfortunately, yesterday we watched as a strictly partisan minority 
blocked S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act authored by 
Senator Barrasso of Wyoming.
  This legislation, which had moved through the Senate under regular 
order and in a bipartisan fashion, would seek to have the EPA and 
others make significant revisions to the WOTUS rule and would throw out 
the current rule. It calls for significant consultations with State and 
local governments who actually control the water. I believe this 
consultation process is a significant step forward.
  I have heard from many water districts and utilities throughout 
Colorado. They all have major concerns with the WOTUS rule in its 
current form and the unintended consequences of the rule. But because 
of this partisan minority of Senators blocking the legislative vehicle 
to try to address the many shortcomings of the WOTUS rule, I believe we 
have no other choice but to move forward in disapproving of the rule in 
its entirety. I applaud my friend and colleague Senator Ernst of Iowa 
for her work in introducing S.J. Res. 22, which provides for 
Congressional disapproval of the waters of the United States rule.
  That is why I have come to the floor today, to urge a ``yes'' vote on 
S.J. Res. 22 because in Colorado, we know that we have to stick up for 
our water rights. In Colorado, we know we have to stand up for our 
water law. In Colorado, we know that we have to keep the Feds' hands 
off our water rights. I urge the adoption of this measure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here to actually address some of the 
recent developments on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Before going into 
that, I would like to take a minute, though, and mention the 
Congressional Review Act that is before us now and how important it is 
that we pass it.
  I want to commend Senator Ernst for her diligence on this very 
important matter. The waters of the United States is a regulation 
issued by the EPA that goes far beyond their statutory authority, far 
beyond the statutory authority that Congress has given them under a 
legal theory referred to as ``significant nexus.'' It is something I 
have worked on for a long time. In fact, I have included a bill that 
would defund the regulation as part of the EPA appropriations bill in 
our appropriations, both at the subcommittee and the full committee 
level.
  So I certainly hope and feel that the good Senator from Iowa will be 
successful in this CRA effort, as far as getting it through Congress. I 
think it will go through in strong fashion in both the Senate and the 
House, thanks to her good work and, of course, the underlying 
importance of the issue.
  Of course, our challenge will be with the administration. I hope the 
administration will look at the strong support here in Congress and 
listen to the people of this great country, the farmers and ranchers 
across our country, and

[[Page 17005]]

the small business people across the country who know so well that 
WOTUS is a serious problem for them. I hope the President will consider 
them and not veto the legislation, but I am concerned that he will veto 
it. And if he does, then we will continue to work through the 
appropriations process to defund this legislation.
  Again, even if we are not able to deauthorize it through the CRA 
process, we will work to defund it. Of course, the disadvantage with 
defunding is that only goes for a year, but obviously that would take 
us through most of the balance of the Obama administration and 
hopefully get us to a fresh start.
  I think the key point, though, is that we rescind this onerous 
regulation. That can be through deauthorizing it, it can be through 
defunding it, and, in fact, it can be through litigation. I think in 
excess of 30 States have joined in litigation across the country 
pushing back on this onerous regulation. In fact, the Federal district 
court in North Dakota stayed the regulation. That stay was upheld, that 
injunction was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 
Cincinnati, OH. So right now there is a national stay on this 
regulation, which I think just goes to show that we are on the right 
track here because we are coming at it from so many angles with so many 
people who are saying: Look, this is common sense. This is a big-time 
overreach by EPA. It adversely affects farmers, ranchers, small 
businesses, and property rights. In fact, in this great country, it 
adversely affects property rights. So through deauthorization, 
defunding, and the legal process, we will work to rescind it.
  Again, I wish to echo the strong comments of my esteemed colleague 
from the great State of Colorado and also acknowledge and commend the 
good Senator from the State of Iowa on her efforts to lead the charge.


                          Keystone XL Pipeline

  Mr. President, I wish to speak, as I said, for up to 10 minutes as in 
morning business on the subject of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  Yesterday, after 7 years--7 years starting in September of 2008--the 
TransCanada company asked the U.S. State Department to pause or suspend 
its application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. The company asked 
for that pause because it is working through an application process for 
route approval by the Public Service Commission in Nebraska. The 
Governor and the legislature in Nebraska actually approved the route 
for the pipeline in Nebraska, but after many lawsuits in the State of 
Nebraska and demonstrations, often led by movie stars and other 
celebrities, the company has chosen what I would call a belt-and-
suspenders approach. Essentially, they have decided that in spite of 
the fact that they have received approval from the Governor, the 
legislature, and that that decision has been upheld by the Nebraska 
Supreme Court, they are going back and they are going through the 
process with the Nebraska Public Service Commission. So that is why I 
say it is really a belt-and-suspenders approach. Now they are going 
back, and in addition to the approvals they have already received, in 
addition to the decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court, now they are 
going back through the Public Service Commission process in Nebraska as 
well. The thing about that is it will take about a year to do it.
  So now TransCanada is asking for forbearance from the Obama 
administration--not because the company hasn't met all the legal and 
regulatory requirements. It has. It has met all of them and it spent 
millions of dollars doing so. But, rather, TransCanada is asking for 
forbearance on the project because the company is once again going 
through all of the requirements, all the regulations, and all the 
redtape to get every approval--State, local, and ultimately Federal--
for the project. That is why I call it, as I said, the belt-and-
suspenders approach.
  Now we will see what the Obama administration does with TransCanada's 
request. Will they now hold off or wait on their denial decision, which 
the Obama administration obviously wants to make based on their 
environmental agenda, or will they honor TransCanada's request to pause 
or suspend the project, just as they have made TransCanada wait now for 
7 years pending all of the administration's requirements, including the 
Obama administration's adamant concern that the process in Nebraska be 
fully completed before the administration render a decision. Remember, 
this administration made a big deal about waiting until the Nebraska 
process was fully completed before the administration would make a 
decision. So let's see what they do. As I have just outlined, that 
process would probably take another year.
  So will they forbear on making a decision now after they held the 
process up 7 years? Will they honor the request by TransCanada to pause 
while the company completes this process in Nebraska or will they say 
no, in spite of their concern that that be fully completed? Will they 
go ahead and in essence reverse themselves on process and deny the 
project? Well, we will see. We will see what they do. But if they don't 
grant this pause or suspend the application pending completion of the 
project in Nebraska, it seems to me like a double standard. On the one 
hand, they hold up the project for 7 years and they say the company 
must go fully through the process in Nebraska. So for them now to say 
``No, we are not going to provide the time to do that'' seems, in fact, 
very much like a double standard.
  As I have talked about in this Chamber before and as I think the 
administration is very well aware--and I think that is part of the 
reason they have held up on making a decision rather than turning down 
the project--this is a project which is overwhelmingly supported by the 
American people. In poll after poll, there is 65 percent to 70 percent 
support by the American people. Also, it is supported by Congress. It 
passed overwhelmingly with more than 60 votes in this Chamber. It 
passed with a big bipartisan majority in the House.
  Another consideration obviously now for the administration is, what 
about the new administration in Canada? The Trudeau administration is 
coming in, and the new Prime Minister in Canada supports the project. 
So what is the message to Canada if the administration says ``No, we 
are not going to honor that company's request for a stay or a pause or 
an extension on the project now'' and instead goes ahead and turns it 
down?
  The administration's own Quadrennial Energy Review dedicates a whole 
chapter to the benefits of integrating North American energy markets. 
The administration states that ``energy system integration is in the 
long term interest of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, as it 
expands the size of energy markets, creates economies of scale to 
attract private investment, lowers capital costs, and reduces energy 
costs for consumers.'' That is right out of their own Quadrennial 
Energy Review, prepared by their own Department of Energy, which says 
we need to work with Canada on energy.
  So what will they do? In spite of all of that, will they turn down 
the project now or will they treat the company fairly and give them due 
process?
  Well, regardless of the decision the Obama administration makes, I 
think in the final analysis the project will be approved. It might take 
a year, it might take a little over a year, but I think in the final 
analysis this project will be approved. It should be approved because 
the people of this country overwhelmingly support it and recognize that 
it is in their interest and to their benefit. But what it really comes 
down to is the merits. In the final analysis, a project should be 
approved or disapproved on the merits, right? And the merits are these, 
very simple: To build the kind of energy plan that we want for this 
country, where we are energy secure--meaning we produce more energy 
than we consume--we have to build the energy infrastructure we need to 
move that energy safely and efficiently from where it is produced to 
where it is consumed. That means we need pipelines, we need 
transmission lines, we need rail, and we need road to move that energy 
as safely and cost-effectively as possible.
  If you think about it, that doesn't mean just oil and gas; that means 
all

