[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17285-17293]
[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 PROTECTION AGENCY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 22, which the clerk will report.
  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. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HELLER. I will yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Nevada I be recognized, 
unless an intervening minority Member should come in, in which case 
that I be recognized after that minority Member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue that will 
impact every single one of my constituents and probably all of the 
constituents of my colleagues in this body; namely, the Environmental 
Protection Agency's and the Army Corps of Engineers' new definition for 
``navigable waters.''
  Also known as waters of the United States, this overreaching and 
burdensome regulation is bad for Nevada and frankly it is bad for the 
Nation. My home State of Nevada is one of the driest in the Nation, and 
the water of course is a very precious resource. The only thing more 
scarce than water in the Silver State is probably private property, and 
the implementation of this waters of the United States rule will only 
do more harm for both of these.
  Since coming to Congress, one of my primary goals has been to promote 
job-creating policies that grow Nevada's economy, and the key to 
promoting these types of policies is to cut redtape regulations handed 
down by Washington bureaucrats. Unfortunately, time and time again, 
this administration is bound and determined to issue overly burdensome 
regulations that damage the economy and stifle job creation. The latest 
edict from Washington bureaucrats is no different.
  After years of failed legislative attempts to change the scope of 
regulatory authority over water, this administration has overturned 
both congressional intent and multiple Supreme Court decisions to 
further overregulate hard-working Nevadans. I have long been an 
outspoken advocate and a cosponsor of Senator Barrasso's legislation, 
the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, that would make the EPA and 
the Army Corps of Engineers redo this rule and consider stakeholder 
input--something they completely ignored the last time around. 
Considering that nearly 87 percent of my home State is managed by the 
Federal Government--which I often refer to as our Federal landlords--it 
is easy to see why this rule is thought of by many back home as yet 
another Federal land grab.
  I have heard from many of my constituents who have shared with me 
their staunch opposition to this rule, like Marlow from Ruby Valley and 
Darryl from Yerington. They write about the rule that it ``creates 
confusion and risk by providing the Agencies with almost unlimited 
authority to regulate, at their discretion, any low spot where 
rainwater collects, including farm ditches, ephemeral drainages, 
agricultural ponds and isolated wetlands found in and near farms and 
ranching.''
  The EPA may tell us that farmers and ranchers are protected from this 
regulation by exemptions under the Clean Water Act. The problem with 
this so-called exemption is that if a landowner made any changes on 
their farmland or their ranch since 1977 that impacts any land or any 
water on their property, they do not qualify for an exemption. Think 
about it again. Since 1977, if a landowner made any changes on their 
ranch land or on their farm that impacts water or land, they don't 
qualify for this exemption. So under this new rule, almost everyone 
would be regulated.
  Ranching is the backbone of Nevada's rural economy. Implementation of 
this rule will devastate Nevada's landowners and businesses. Like 
Marlow and Darryl, I believe this rule needs to be redone with 
significant input from local stakeholders and in a way that will not 
impact the ability of Nevada ranchers to provide food for Americans.
  Unfortunately, the Senate was not even able to proceed to this 
measure and debate legislation to exert some much needed oversight over 
the EPA due to the left's circle-the-wagon mentality of the Obama 
agenda. Although I was sad to see this vote fail, today I am proud to 
stand in support of Senator Ernst's resolution of disapproval, which 
will send this regulation back to the administration and send a clear 
message that Congress doesn't accept overreaching regulations created 
by Washington bureaucrats.
  The fact is, the implementation of this rule has already been halted 
by the Federal courts. I strongly believe that at the end of the day, 
the courts will decide to overturn this onerous regulation. That is why 
I stand here today to urge my colleagues to support this resolution of 
disapproval. Instead of waiting years for the courts to decide, 
Congress needs to take immediate action to show this administration 
that we will not stand for any more regulations that kill jobs and 
stifle economic growth.