[[Page 17006]]

types of energy. That means renewables too, right, to move those 
electrons through transmission lines. We need the energy infrastructure 
for the right kind of energy plan for this country--energy from 
sources, traditional and renewable, to move that energy as safely and 
as cost-effectively as possible.
  So what is the message here? The message is very simple: If we want 
companies to step up and invest the hundreds of millions and billions 
of dollars it takes to build that infrastructure, then we have to have 
a legal and regulatory process where they know that if they go through 
it and they meet all the requirements, they can then get approval for 
the hundreds of millions that they invest to get that done and to build 
these projects.
  That is energy infrastructure we need to build so that we don't 
continue to rely on OPEC or let Russia dominate the energy markets or 
rely on countries such as Venezuela, and ultimately, that is what the 
American people want. That energy security, that energy independence, 
if you will, working with our closest friend and ally, like Canada, and 
developing energy in this country, is what the American people want. 
That is what the American people want because it makes us strong and 
secure.
  This is just one project, but it is about all of the projects we need 
to build to make this Nation energy secure. That is why ultimately this 
project will be approved on the merits.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                               The Budget

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak this evening a little bit 
about the budget deal that was recently enacted. There are three parts 
of that I wish to address. One is the spending increases, another is 
the debt ceiling, and finally there is the Crime Victims Fund, which--I 
am very upset about this.
  Starting with spending, it shouldn't be controversial--but of course 
it is--that we spend too much money here. We spend way too much money. 
There are any number of metrics that would confirm and demonstrate how 
much we overspend, but I think the most compelling is the size of the 
deficit that all this spending is creating, with record revenue. I want 
to underscore that. The Federal Treasury is taking in record amounts of 
tax revenue. So with alltime-record levels of revenue, we are still 
spending so much above and beyond that that this year we are going to 
run about a $450 billion deficit.
  There are some people in this town who practically sprained their 
arms patting themselves on their backs because it used to be a $1 
trillion deficit. That is true, but $450 billion is still way too much. 
We have too much debt now, and a $450 billion deficit this year is 
going to add $450 billion to a debt level that is already too big. And 
guess what. All forecasts, everybody's forecasts--liberal, 
conservative, Democrat, Republican, CBO, private sector--everybody 
agrees the deficits are on path to get worse. So we are spending too 
much. Our deficits are too big. They are adding to a debt that is 
already too high, already doing damage to our economy, our ability to 
create jobs, because of all the uncertainty and the risk that all this 
debt creates. And what happens? The only spending discipline we have 
been able to achieve in recent years--the spending caps that were 
enacted in 2011--the President insists we have to bust them.
  Many of us believe we should be spending more on defense. If we are 
going to do that--I think part of our job is to prioritize spending. 
National security, defending our country, should be our No. 1 priority, 
and since we need to spend more there, you offset that with spending 
reductions somewhere else. That would be the prudent thing to do. But 
that is not what the President insisted on. The President insisted that 
if we were going to spend anything more on defense, we had to match 
that dollar-for-dollar with increased spending elsewhere. So not only 
were we not offsetting the increase in defense spending, but we were 
compounding the spending by increasing the nondefense spending. So this 
deal busts the spending caps, and, in fact, the deficits will be larger 
than they otherwise would be.
  That leads me to the second point, and that is the debt ceiling. 
Let's think about the context of where we are. When President Obama 
took office, the total amount of debt owed to the public--the amount of 
money the Treasury had borrowed because of previous deficits was less 
than $6 trillion. It was a very big number, but it was less than $6 
trillion. By the end of next year, it is going to be over $13 trillion. 
So this President, by the time he leaves office, will have more than 
doubled the total amount of debt we have borrowed to fund these 
deficits. Another way to think about it is that this President will 
have added to our debt burden by an amount greater than the sum total 
of every single one of his predecessors combined, from George 
Washington to George W. Bush. This is a staggering amount of debt that 
we have imposed on ourselves, our kids, our grandkids, our economy, and 
on our ability to be a productive country.
  And what did the President say in response to all this debt? Give me 
the authority to borrow more with no conditions. We are not even going 
to have a discussion or a negotiation about the underlying problem that 
is causing all of this debt.
  I think that is, frankly, outrageous, and it is extremely unusual 
because for decades now American Presidents have met with Congress, and 
when we have had discussions in the past about the level of debt and 
what we are going to do about it--when the Presidents have said we need 
to increase our debt ceiling so that we can borrow more money--that has 
very typically included a discussion about dealing with the underlying 
problems.
  There are many examples of this. Back in 1985, during the Reagan 
administration, it was in the context of a debt ceiling debate that we 
passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings measure, which was about limiting our 
deficits and reducing the amount of debt we would incur going forward. 
In 1990 George Herbert Walker Bush negotiated with Congress the Budget 
Enforcement Act, which again was related to a debt ceiling increase at 
the time and which adopted measures to deal with the deficits of that 
day. In 1997, William Jefferson Clinton--President Clinton--with a 
Republican Congress sat down and negotiated a balanced budget 
agreement. And you know what happened? They balanced the budget. So 
President Clinton decided to work with Republicans in Congress to deal 
with this underlying problem, and within a few years we actually had 
balanced budgets.
  Then in 2011, in the context of the debt ceiling increase that was 
discussed at the time and eventually raised, these spending caps were 
established as a way to at least do something about this runaway 
spending and these excessive deficits and the debt. But this time the 
President had a different view. His view was that he would not even 
have a discussion. There would be no negotiations, no consideration. We 
are not even going to talk about the underlying problem. He wanted to 
have unlimited authority to borrow more money through the end of his 
Presidency, and that is what is in this deal.
  So what can we expect? We can expect a whole lot more debt. That is 
exactly what is going to happen. By the way, contrary to what some in 
the administration like to say, this has nothing to do with paying for 
past bills. We have paid for those bills. This is to enable excessive 
spending going forward--the deficits we are going to incur because this 
President is insisting on this overspending.
  Let me get to the last point I wanted to stress today, which is one 
of the really disturbing things about this budget deal and what it has 
done with the Crime Victims Fund. By way of background, the Crime 
Victims Fund was a fund established in 1984. It consists exclusively of 
monies that are assessed to convicted criminals--corporate or 
individuals. As part of their punishment, they are made to pay a fine, 
and the fine goes into an account with the Federal Government. It 
actually is quite substantial. Year in and