  Good stewardship of our natural resources is part of Nevada's 
character that makes it so unique. This is not about dirty water or a 
rollback of the Clean Water Act. This is about Federal regulations that 
severely limit land use, infringe on property rights, and diminish 
economic activity in Nevada and nationwide. This is about Federal 
regulatory overreach by an agency that is using the Clean Water Act as 
a means to greatly increase its authority. At a time when the American 
public is still waiting for answers on the Animas River spill in 
Colorado, I find it greatly disturbing that this Agency is using clean 
drinking water as an excuse to gain authority over all waters of the 
United States. Enough is enough with these power trips.
  Should we really trust the ``Environmental Pollution Agency'' with 
this?
  As a sportsman, I grew up understanding the importance of being a 
good steward of our environment. I support efforts that balance 
conservation and economic growth, and that is why I urge my colleagues 
to stand with me against this administration's heavyhanded mandates.
  Mr. President, thank you, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday 41 Senators refused to have a 
substantive debate on an issue that is critically important to all of 
our constituents--the scope of Federal authority under the Clean Water 
Act--and voted against a motion to proceed to Senator Barrasso's 
bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act, S. 1140.
  Later in the day I was extremely disappointed to learn that 11 of 
those 41 Senators agreed that the EPA's rule is flawed, but instead of 
doing their job to provide legislative clarity to the EPA on the 
regulation of our Nation's waters, they wrote a letter. In this letter 
they told the EPA that they have concerns with the rule, but instead of 
acting now they reserve the right to do their jobs simply at a later 
time.
  If only 3--only 3--of these 11 Senators who signed this letter would 
have

[[Page 17286]]

voted to proceed to the bill, we could have worked with them to resolve 
their concerns and ours about the WOTUS rule disapproval.
  As Senator Sasse so eloquently reminded us yesterday in his maiden 
speech, what are we here for if not to have a substantive debate on 
issues? No wonder the American people think Congress is not looking out 
for their interests.
  Instead of doing their jobs, 11 Senators asked the EPA to change the 
final rule through guidance. That can't happen. EPA can't do that. That 
would be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and I think 
most of us know that. These 11 Senators also asked the EPA to enforce 
the rule in a way that will protect people who are not regulated today. 
That also will not happen. The WOTUS rule is on the books. Even if the 
EPA doesn't bring enforcement action against someone, some activist, 
environmentalist community is going to file a lawsuit, and we know what 
the result of that would be.
  In the letter I am referring to, the 11 Democrats agreed that the EPA 
did not provide clarity in its final WOTUS rule to protect American 
landowners, but instead of voting to debate a bipartisan bill that 
would have forced EPA to provide that clarity and to offer perfecting 
amendments, if they wished to do so, they wrote a letter. I know I am 
sounding very critical, and in a minute I will tell my colleagues why, 
because this happens to be the No. 1 issue of the farmers and ranchers 
in my rural State of Oklahoma. It is a big deal.
  The EPA's entire rulemaking process, and now the lack of debate in 
the Senate, is an example of Washington at its worst. This is a long 
and sordid story that dates back to 2009. EPA wanted to be able to 
control isolated ponds, wetlands, and dry channels water only when it 
rains, but they were blocked because the Supreme Court said the Clean 
Water Act is based on the authority over navigable waters. I think 
everybody understands that the State has always had the authority, but 
certainly if they are navigable waters, I agree, the Federal Government 
should be involved.
  First, the EPA backed legislation--and this is the legislation I 
referred to yesterday by Senator Feingold, 5 years ago, and Congressman 
Oberstar in the House--to take the word ``navigable'' out. If we take 
the word ``navigable'' out, everything is then in the authority of the 
Federal Government.
  To support this legislation, EPA created a propaganda message that 
action was needed to protect drinking water. The EPA spread this 
propaganda, even though they know that all sources of drinking water 
are already regulated. That is already done. That is a done deal. It 
should have been done and it was done, but the American people were not 
fooled. The bills were so unpopular with the American people that even 
though Senator Feingold's party held the Senate, the White House, and 
the House--everything was on their side--the bill never reached the 
Senate floor and Congressman Oberstar did not even try to move his bill 
through the committee he chaired.