[[Page 17007]]

year out this ends up being actually billions of dollars.
  The statute requires, first of all, that all this money go to victims 
of crimes and their advocates, and specifically, it requires a priority 
for victims of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence and 
that those three categories of crimes be given a special priority. 
There are organizations that do wonderful work across Pennsylvania and 
across the country in helping people who are victims of these terrible, 
terrible crimes that are so difficult to recover from. There are groups 
of people who do great work in helping these victims to recover.
  The whole idea of the Crime Victims Fund is to take these dollars 
from the criminals--not a penny of tax dollars--and give it to the 
victims of crimes and the people who are advocates for them. But what 
this budget deal does is it takes $1.5 billion out of the Crime Victims 
Fund and it spends it on other things.
  I think this is outrageous. This is not taxpayer money in the first 
place. It is not as though we don't have victims of crimes anymore. 
Obviously, we still do. And we have organizations that can do great 
work if they had the resources. But in the absence of resources, it 
means that children who are victims of child abuse don't get the 
counseling and the care they need. It means a victim of domestic 
violence doesn't have a place to stay when she needs protection from an 
abusing spouse. It means people who really need these services are 
going to go without because we are diverting this money that is 
supposed to be going to crime victims and we are spending it somewhere 
else.
  The most important thing I want to say tonight is that it is not too 
late to fix this. What the Congress passed and the President signed 
last week paves the way to misallocate this money from the Crime 
Victims Fund, but it doesn't require that to happen. So I have a bill 
that will fix this problem. I have a bill called the Fairness for Crime 
Victims Act, and what it will do is it will require that the money go 
to the victims, as it was always intended.
  By the way, the idea that we should not be diverting the Crime 
Victims Fund to these other miscellaneous spending categories is a 
bipartisan idea. There is broad bipartisan support for the idea that 
the money in the Crime Victims Fund should go to victims of crime. The 
Wall Street Journal ran an article on Sunday, and they quoted a crime 
advocate describing the budget deal saying, this deal ``violates the 
integrity of a decades-old program that funds safe havens for domestic 
violence victims, counseling for abused children and financial aid for 
murder victims' families, among other programs.''
  Josh Shapiro is the chairman of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime 
and Delinquency, and he wrote about this provision in the budget deal. 
He said that it ``puts in danger our commitment to victims of crime 
throughout our country.'' Democratic members of the Pennsylvania State 
House agree with me that this money should not be diverted this way. 
They sent a letter, among other things, saying that the budget deal 
increases spending to ``the detriment of current and future crime 
victims'' and that this constitutes ``a terrible precedent.''
  I couldn't agree more, and that is why I hope we will pass my 
legislation, the Fairness for Crime Victims Act. It ends this 
injustice. Here is the way it works. It is very simple. It simply 
requires that Congress allocate to crime victims and their advocates an 
amount equal to the sum of the previous 3-year average that went into 
the fund. So the short way to think about it is that it means we are 
going to send to crime victims the money that comes in for crime 
victims, and we are not going to send it somewhere else.
  This means that victims of crime and their advocates are going to see 
a big increase in this funding, because for years Congress has refused 
to allocate all of the money that has been coming in. In the past, they 
just refused to allocate it. There are budgetary gimmickry reasons for 
doing that, and this needs to come to end. We certainly can't continue 
diverting this fund for other purposes.
  We have had colleagues--Members of this body--come to the floor and 
make the point that we shouldn't use Medicare and Social Security funds 
as an ATM to fund other programs. I agree. We also shouldn't use the 
Crime Victims Fund, which is not a single dime of taxpayer money. We 
shouldn't use that to fund other programs either. It is not too late to 
do the right thing for victims of some of the most heinous crimes that 
are committed anywhere.
  I urge my colleagues to help pass this piece of legislation. This was 
reported out of the Committee on the Budget unanimously. There was very 
broad bipartisan support. What happened in this budget deal is an 
illustration of why my legislation is necessary. Money that is left 
around in a pot somewhere in this town gets spent pretty quickly by 
someone for something. This money needs to go to crime victims. If we 
pass my legislation, that is where it will go.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to talk about what we have been 
debating today on the Senate floor, the waters of the United States 
rule, and legislation that has received bipartisan support so far. We 
think it needs a lot more support on why this is so important for the 
country.
  I was a cosponsor of Senator Barrasso's bill. Unfortunately, that 
bill didn't get the 60 votes necessary, but Senator Ernst has a 
resolution that I think is going to be very important to pass that 
would stop this rule from being enacted by the EPA. Hopefully, we will 
see if the President, once this is put on his desk, has the common 
sense to sign it rather than veto it.
  I want to put this rule in a much broader context, to put the debate 
we are having on the waters of the United States rule into the broader 
context of actually what is happening in our country and how the EPA's 
waters of the United States rule is actually a symbol for much broader 
problems that I think the vast majority of Americans recognize.
  The other night I went to a premiere of a short film on the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline system, what we call in Alaska TAPS. It is Alaska's 
800-mile artery of steel that was done in the most responsible manner, 
in terms of the environment, that brings much energy to our country. 
When it was built, it was actually one of the biggest private sector 
construction projects ever in the history of our great Nation, and 
literally directly and indirectly employed tens of thousands of 
Americans. It has carried almost 17 billion barrels of American oil to 
energy-thirsty American markets and continues to provide thousands and 
thousands of jobs, not only in Alaska but throughout the country. It is 
certainly a technological and environmental marvel. Here is the thing: 
That kind of huge project was built in 3 years.
  Think about that, 800 miles of steel pipeline, crossing 3 mountain 
ranges, more than 30 major rivers and streams, and it took Americans 3 
years to build it. Go to Alaska and it is functioning incredibly well 
today. We are reminded of how, when this Nation puts its mind to 
something, we can get great things done. In many ways, Congress played 
a critical role in making sure that incredible energy infrastructure 
system happened.
  We are a great nation, but I must admit when I was watching this 
movie last week with a bunch of Alaskans--Senator Murkowski, Don Young, 
and others--I did feel a sense of unease, almost a little nostalgia, 
when we were watching this film about this great project that Americans 
came together from all over the country to build. We all know we used 
to do great things here and built great things. Let me give a few 
examples.
  In Alaska is what is called the Alcan Highway, the Alaska-Canada 
Highway, through some of the world's most rugged terrain, 1,700 miles, 
built in under 1 year. We built the Empire State Building in 410 days. 
We built the Pentagon in 16 months, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate 
Highway System, putting a man on the Moon--I could go on and on and on. 
When we look at the history of this country, it is a history

[[Page 17008]]

of getting big things done, and it is not just getting big things done. 
These projects were a symbol of American pride, of American greatness, 
and they also created tens of thousands of jobs--great jobs, middle-
class jobs, which gave workers a sense that what they were doing was 
very important in their daily lives and very important to their 
country.
  In Alaska still, when you talk to someone who worked on TAPS, who 
constructed this--for the country--they talk about it in terms of 
pride, in terms of what they were doing for their State but also what 
they were doing for America and how everybody came together to build 
this.
  Here is a sad fact: These kind of projects are not being built today. 
Instead, we have become a redtape Nation. Instead of symbols of 
technological wonder, national pride, and American ingenuity, we now 
hear story after story--and we have all heard them in the Senate--of 
delay and discord and disappointment, all of which symbolizes a country 
that can't get things done. The main culprit--the main culprit--is 
right here: Washington, DC, the ``Capital of Dysfunction.'' Whether it 
is the Keystone Pipeline, transmission lines in California or bridges 
or highways or runways across the country, killing crucial development 
in infrastructure projects through permitting and regulatory delay and 
Federal agency overreach with new rules upon new rules--and all they do 
is stop development--this certainly has been a hallmark of the Obama 
administration. The WOTUS rule--the EPA's waters of the United States 
rule--is just the latest manifestation of this. As we know, this is 
happening all over the country.
  Frequently, because of the political risks, the President and members 
of his administration, like Gina McCarthy, will not openly oppose 
economic development projects. Instead, they will wrap them in redtape 
until they delay them to death. Let me give some examples.
  In 2008, Shell acquired leases in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of 
Alaska for over $2 billion. That is a company going to the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government is saying: We want to lease this 
land to you. A company says: We will give you billions in return--the 
Federal Government; that money has already been spent, the billions--to 
develop natural resources. Of course, this was big news in Alaska. New 
production of oil would have filled up three-quarters of TAPS, which I 
talked about earlier. It would have created jobs, some estimates are in 
the tens of thousands of jobs, direct and indirect jobs, and provided 
much needed State and local revenue and energy security for our 
country.
  So what happened? Remember, the Federal Government is inviting a 
private sector company to do this. It didn't take long for this project 
to run into a maddening array of often conflicting and confusing 
permitting challenges, drilling moratoriums, new regulations, 
environmental lawsuits, permitting confusions, that year after year 
kept the drill bit above the ground.
  Now, jump to 2015. What had once been a very robust exploration 
program has resulted in what happened this summer: The permission, 
finally, to drill one exploration well off the coast of Alaska where 
hundreds of wells have already been drilled safely. We have been doing 
this safely in Alaska for decades.
  Let me sum it up. It took 7 years, $7 billion, to get permission to 
drill one exploration well in 100 feet of water; 7 years, $7 billion, 
to finally get the Federal Government's permission to drill one single 
exploration well in 100 feet of water. No company in the world can 
endure that. This was a project that was meant to be delayed, delayed, 
delayed until it was killed.
  Some of my colleagues have been celebrating this--celebrating this. I 
think that is sad because what they are really celebrating is the loss 
of very good jobs for Americans throughout the country. In many ways 
they are celebrating what is a symbol of America's decline.
  These resources in the Arctic are going to be developed one way or 
the other, and it is either going to be by countries like us who have 
the highest, most responsible standards on the environment or countries 
like Russia and China who don't. So the Russians and Chinese are now 
going to be in charge. They are going to be producing the energy, they 
are going to be getting the jobs, and they are not going to care at all 
about the environment. So instead of a win-win-win for the United 
States, this is a lose-lose-lose. Yet we have Members of this body 
celebrating this. Again, this is not a problem confined to my State or 
energy programs in terms of the delay, delay, delay. Let me provide a 
few examples.
  We had a recent Senate commerce committee hearing on aviation 
infrastructure. Everybody thinks aviation infrastructure is important. 
I certainly do. The manager of the Seattle airport was testifying. As 
part of his role as CEO of the American Association of Airport 
Executives, he talked about how it took almost 4 years to build the 
Seattle airport's new runway. It seems like a fair amount of time. 
Maybe a construction project like that takes a fair amount of time. I 
had a question for him, which I didn't know the answer to. I asked him: 
How long did it take to get the Federal permits, to go through the 
Federal permitting system to build this additional runway at the 
Seattle airport?
  His answer: 15 years--15 years to get the Federal permits to build a 
runway. You could have heard--well, you did hear the whole committee, 
the whole audience. They gasped. Then he said: They built the Great 
Pyramids of Egypt faster than that.
  This is what is going on in our country, and this town is to blame. 
It is happening all over the country. Americans need to know this. It 
only took 9 years to permit a desalinization plan, which would provide 
much needed fresh water to drought-stricken California. Simply razing a 
bridge in New York--not building a new bridge, razing one--took 5 years 
and 20,000 pages of Federal permitting requirements.
  The average time it now takes in America to get Federal approval for 
a major highway project is more than 6 years--again, not to build a 
highway but to get the Federal permission. It took almost 20 years, if 
you include the litigation, to get Federal permission to build a single 
gold mine in Alaska--20 years. We had to take that all the way to the 
U.S. Supreme Court because the Federal Government was not supporting 
us. Now the Kensington mine employs over 300 people at an average wage 
of $100,000 per person. Those are great jobs. We have a Federal 
Government that wants to delay, delay, delay.
  Let's talk about the Keystone Pipeline. We had a debate here--7 years 
and counting to build a pipeline in terms of the Federal permits. Who 
is hurt by this? Our friends on the other side talk a lot about the 
companies and everything--TransCanada. The people who are hurt by this 
are American families, middle-class workers, union members.
  One of the most surprising things I saw as a freshman this year when 
we were debating the override of the Keystone Pipeline--the State 
Department had predicted this would create as many as 30,000 jobs. 
These are good jobs--construction jobs, real jobs, real Americans 
working to build something important. I was presiding in the Chair like 
you, Mr. President, and some of the Members on the other side of the 
aisle started arguing that these aren't real jobs because they are 
temporary, that this isn't going to create 30,000 jobs because they are 
temporary jobs. I about fell out of my chair. Construction jobs aren't 
real jobs? Since when is that the case?
  According to the President's own Small Business Administration, the 
regulatory costs on small businesses in the United States are close to 
$2 trillion per year. That is $15,000 per family. The bottom line is, 
we know we can do better. We have to do better if we want to grow this 
country and create jobs.
  I believe there is a silver lining. I believe things have gotten so 
bad that this delay is happening everywhere on projects that matter to 
us as a nation. Projects that are so weighted down under redtape are 
making Americans, regardless of party, start to take note.

[[Page 17009]]