  So the American people held them accountable. Both of them, I might 
add, lost their elections for reelection to office in 2010. After that 
election, EPA changed its strategy. Even though in 2009 the EPA said 
they needed legislation to expand Federal control after Congress 
rejected their attempt to take the word ``navigable'' out of the clean 
Clean Water Act, they tried to do the same thing through regulation.
  This is exactly what this administration has been doing. Every time 
they try to pass something legislatively and they can't do it, they get 
a regulation. That is what they are doing. How many times did we vote 
on the global warming and the cap-and-trade bills, and each time it 
went down resoundingly in the Senate. Well, it happened over and over 
again. So what did they do? They said if we can't do it legislatively, 
we will do it through regulation.
  In this new regulation, EPA tried to dodge the Supreme Court rulings 
by pretending that all water has a connection to navigable water. EPA 
also cranked up its propaganda machine. On May 19, the New York Times 
said: ``In a campaign that tests the limits of federal lobbying law, 
the agency orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from 
Republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal 
environmental groups and a grass-roots organization aligned with 
President Obama.''
  That was in the New York Times. They created social media messages 
and asked people to send these EPA-directed messages of support back to 
EPA--a true echo chamber going back and forth.
  After soliciting comments using its propaganda machine, the EPA 
claimed that 90 percent of the comments supported the rule and that 
every comment is meaningful to the EPA. However, the Corps of Engineers 
told my committee--the committee that I chair, the Environment and 
Public Works Committee--that only 39 percent of unique comments 
supported the rule, and 60 percent were opposed.
  The difference is that EPA is counting each email address on a list 
as a separate meaningful comment. For example, EPA counts a list of 
nearly 70,000 email addresses sent in by Organizing for Action, 
President Obama's political campaign arm, as 70,000 comments. It is 
actually only one. Apparently the EPA considers an email address more 
meaningful than substantive comments submitted by States and by local 
governments, by farmers, ranchers, and property owners. The EPA has 
ignored the significant concerns raised by these groups, and they 
should not have.
  I am sure that every Member of this body has heard from someone 
comparable to Tom Buchanan in my State of Oklahoma. Tom Buchanan is the 
president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. He speaks for a lot of farmers 
and ranchers, and we are a rural State. He says of all the problems 
that farmers and ranchers have in Oklahoma, these issues are not found 
in the farm bill, and they are not in the ag bill. They are the 
overregulations of the EPA. He is talking about endangered species, 
where you can plow your fields and where you can't. But of all the 
regulations of the EPA, the most onerous are the water regulations 
because they will allow the Federal Government to have an army of 
bureaucrats crawling over every farm and every ranch, not just in my 
State of Oklahoma but throughout America.
  Two courts have already said it is illegal. It will be overturned. We 
don't have to stand for this. We don't have to endure years of 
confusion before the courts act. They are going to act, but it could 
take a long, long time. In the meantime they will go forward, and the 
overregulations will continue.
  We have only one way to stop the rule right now, and that is coming 
up. It is through the CRA offered by Senator Ernst. A lot of people 
don't know what a CRA is, but it forces responsibility on Members of 
the Senate. There are a lot of Senators who want overregulation; the 
liberal ones do. So they would rather go ahead and go home, and when 
people complain, they can say: Hey, it wasn't us who did that; it was 
an unelected bureaucracy that did that. A CRA will not let them get by 
with that.
  The President can veto it, which he will, and it will come back for a 
vote to override the veto, and we will know and our constituents 
throughout America will know just how their Senator is voting. Senator 
Ernst's CRA would do that. I certainly urge a ``yes'' vote, not just 
for me but for all my farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma.
  After vacating this rule, if any Senator wants to work with my 
committee on substantive issues around the scope of Federal authority 
under the Clean Water Act, I stand ready to work with them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in a 
quorum call before the 12 noon vote be charged equally against both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 17287]]


  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa who has 
led the effort this morning as we speak about the waters of the United 
States rule that would lead to a resolution of disapproval on this very 
wrong-headed rule.