I have seen a silver lining here. Both Democrats and Republicans are 
starting to demand change. They are demanding bold and serious 
regulatory reform.
  I have had conversations with Members of both sides of the aisle here 
about how important this is for our economy, how important it is for 
jobs. That is why this debate today on the waters of the United States 
is so important.
  Unfortunately, we didn't get the number of bills. We did have a 
pretty strong bipartisan group. I think we would have gotten to 59--1 
vote short to move forward. It is unfortunate that the other side 
couldn't see the merits of this. But this rule will not help grow our 
economy. This rule will continue to stifle growth. This rule will 
certainly continue to kill jobs. It takes what we all want--certainly, 
the whole idea of protecting our water, clean water. In my State of 
Alaska we have the cleanest water of any State in the country. We win 
awards every year for our clean, pristine water. It is not because the 
EPA is making that happen; it is because Alaskans are making that 
happen. But it takes the Clean Water Act and somehow, through a rule 
that the EPA itself has devised, it gives the EPA the power to regulate 
not major rivers but water in our backyards, literally.
  Almost certainly this rule doesn't comport with Federal law. We have 
now had two courts say that. There is a stay on it nationally. The 
Sixth Circuit has put a stay on this rule. Over 30 States have sued to 
stop this rule--a bipartisan coalition of States--because it is almost 
certainly not legal.
  I asked Administrator McCarthy about the legal opinion, the legal 
basis they had for this rule. I have never gotten an answer from the 
EPA Administrator. I am not sure they even care. In the last two 
Supreme Court terms, the EPA has lost two big cases in the U.S. Supreme 
Court. They have lost the Sixth Circuit case for now. Unfortunately, we 
had the Administrator of the EPA on TV a few months ago, on the eve of 
this Supreme Court case--EPA vs. Michigan. When asked if she was going 
to win the case, she said: We think we are going to win, but ultimately 
it doesn't really matter because the companies have already had to 
comply with hundreds of millions of dollars. Think about that. Think 
about what she said.
  This rule is going to have a huge, profound impact on my State. 
Alaska has more waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act 
than any other State in the country. Over 50 percent of America's 
wetlands are located in Alaska.
  I held multiple field hearings as a chairman of the subcommittee on 
fisheries, water, and wildlife on the waters of the United States rule. 
It is clear to me that Alaskans of vastly different backgrounds, 
ideologies, and different parts of the State are opposed to this rule. 
One group in my State said the rule would ``straitjacket any 
development.'' Another said that it would have negative impacts on 
``virtually any economic development project'' in Alaska.
  One project we are very focused on in Alaska--we are having a special 
session right now in our State legislature--is the Alaska LNG Project, 
a very large-scale LNG project that, like TAPS, will be great for the 
country and create thousands of jobs and energy security for Americans 
and our allies. This rule, if left in its present form, will very 
negatively impact the cost and timeline of that project.
  Simply put, the waters of the United States is one of the largest 
land grabs in history, and it is an example of the kind of challenges 
we need to address here to get our economy moving again, to create good 
jobs for Americans. It is why this debate we are having is so 
important.
  These are problems we can fix. We know we can fix them. Americans 
sent us here to fix these problems, and we need to start by stopping 
rules like the waters of the United States that undermine our country's 
future and the jobs that we need throughout this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I see a number of Senators on the 
floor. I don't know if there is an order at this point that has been 
established. What is our manner of proceeding? Senator Isakson is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair recognize Senator 
Whitehouse from Rhode Island, followed by Senator Isakson, and then 
Senator Daines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Before that matter is settled, reserving the right to 
object, I will be speaking for about 15 minutes. If one of you is going 
to be quicker than that, particularly significantly quicker--not 14 
minutes--I would be happy to yield and let somebody go first.
  Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator from Montana is going to preside at 6:30 
p.m., so I think he is the one who will need to go, and I will go after 
the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Why doesn't the Senator from Montana proceed with his 
remarks.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair 
recognize the Senator from Montana, Mr. Daines, followed by Senator 
Whitehouse, followed by Senator Isakson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, today the Senate came a few votes shy of 
passing legislation to protect our farmers, ranchers, and small 
business owners from major new costs and regulatory burdens. I 
appreciate the bipartisan support demonstrated today by four key Senate 
Democrats. I have to say, I am disappointed that others chose instead 
to put loyalty to President Obama before the concerns of the 
constituents, the concerns of those people they represent.
  Montanans know that this power grab has more to do with controlling 
Montanans' land-use decisions than ensuring access to clean water as 
the Clean Water Act intended. This is an ill-conceived rule that 
provides the EPA unprecedented power to regulate virtually any spot 
across Montana that is occasionally wet. This could have a devastating 
impact on Montana jobs, on Montana's natural resources and ag 
industries, and on Montanans' property rights.
  Don't just take my word for it. POLITICO recently described it as 
having the potential to ``give bureaucrats carte blanche to swoop in 
and penalize landowners every time a cow walks through a ditch.'' The 
EPA's own estimates show this rule will cost Americans between $158 
million and $465 million a year.
  The New York Times describes how harrowing this situation is for 
Montana farmers: ``Farmers fear that the rule could impose major new 
costs and burdens, requiring them to pay fees for environmental 
assessments and obtain permits just to till the soil near gullies, 
ditches, or dry streambeds where water flows only when it rains.''
  In Montana, this rule has received a severe rebuke from our farmers, 
our ranchers, and our small businesses who simply can't afford this 
overreach. The Montana chamber president and CEO, Webb Brown, said:

       If this rule stands, there will be tremendous cost to our 
     states, our economies, and our employers, and their 
     employees' families. Under this unprecedented extension of 
     federal power, land and water use decisions will be made in 
     Washington, D.C., far from the affected local communities.

  Here is what Gene Curry of Valier, MT, from the Montana Stockgrowers 
Association says: ``This rule is an unwise and unwarranted expansion of 
EPA's regulatory authority over Montana's waters, and would have a 
significant detrimental impact on Montana's ranchers.''
  Listen to Charlie Bumgarner, president of the Montana Grain Growers. 
I met with Charlie a week ago in Montana. Charlie says this: ``If 
implemented, the final WOTUS rule would have a devastating impact on 
grain growers across the state.''
  Listen to Dustin Stewart with the Montana Homebuilders Association. I

[[Page 17010]]

grew up in the home building industry. My dad is a home builder. Here 
is what Dustin had to say: ``The EPA's waters of the U.S. regulation is 
an incurably flawed rule. . . .''
  Dave Galt, the executive director of the Montana Petroleum 
Association, said:

       The EPA's new water rule is an unnecessary expansion of 
     jurisdiction for the Federal Government. The EPA's rule will 
     negatively impact all land-use industries including 
     agriculture and energy production.

  Yet, despite this broad opposition, President Obama is moving forward 
with yet another out-of-touch Washington, DC, regulation. But already 
two Federal courts have issued a stay on this misguided rule, 
demonstrating the questionable legal ground this regulation stands on. 
This is a rule issued by the same Federal Agency that has continued to 
perpetuate a war on American energy. In fact, earlier this year we saw 
the Supreme Court issue a severe rebuke of the EPA's mercury and air 
toxic standards which would have a direct and lasting impact on our 
economy in Montana. This MATS rule, just like WOTUS, is just one of the 
new, burdensome regulations cooked up by the Obama administration and 
has the potential to eliminate good-paying jobs and devastate the 
livelihoods of hard-working Montana families and hard-working American 
families.
  Throughout my home State of Montana, we have tremendous opportunities 
to develop our State's natural resources and create new jobs, and that 
is a good thing. Rather than hitting pause on our energy production, we 
need to encourage it. But the Obama administration is doing exactly the 
opposite.
  President Obama's full assault on American energy independence has 
most recently resulted in TransCanada's decision to suspend its 
application to build the commonsense Keystone XL Pipeline, which, by 
the way, first enters Montana from Canada. This pipeline would have 
created new opportunities for good-paying jobs, helped advance American 
energy independence, and lowered American energy prices.
  Well, the suspension on Keystone is bad news, but it is not the end 
of the line. We are going to keep fighting for this job-creating 
project that has the overwhelming bipartisan approval of Congress as 
well as the support of the American people because America can and 
America should power the world. But the Obama administration's 
relentless attacks on affordable energy and good-paying union jobs, as 
well as tribal jobs, through this so-called Clean Power Plan continue 
to hinder innovation. Under the final so-called Clean Power Plan, the 
Colstrip powerplant in Montana will likely be shuttered, putting 
thousands of jobs at risk.
  Our farmers, ranchers, and local business owners should be empowered 
to drive local land use decisions, not a bunch of Washington, DC, 
bureaucrats who can't even find Montana on a map. We can only do it if 
the Obama administration steps back from its extreme overreach and 
allows American innovation to thrive once again.
  I look forward to casting my vote tomorrow to permanently stop this 
misguided waters of the United States rule. It is time to ditch this 
rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                            Clean Power Plan

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I guess in the order proceeding here, 
I am here to bring the opposing views. Every week we are here, I remind 
this body of the damage carbon pollution is doing to our atmosphere and 
to our oceans. I have traveled to Senator Isakson's State to see what 
the University of Georgia is measuring off of Sapelo Island, and I hope 
to have the chance to go west to continue this.
  We have to wake up to climate change, and we have to move toward a 
clean-energy economy and the jobs and innovation that support it. Clear 
measurements exist of the harm that is already happening: climbing sea 
levels, we measure; climbing global temperatures, we measure; 
acidifying oceans, we measure.
  Virtually every respected scientific and academic institution agrees 
that climate change is happening and that human activities--
specifically carbon emissions--are driving it. Carbon pollution is 
affecting our economy, it is affecting agriculture and wildfires, and 
it is affecting storms and insurance costs.
  There are so many people--doctors and health professionals, military 
and security leaders, insurance and reinsurance industry folks, our 
major utilities, American corporations, and our faith leaders all agree 
that climate change is a serious challenge and an important priority. 
Yet here, despite the growing chorus around the country calling for 
climate action, we hear congressional Republicans, such as the majority 
leader, claim they are here to stand up for our people by blocking the 
President's Clean Power Plan.
  As carbon pollution piles up in the atmosphere, who are they standing 
up for? Certainly not the American people. Eighty-three percent of 
Americans, including 6 in 10 Republicans, want action to reduce carbon 
emissions. The Clean Power Plan delivers.
  For the first time, we have a national plan to reduce carbon 
pollution from the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions, which is 
powerplants. The 50 dirtiest coal plants in America together emit more 
carbon pollution than all of South Korea and more than all of Canada. 
Are we going to do nothing about that?
  Too often we hear on the Republican side folks who trumpet these 
industry-backed, one-sided reports that point only to the cost of 
action. They don't even measure or consider the cost of inaction. If 
you were an accountant and did the books that way, you would go to 
jail. Well, if you look at both sides of the ledger, the EPA shows that 
the projected health benefits of the Clean Power Plan will avoid 
300,000 missed work and school days, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma 
attacks, and 3,600 premature deaths every year. Every dollar invested 
through the Clean Power Plan will keep up to $4 in American families' 
pockets. The savings are also passed on to electricity consumers, with 
the average American family projected to save almost $85 per year on 
their electric bill by 2030.
  I am from New England. We have the Regional Greenhouse Gas 
Initiative, RGGI, and it is proving that States grow their economies at 
the same time that they cut emissions. Putting a price on carbon and 
plowing that money back into clean energy products is saving us 
billions of dollars and helping to reduce carbon pollution.
  The EPA put the States in the driver's seat to come up with plans 
that suit them. An analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists 
shows that ``31 States are already on track to be more than halfway 
toward meeting their 2022 Clean Power Plan benchmarks.'' These States 
include both cap-and-trade States, such as California and the Northeast 
RGGI States, and coal-heavy States, such as Ohio and Kentucky.
  ``We can meet it,'' says Kentucky energy and environment secretary 
Leonard Peters about the plan. ``We can meet it.'' In fact, Dr. Peters 
praised the EPA for working with States like Kentucky to build this 
rule. ``The outreach they've done, I think, is incredible,'' he said. 
The EPA had an ``open door policy. You could call them, talk to them, 
meet with them.''
  The Kentucky experience was echoed around the country, as EPA listens 
closely to hundreds of concerns, holds hundreds of public meetings, and 
the final rule includes significant adjustments to accommodate 
individual State's concerns.
  Even with all of this, the majority leader, the senior Senator from 
Kentucky, will brook no serious conversation about climate change. We 
just never have that come up as a subject. The Republican leader, in a 
modern, massive resistance effort, wrote to all 50 Governors urging 
defiance of Federal regulation, calling the regulations ``extremely 
burdensome and costly.'' That might have been a more credible 
allegation about the regulations if he had not reached it months before 
the regulations were even finalized.
  The Clean Power Plan, says the majority leader, is the latest battle 
in a great ``War on Coal.'' He says, ``[W]e

[[Page 17011]]

have a depression in central Appalachia created because of the 
President's zeal to have an impact worldwide on the issue of climate.'' 
It seems that the head of one of his region's biggest electric 
utilities doesn't agree. Appalachian Power president and CEO Charles 
Patton told a meeting of energy executives last week that coal can no 
longer compete against cheaper alternatives such as natural gas and 
wind power. Coal, he said, will continue to decline with or without the 
Clean Power Plan. It has nothing to do with the President. ``If we 
believe we can just change administrations and this issue is going to 
go away,'' Patton said, ``we're making a terrible mistake.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article titled ``Coal 
not coming back, Appalachian Power president says'' and editorial 
titled ``Reality check on coal, future'' be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  It says:

       With or without the Clean Power Plan, the economics of 
     alternatives to fossil-based fuels are making end roads in 
     the utility plan, companies are making decisions today where 
     they are moving away from coal-fired generation. The debate 
     largely at this time has been lost.

  Mr. Patton is not alone. In September, financial giant Goldman Sachs 
released several bleak reports on the future of the global coal market. 
The latest report was in September, where they drew the conclusion that 
``[t]he industry does not require a new investment given the ability of 
existing assets to satisfy flat demand, so prices will remain under 
pressure as the deflationary cycle continues.'' In plain English, 
market forces are driving coal's decline. I seriously doubt that any 
colleague would think Goldman Sachs is a bunch of liberal greenies who 
launched a war on coal. This is their clear economic thought.
  Since the clean power rule was finalized in August, the massive 
resistance the majority leader sought has not ensued.
  Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear has so far not heeded the majority 
leader's call to rebel.
  Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, the first to publicly pledge to resist 
the President's plan, recently hinted that Oklahoma would submit a 
compliance plan after all.
  Indeed, even while West Virginia leads the multistate lawsuit against 
EPA, Governor Earl Tomblin announced last week that his administration 
will begin working on a compliance plan. In the heart of coal country, 
in Charleston, WV, the newspaper,
Gazette-Mail, praised the Governor's move, writing on its editorial 
page:

       It is the right thing to do--both to decrease emissions 
     that contribute to human-caused climate change--

  Here is a newspaper in the heart of coal country conceding that 
emissions contribute to human-caused climate change, and I don't know 
why we can't get over that in the Senate--

     and as the governor says, to make sure West Virginia's 
     interests are best represented in how the plan is carried 
     out.