  I also want to acknowledge the good work of my colleague from 
Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, who had the opportunity yesterday to discuss 
the devastating impact of the WOTUS rule, as we lovingly refer to it. 
It was a combined effort to address the concerns that so many of us 
have across the country about the waters of the United States rule that 
has stemmed from the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers.
  This WOTUS rule that so many of us speak to is not only an overreach, 
it is a significant overreach that will allow for a dramatic expansion 
of the Federal Government's ability to regulate our land and regulate 
our waters and will harm the people in the State of Alaska and other 
States across the Nation. They have said in no uncertain terms that 
this rule could have as damaging an impact on our State and our State's 
ability to engage in any level of development--this rule would have 
greater impact than most anything we have seen before.
  So I am here to urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the 
resolution of disapproval that we now have pending, which we will have 
an opportunity to vote on in just a little over an hour.
  I have had dozens of meetings--meetings with constituents, meetings 
with people across the country who have raised this as an issue. We 
have sent letters, and we have questioned the EPA Administrator about 
the impact of the rule.
  I had an opportunity to have a field hearing in Alaska earlier this 
year, joined by Senator Sullivan, focusing on those areas we would 
consider to be Federal overreach, those areas that hold our State back 
from any level of economic activity and development. Time after time, 
the concern was whether this waters of the United States--again, this 
expansive interpretation of the Clean Water Act literally designed by 
the EPA, a concern about how its negative impact on our State will be 
felt.
  In addition to many of the legislative efforts that are out there, as 
chairman of the Appropriations interior subcommittee, I included a 
provision within the Interior appropriations bill to halt the 
implementation of the waters of the United States rule. I am a 
cosponsor of the bill we tried to advance yesterday. Unfortunately, it 
was blocked. I am also a cosponsor of the disapproval resolution that 
is being offered by our colleague from Iowa.
  My position on this is pretty simple: The WOTUS rule cannot be 
allowed to stand. The agencies have to go back to the drawing board. I 
am not alone in this view. It is a highly controversial rule. It stands 
out among many of the rules we have seen finalized by this 
administration. Of the controversial ones that are out there, I would 
argue that if this is not in the top tier, if it is not the top, it is 
certainly No. 2.
  It is a rule that is controversial enough that it draws bipartisan 
opposition as well. We have a large majority, a bipartisan majority of 
the House that opposes it. When we look to how this has been addressed 
by the States, some 31 States, including the State of Alaska, have sued 
to block it. A wide range of local governments and business groups have 
done the same. Just last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 
issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the implementation of this 
rule.
  I welcome what the courts have done so far, but I do not think 
Congress should sit back on this and hope we get the right legal 
outcome. We should not just be sitting back because that right legal 
outcome may come. It may come in months, it may come years from now, or 
it may not be the right outcome. Our opinions here in the Congress are 
not based solely on what the courts say. We have to look to the reach, 
to the impact of this rule, and then determine whether it is 
appropriate. Again, my answer to this is pretty simple: It is no. It is 
just not appropriate.
  The agencies are claiming the WOTUS rule is somehow or other just a 
clarification. They have gone one step further and they renamed it. 
They are calling it the clean water rule because who out there is going 
to oppose clean water? Nobody opposes clean water. We all strive for 
cleaner water, cleaner air. This is something we all should be working 
to. But just changing the name on this rule does not make it so. In 
fact, this rule is really just muddying the waters. Excuse the pun, but 
that is what EPA is doing. They are creating confusion. They are 
certainly creating greater uncertainty. It opens the door to higher 
regulatory costs and delays for projects all over the country.
  There have been many colleagues who have come to the floor and talked 
about kind of the mechanics of the WOTUS rule. Unfortunately, they are 
pretty complicated. When you start talking about ``categorically 
jurisdictional waters,'' when you try to explain the ``significant 
nexus'' analysis, the only people in the room who are really captivated 
by what you are talking about are the lawyers who might be in a 
position to gain some benefit because they are working these cases. But 
most farmers in Iowa and most miners in Alaska are not thinking about 
what a categorically jurisdictional water is and whether there is a 
significant nexus from my little plaster mining operation to a body of 
water. That is not what people are thinking about.