  They described Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell's urge to rebel 
against the rule as petulant and foolish. That is from the heart of 
coal country.
  The coal industry, like an aging ship at sea, is taking on water. 
Between the costs of old, dirty powerplants and the competitive 
advantage of cheaper natural gas, coal is struggling to stay afloat. As 
Mr. Patton from Appalachian Power pointed out, those circumstances have 
nothing to do with whoever is sitting in the Oval office.
  For States that have relied on coal for generations, the Clean Power 
Plan is actually a lifeboat. It is a chance to kick-start new 
industries and innovative technologies and to choose the path forward 
that is best for your State and your citizens. It is a way off a 
sinking ship.
  Recognizing the costs of carbon pollution is another lifeboat. I know 
this sounds strange to my colleagues, but please bear with me. You 
can't build the carbon capture plants that could keep coal plants 
operating if they are free to pollute. There is no economic value to a 
carbon capture plant if it is free to pollute. The truculent insistence 
on this market failure by Big Coal is ironically coal's own undoing. 
Yet congressional Republicans won't engage. They waste time with the 
useless Gingrich-era Congressional Review Act efforts to block carbon 
pollution controls on powerplants--controls that Americans 
overwhelmingly support.
  Beyond that, our Republican friends simply have no plan--nothing. 
There is no plan B to the President's Clean Power Plan. If you have 
something else, please bring it forward. We can debate which is better, 
but you can't just pretend this isn't a problem. They have no plan to 
deal with climate change, no plan to help coal-reliant communities find 
safe passage to a more sustainable economic future.
  I ask my colleagues to please read what the CEO of Appalachian Power 
said. Please take it to heart. Please read the Charleston Gazette-Mail 
editorial. Please engage with us while we can still do some good 
because when the market completely collapses, when there is nothing 
left to do, when coal is priced out by solar and wind and natural gas 
and other fuels, then it is too late to come back and say: Now we need 
help. When the market has acted and someone suffers as a result, they 
don't get any sympathy in this building.
  Now is the time when people who want to make this a smooth transition 
for coal economies need to come forward in the interests of their own 
people, in the interests of their own miners who need their pensions 
filled and fixed, in the interests of communities that need 
transitions, in the interests of their economy.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his patience.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the Charleston Gazette-Mail,
                             Oct. 27, 2015]

         Coal Not Coming Back, Appalachian Power President Says

                           (By David Gutman)

       Roanoke.--Coal consumption is not likely to increase, 
     regardless of whether new federal regulations on power plants 
     go into effect, and, from coal's perspective, the national 
     debate on coal and climate change has largely been lost, the 
     president of West Virginia's largest electric utility told a 
     roomful of energy executives Tuesday.
       The Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's proposal 
     to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, would 
     cut coal consumption--but even if the regulations are 
     blocked, coal consumption will not increase, Appalachian 
     Power President Charles Patton said at the state Energy 
     Summit at the Stonewall Resort.
       ``You just can't go with new coal [plants] at this point in 
     time,'' Patton said. ``It is just not economically feasible 
     to do so.''
       Patton acknowledged that entire communities, particularly 
     across Southern West Virginia, are being decimated by coal's 
     decline. However, he laid out a series of stark economic 
     realities.
       By 2026, Patton said, Appalachian Power expects its use of 
     coal power to be down 26 percent, with or without the Clean 
     Power Plan.
       That's because of cheaper alternatives and already-imposed 
     environmental regulations that make coal uncompetitive, 
     Patton said.
       The cost of natural gas electricity, including construction 
     of power plants and infrastructure, is about $73 per megawatt 
     hour, Patton said. For a conventional coal plant, it's $95 
     per megawatt hour.
       Even wind power, which is less dependable than coal, is 
     still significantly cheaper, at $73 per megawatt hour, when a 
     longstanding tax credit for wind energy production is 
     factored in.
       An advanced coal power plant, with carbon capture and 
     storage to lower emissions, costs nearly twice as much, at 
     $144 per megawatt hour, Patton said.
       ``With or without the Clean Power Plan, the economics of 
     alternatives to fossil-based fuels are making inroads in the 
     utility plan,'' Patton said. ``Companies are making decisions 
     today where they are moving away from coal-fired 
     generation.''
       What's more, the debate over the ``war on coal,'' which 
     sucks up so much of the political air in West Virginia, has 
     largely been settled in other states, Patton said
       He said 72 percent of Americans believe the earth is 
     getting warmer and that man-made causes are partly 
     attributable. Nearly two-thirds of Americans favor stricter 
     emissions limits on greenhouse gases, Patton said, with even 
     larger majorities among young people.
       ``Americans believe there is a problem, and while we in 
     West Virginia believe that's ludicrous and we have our view 
     on coal, it's really important to understand, if you're not 
     in

[[Page 17012]]

     a coal-producing state, your affinity for coal is not 
     there,'' Patton said. ``The debate largely, at this point in 
     time, has been lost.''
       Patton reminded the audience that the closest the United 
     States ever came to a carbon tax was the cap-and-trade bill 
     pushed by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John McCain. ``I don't see 
     John McCain as a flaming liberal,'' Patton said.
       He said he opposes the Clean Power Plan and said West 
     Virginia should continue its lawsuit to block it. However, 
     Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin said Tuesday that West Virginia will 
     submit a plan to comply with the Clean Power Plan--despite 
     Republican calls to boycott it--while those lawsuits play 
     out.
       Patton said the federal regulations, intended to help stave 
     off the worst effects of climate change, would cause a 
     reduction in coal use, but even defeating the regulations 
     won't make the push to address climate change disappear.
       He urged the crowd to ``think globally'' and work to 
     advance cleaner-burning coal technologies.
       ``If we believe that we can just change administrations and 
     this issue is going to go away,'' Patton said, ``we're making 
     a terrible mistake.''
                                  ____


                   [From the Charleston Gazette-Mail,
                             Oct. 30, 2015]