  I want to use a little bit of my time this morning to speak to how, 
in the State of Alaska, people will be harmed by application of this 
rule.
  To understand the reach of the rule in the State, take a look at this 
map of the State of Alaska. It is so big, we cannot even fit it all on 
one floor chart because really we need to go all of the way out to the 
Aleutian Chain and we do not have all of the southeastern part of the 
State in it, but we have the bulk here. Alaska, plain and short, is 
covered in water. It is just wet. According to our State government, 
Alaska has more than 40 percent of the Nation's surface water 
resources. Think about that. Think about the entire United States of 
America, and then appreciate that in one State, in my State, we have 
more than 40 percent of the Nation's entire surface water resources. So 
we are talking over 3 million lakes, over 12,000 rivers. We have 
approximately 174 million acres of wetlands. There are more wetlands in 
the State of Alaska than in the entire rest of the country combined.
  So all you colleagues, all you folks in the 49 other States who are 
concerned about the impact of this rule, I don't mean to diminish your 
problems, but think about what this rule would do in Alaska.
  We have more wetlands in the State of Alaska than in all of the rest 
of the country combined. Out of 283 communities in the State, 215 of 
these communities are located within either 2 miles of the coast or a 
navigable waterway. We live on the water, even in the inland part of 
the state, where I was raised and went to high school--the lakes, the 
rivers, up in the north country here, where you have just a small lake. 
Out in the whole southwest of Alaska--when you fly over it, you look at 
it, and it is dotted with small lakes and bodies of water. Plainly 
said, it is wet in Alaska.
  Surprise--if it is not wet, it is frozen. Think about the permafrost 
we have there. How do you deal with the permafrost? How is that 
considered in this proposed rule, in this waters of the United States? 
If it is frozen, is it waters of the United States? Well, you know, we 
don't know because the rule is unclear, but we are going to go ahead 
and just assume that it is going to be covered.
  We have a map here where what you see is blue. The reason it is blue 
is because all of it is water.
  This is the National Hydrography Dataset, Streams, Rivers and Bodies 
for the State of Alaska, September 2015.
  EPA has produced maps of the waters and wetlands in each of our 50 
States.

[[Page 17288]]

Our colleagues in the House actually had to force the Agency to release 
these maps last year. Almost the full State of Alaska is shaded in. 
That is what the EPA wants to be able to regulate under this rule. So 
what exactly could that cover? What are we talking about?
  It could be out here in Bristol Bay, where it is all about fishing. 
It could be a new runway project there that would be subject to 
regulation or a seafood processing plant out there in Bristol Bay.
  Up here in the interior of Alaska, in Fairbanks, it could be a new 
neighborhood they want to accommodate to deal with the growing 
population there that would be subject to regulation.
  It could be a parcel of land awarded under the Native Land Claims 
Settlement Act that just so happens to be in a wetlands area or have a 
small river present. But the fact that it was a conveyance of land 
under the Native Claims Settlement Act does not get you beyond 
regulation through the EPA.
  It could be the new industrial park in Anchorage that wants to 
diversify, wants to help expand the economy there.
  It could be an energy project up on the North Slope that the Arctic 
Slope Regional Corporation wants to pursue. But, again, it is either 
wetlands or it is clearly permafrost up there.
  It could be Alaska's proposed gas line. We are hoping to run a gas 
line from the Slope all of the way down to tidewater in Valdez. This is 
a major project our State's legislature is working on. Right now they 
are in the midst of a special session. It is going to run across--if 
you want to talk about wetlands and rivers and areas that will be 
subject to this permitting requirement, it could be any of those. It 
could be many more.
  That brings us to the potential impact under the WOTUS rule. I am not 
certain that the agencies will try to stop every project in the State--
that is too much even for them--but I recognize that they could use 
this rule to stop any project that they want, whenever they want, and 
for as long as they may want. So maybe not every project will be 
affected, but any project could be targeted. Think about that. If you 
are trying to make an investment decision, if you are a business that 
is seeking to expand but you have that level of uncertainty because you 
don't know if you are going to be targeted, that is tough. It is tough 
to make these decisions.