            Gazette Editorial: Reality Check on Coal, Future

       To his credit, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin says West Virginia 
     will participate in the federal Clean Power Plan by 
     submitting its own proposal for cutting greenhouse gas 
     emissions. He may be doing it with an air of resignation and 
     distaste, but then again, no one likes the fact that West 
     Virginians are struggling as market forces undercut an 
     industry that has employed generations of people.
       It is the right thing to do--both to decrease emissions 
     that contribute to human-caused climate change, and as the 
     governor says, to make sure West Virginia's interests are 
     best represented in how the plan is carried out. States that 
     choose not to come up with their own plan, as Kentucky's Sen. 
     Mitch McConnell has petulantly and foolishly urged, will be 
     handed one by the federal government. Gov. Tomblin is right. 
     Better to have a say in how drastic changes will play out in 
     your own state.
       Arguments against trying to head off the worst effects of 
     climate change are hollow. Some elected officials (and their 
     fossil fuel industry promoters) seem to think that because 
     China is a big polluter, for example, the United States 
     should just shrug and give up. That is no way to be a world 
     leader. That is no way to stimulate new technological 
     developments and industries.
       Indeed, the Clean Power Plan is part of the reason why 
     China has committed to limiting its own carbon dioxide 
     emissions. Where the United States goes, the world follows.
       The War on Coal public relations campaign has been a 
     smashing success, convincing the most vulnerable working 
     people and retirees that if only they could get the nasty 
     federal government off their backs, all would right itself to 
     some vague and misty perfection, circa 1955. West Virginians, 
     in turn, convince their elected leaders to defend the status 
     quo at all costs.
       Senators Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito are steady on 
     the job, clinging to the past, signing on to a resolution 
     that seeks to block the Clean Power Plan.
       Of course, defeating efforts to further clean up the air 
     locally won't bring coal back. The people pushing the 
     campaign know it. The rest of the country knows it.
       Appalachian Power CEO Charles Patton, who buys more coal 
     than anyone, knows it. Also speaking at the state Energy 
     Summit at the Stonewall Resort this week, he reiterated a 
     message he has shared before: Coal isn't coming back, even 
     without the Clean Power Plan, because of price. Coal is more 
     expensive than wind or natural gas, partly because of 
     existing environmental regulations, partly because natural 
     gas is so cheap.
       The goal now is to manage this change, to help people into 
     new livelihoods and meaningful work, to minimize the 
     predictable suffering of families and communities. West 
     Virginia has wasted enough time.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, and I always enjoy his 
speeches, whether I am on the floor or watching him back in my office. 
He is an articulate spokesman for what he believes, which is one of the 
things that make this Senate an important body. While from time to time 
I differ in terms of carbon emissions because of nuclear energy, that 
is part of the solution to the problems of the future, and I will speak 
about that on another day.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would be glad to speak with the 
Senator from Georgia about that because he may find we agree more than 
we disagree.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I think we probably would, and that is why I brought it 
up, and I look forward to that.
  We are hear to talk about the rule for the waters of the United 
States undertaken by the EPA.
  When I started working this afternoon and preparing myself for what I 
would say to try to make my point and express myself, I listened at 3 
p.m. to the speech by Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska. Today he made 
his maiden speech on the floor of the Senate. Because I had an 
important appointment to get to, I do know exactly how long he spoke. 
He spoke for 27 minutes--because that is how late I was for my 
appointment. But his speech was so good and so important and it 
affected so much this rule of the waters of the United States that I 
wanted to include it in my remarks tonight.
  What Senator Sasse said very simply is this: In his 1 year in the 
U.S. Senate, observing the Senate and how it operates, how we all 
operate, he went back to his constituents and spoke to them. One thing 
he talked about is how we are moving more and more toward the 
government of an executive branch and a judicial branch and moving away 
from the legislative branch. We have administrations like the current 
administration which is trying to enforce the law through 
administrative rules and executive orders, not through legislation. He 
didn't just point out that being a Democratic situation, it is 
Republican as well.
  If we look over the last 35 years, there has been a growth in the 
number of edicts that have come down regulatory-wise rather than 
legislatively. It is important for us to return the legislative branch 
of government to its appropriate place so we have a balance between 
legislative, executive, and judicial.
  I use the waters of the U.S.A. rule to explain to my colleagues why 
that is so important. This is a horrible rule. It is a rule that is 
going to be litigated in court for the next 30 to 40 years. Why? 
Because the clean water bill, which is its predecessor, has been 
litigated for 30 or 40 years, and eventually we have come to good water 
policies--not because that is where we started, it is because that is 
where we ended.
  I wish to take a few experiences that I had working on the Clean 
Water Act in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to make the point of why the 
waters of the United States bill is so dangerous.
  The Clean Water Act passed with almost unanimous support. There was 
some opposition. Almost everybody said: I can't be against clean water; 
everybody wants clean water. But then there is the word ``promulgate.'' 
We passed a law that expressed the intent of Congress, and then we said 
it is up to the agencies responsible for promulgating the laws, the 
rules, and regulations necessary to carry out the intent of the law. 
Therein lies the problem because agencies like the EPA start 
promulgating rules which take the force and effect of the law, which 
cause the wrong thing to happen.
  Let me tell my colleagues what is going to happen with the waters of 
the U.S.A. if it becomes a rule. We are going to give the power to the 
EPA that we have given under eminent domain to cities and counties and 
States in the United States. Eminent domain is the way the government 
was allowed under the Constitution to take property but reimburse the 
owner of the property for the damage done by the government in the 
taking for road rights-of-way, sewer lines, water projects, and things 
of that nature. This is a grant for eminent domain to an agency without 
any requirement to compensate the person from whom they have taken the 
land or restricted the use of the land.
  The Presiding Officer mentioned that his father and family were in 
the homebuilding industry. I was in the homebuilding industry too and 
the land development industry. What we do is we add value to the land. 
We add value to its resources. We improve its drainage and use of 
water. But if we have a regulatory agency that makes it too expensive 
to develop the land, we go out of business and the community goes out 
of business because there is no new housing. The effect of the rule is 
it shuts down the economy, growth, and opportunity; it doesn't add to 
it.
  So it is very important to understand that when somebody says ``We 
are

[[Page 17013]]

going to pass a waters of the U.S.A. rule that is going to improve the 
quality of our water, and we are going to do so by delegating to the 
EPA--an unelected appointment agency--the power to tell you what you 
have to do,'' they are in effect saying that they are giving the power 
of eminent domain to the EPA without a requirement that you as a 
landowner be compensated.
  The reason America is different from every other country on the face 
of this Earth is because we are a nation of individual landowners. We 
own our country, and we are still good stewards of our land, and we 
appreciate that opportunity. In most countries around the world, people 
don't have the opportunity to own the land and have private ownership. 
They lease their little place in life and that is where they go. 
America is different, and that is what made us different. But if we are 
landowners and we come under a waters of the U.S.A. rule and the EPA 
provides edicts that have the force and effect of law without the 
requirement to be compensated by an unjust agency that is enforcing a 
rule or regulation, we are becoming nothing better than a European 
country or, worse than that, a country that no longer has the benefit 
of private ownership of land.
  So it is very important that we understand that the quality of water 
is important, protecting our water is important, but it is a balance, 
and it is a balance between the user, the landowner, and the 
government. What we need to do is come together to develop policies 
that are necessary to see to it that we have a good quality of water 
and we have good use of our water but not a dictatorial agency in the 
Federal Government given the total priority to control our land and its 
use.
  I love this country. I love the opportunity it has given to me and 
the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Senate, to take my life 
experiences and try to add to the quality of legislation we pass here. 
I hope we will pass the Ernst legislation and stop the growth of the 
waters of the U.S.A. rule and get everybody--all the users--to come to 
the table and talk about positive ways to protect the quality of our 
water and the use and the management of our water but not the 
confiscation of our property and the dictates of an agency rather than 
an elected body.
  We do not need America to become a dictatorial country. We need to 
continue to be a country of participation and negotiation, where 
everybody at the table has a stake and where in the end we work for the 
best interests of all, not just the interests of an agency or, worse 
than that, a central belief within that agency.
  This rule is a rule that is bad for farmers, developers, landowners, 
cities, counties, water authorities, wastewater authorities, sewer 
treatment plants, and anybody else who has water.
  I want to read what the EPA's coverage is in this bill. It says:

       The flawed rule of the EPA to regulate nearly all water 
     includes manmade water management systems, water that 
     infiltrates into the ground or moves over land, and any other 
     water the EPA decides has a significant nexus to downstream 
     water based on the use by animals, insects, birds, and on 
     water storage considerations.

  There is no other provision in there. It includes all water. It is 
the authority for EPA to regulate it.
  We have a farm bureau in Georgia that came up with the right slogan. 
They just simply said, after talking about the rule, after talking 
about waters in the U.S.A., there is only one thing we need to do: We 
need to ditch the rule.
  It is time tonight for the Senate to adopt the Ernst provision, ditch 
the rule, and go back to the table and pass laws that are partnership 
laws between landowners, land developers, the local communities, local 
city councils, local county commissions, the local States. Let's not be 
a nation that edicts from the top down, but let's have solutions from 
the bottom up that always protect land ownership and land distribution 
and never take control of the water out of the hands of the States and 
move it to Washington, DC, where there is no accountability.
  Last but not least, do not give the power of eminent domain--by that 
name or any other name--to the U.S. Government and take away the right 
to compensate because if you do, you become no better than a third-
world nation, and it would be no good for the United States of America.
  I see the majority leader has come to the floor, and I am anxious to 
hear his remarks because I know his name was invoked a few moments ago, 
so I will yield back my time. I am sure the majority leader would like 
to speak.

                          ____________________