  We know these agencies have cast an extremely wide net with this 
rule. We know from Keystone XL and from our experiences in Alaska that 
regulatory decisions are not always fair or impartial or even logical 
within this administration. We know that almost everything in Alaska is 
either near water, it is wetlands, or it is permafrost. You add it all 
up, folks, and almost every project in Alaska could suddenly be subject 
to Federal permitting under the Clean Water Act. That, in turn, means 
most projects in our State will end up costing more, taking longer, or 
being indefinitely delayed.
  I would remind friends that the cost of securing a section 404 permit 
can easily run $300,000 and take over 2 years to do. So you are adding 
cost and you are adding delay. The delay adds to further cost. Some 
developers just give up. They raise the white flag and they say: I am 
tired. I am frustrated. I just cannot run this regulatory gauntlet.
  They give up. All of this would be in addition to the significant 
regulatory burdens Alaska is already facing.
  One last example I will leave you with comes from Craig, AK, down 
here in the southeast. This is a small town of about 1,200 people. We 
have a local tribal organization that wants to construct a 16-unit 
affordable housing project. The Army Corps required a $46,000 
downpayment to a mitigation bank prior to permitting. Again, this is 
for a small project in a community of 1,200 people. It is a tribal 
organization trying to bring in some low-income housing units, and they 
are going to have to spend $46,000 just to get started. Think about 
what they could have done if they could have put those dollars toward 
that project. Imagine then--a town like Craig--when you scale this up 
to communities such as Anchorage and Fairbanks, what do those costs 
mean to you? There is just too much at stake.
  Again, I strongly oppose the WOTUS rule because of the uncertainty it 
will create, the delays it will deliver, the costs it will impose, 
because Alaska is the only State that has permafrost and we still have 
no idea whether or under what circumstances these areas will be 
regulated and, further, because this rule could dampen our efforts to 
begin new resource-extraction projects, which we depend upon for a 
majority of our State's budget.
  Finally, I oppose the WOTUS rule because it is yet another regulatory 
burden for Alaskans, for people all over the country. This is on top of 
all of the other regulations we have seen in our State and from the 
Interior Department's anti-energy decisions to EPA's quest for project 
veto authority before, during, and after the permitting process. It 
gets to a point where it is just too much. It is just too much, and 
this is where we must come together and stand to stop it.
  I thank my colleagues for their leadership and look forward to the 
opportunity to support the disapproval resolution that is pending 
before the body.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Michigan.


                               The Budget

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, just a week ago the American people were 
able to breathe a collective sigh of relief--and I think all of us did 
in this Chamber as well--as Republicans and Democrats in the House and 
Senate finally pulled back from what would have been a financial 
catastrophe. We had a potential default of our country's bills. There 
was a potential government shutdown, but that was averted, and we 
passed a budget with no time to spare. It was a good thing to do on a 
bipartisan basis, to be able to show that we could work together, 
develop a bipartisan budget.
  I believe it was 3 a.m. when we had the final vote on early Friday 
morning, but we put that in place and had some confidence at that 
moment that we were going to be moving forward with a comprehensive 
budget--a comprehensive appropriations process--that would allow us to 
say to the American people that we were addressing all of the needs 
they care about: security, growing the economy, making sure we are 
investing in middle-class families, strengthening our defense, and so 
on.
  Now, not even a week later, Republican leaders are back to their old 
tricks again. We are quite shocked to see that rather than giving the 
appropriators the opportunity to put together a comprehensive 
appropriations process, a comprehensive budget to be able to move 
forward on all of the needs of the country, what we are seeing is 
potentially a trick to undo the bipartisan budget agreement through the 
backdoor. We have seen this movie before, a few years ago, passing the 
Department of Defense appropriations and then forcing everything else 
into a long-term continuing resolution.
  We are not going down this road again. We are operating under the 
basis that we have a bipartisan agreement. A lot of folks on both sides 
of the aisle deserve credit for that, but we want to stick to that and 
a comprehensive budget moving forward--no tricks to undo the bipartisan 
budget agreement.
  Frankly, our families deserve a budget that grows the economy and 
invests in our middle-class families. How many of us have said the 
issue is that folks don't have money in their pocket, good-paying jobs, 
and can't do what they need to do to be able to put food on the table, 
send the kids to school, pay the mortgage, be able to support their 
families in a way that we always have in America, and be able to grow 
the economy with a strong, vibrant middle class.
  We also need to strengthen our national defense--our national 
security--broadly. If we only move forward on Department of Defense, as 
we know, we are leaving out a whole range of things that are part of 
our national security.
  I can say that as a border State in Michigan, we need to be 
concerned. We

[[Page 17289]]

hear a lot of debate and discussion about border security. We need to 
make sure we are adequately funding border security. Cyber security, 
for us it means things such as the Coast Guard. When we look at other 
areas of security, it includes food security efforts that people care 
about. It includes first responders, police, and firefighters. It 
includes airports--a whole range of things that need to be looked at 
comprehensively.
  We want to see the whole budget, not just the Department of Defense. 
We want to see the agreement on the whole budget so we know there 
aren't going to be any tricks. If there aren't going to be any tricks, 
what are folks trying to hide? Let's just develop the whole budget and 
then move the whole budget.
  We also know people care deeply about growing the economy and jobs, 
and that means supporting small business. It means investing, making 
things, and growing things, which I talk a lot about in Michigan. That 
is what we do; we make things and grow things. There are efforts to 
support that that we need to do.
  Frankly, some of that is in critical partnerships with the private 
sector and job training. The No. 1 thing I hear from manufacturers 
today--in fact, the National Association of Manufacturers tells us 
there are 600,000 unfilled jobs today because we don't have people with 
the right skills for the right job. That is something we need to 
address in our budget: job training, education, and college 
affordability.
  How many times have we heard about young people or in our own 
families know people who have come out of college, they did everything 
we told them to do: Go to college, get good grades. They graduate, and 
then they come out with more debt than if they were trying to buy a big 
house. In fact, the realtors tell us now they can't qualify young 
couples to buy a house because of their college debt. That is part of 
this debate on the budget: education, access to college, job training, 
support for small businesses, and support for our manufacturers and our 
farmers, large and small.
  Another critical area in our budget that we want to make sure is 
adequately funded is our ability to save lives through medical 
research, such as new treatments, new cures that we all have heard so 
much about that we are excited about. The whole effort now--finally, we 
are doing research on the brain, the least researched organ in the 
body. That impacts Alzheimer's; $1 out of every $5 Medicare dollars is 
spent on Alzheimer's disease and dementias, Parkinson's, mental 
illness, and addictions. That doesn't count what needs to happen with 
cancers. It doesn't count how close we are if we were to double down on 
our medical research in this country. Juvenile diabetes--we could go on 
and on. That is part of this budget.
  We want to see what is being funded on medical research in the 
National Institutes of Health before we move forward on only one piece 
of this, as we are very late in the game to debate this. This might 
have been a strategy we could do last spring. Now what we need to have 
is a look at the entire budget: mental health, substance abuse, 
services for veterans. Whether it is veterans and job training, whether 
it is providing veterans an opportunity to have a home and live in 
dignity, whether it is mental health substance abuse services, that is 
in this budget. We need a comprehensive budget. We need to know, the 
American people need to know the whole budget and that there are not 
going to be tricks in this process.
  Protecting our natural resources. For us around the Great Lakes, 20 
percent of the world's freshwater, it is incredibly important for us 
that we know how the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is funded; how 
we are supporting our clean air, clean water, and land initiatives.
  We have new challenges in outrageous things such as what is happening 
in Flint, MI, where there is very high lead found in the water and we 
need pipes changed. We need to be supporting infrastructure around not 
only roads and bridges, which are critically important, but aging pipes 
that have been there for 60 years, 70 years, 80 years, 100 years that 
we are now seeing--and multiplied by a series of errors and incredibly 
bad misjudgments at the State level, at the minimum. We are seeing 
situations where we are going to need to support efforts on making sure 
we can upgrade our pipes, our water pipes, water and sewer, and so on. 
That is all part of this budget.
  So when we look at moving forward, last week at the end of the week 
was a good time because it was an opportunity to come together in a 
bipartisan way, avert disaster, and actually come together as the 
American people want us to do every day. People in Michigan ask: Can't 
you guys just get something done? Can't you just work together?
  Well, at the end of last week we actually did that. We actually came 
together and developed a plan, a 2-year overall budget process, and now 
it is implementing it through appropriations. What we as Democrats are 
committed to doing is implementing the agreement in total. We are not 
going to support going back to where we were before, where we move one 
budget--the budget that has the most interest among Republican 
colleagues, the Department of Defense--and then potentially see all of 
these other needs go unaddressed in a fair and responsible way in terms 
of what American families are asking us to do. We just want to know 
that we are truly working to implement a bipartisan budget that we 
voted on--no backdoor tricks. Unfortunately, we have seen this movie 
before--no backdoor tricks to undermine critical needs for jobs, the 
economy, quality of life, protecting our natural resources, our broad 
security needs as a country. Let's put that strategy aside rather than 
trying to have a vote on only moving forward on the Defense 
appropriations.
  I urge that Republican leadership put that strategy aside, give the 
appropriators the time they need--we have good people on both sides of 
the aisle who can work together as appropriators--and provide us a 
balanced, responsible budget for the United States of America that will 
in fact grow the economy, invest in our middle-class families, and 
strengthen our national defense. I am hopeful that in the end that is 
what will happen.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I had a few minutes yesterday before the 
vote--the Congressional Review Act vote on this truly terrible EPA rule 
on water--to talk about the reasons EPA shouldn't do this, the long-
term understanding of what ``navigable waters'' meant, the ability for 
EPA--if they wanted to change the law--to come and ask the Congress to 
change the law, but of course they don't want to do any of that. In 
fact, I had a small version of this map yesterday that shows the Farm 
Bureau projection--that I believe other projections agree with--of how 
much of our State is covered by this new jurisdiction by the Federal 
Government over essentially all the waters of the country. If you will 
notice, the only part of Missouri that would be covered under the so-
called waters of the United States rule is just the part in red. Only 
99.7 percent of the State would be under this new jurisdiction that the 
EPA would ask for. Surely, nobody believes the EPA could ever exercise 
this jurisdiction. And uniquely, as it relates to this rule--I think 
``uniquely'' is the right word to say here--Federal agency after 
Federal agency opposed the EPA going forward with this rule. This is 
basically not just the EPA versus a few people who are concerned about 
it. It is the EPA versus anybody who has looked at it.
  According to the Small Business Administration--by the way, another 
agency of the Federal Government headed by someone else who is 
appointed by the President--they have a number of concerns. One is that 
utility companies would have a hard time complying with the law in a 
way that allowed the power grid to continue to be utilized. Of course, 
anything that raises utility company power costs raises the cost to the 
consumer. There is no mythical way anybody else pays for that except 
the people who get utility bills, which almost every person in

[[Page 17290]]

America or at least the family of almost every person in America does.
  The Home Builders Association of St. Louis believes that if this rule 
goes into effect, on average, the increased cost for permitting to 
build a home would go from a little under $30,000--right now the 
average cost, at least for St. Louis home builders to get all the 
permitting necessary, is $28,915--and would increase by 10 times. So 
the average permit to build a home, if this silly waters of the United 
States thing is allowed to happen, would go from a little under $30,000 
to $271,596, and the wait time would go from a little less than 1 year 
to more than 2 years, just to get the permitting you need to build a 
home.
  Now, the SBA also says the rule will increase permitting costs 
generally by $52 million in the country, just for permitting costs 
generally, and environmental mitigation costs by $113 million every 
year. With the addition of the power rule the EPA also has out, I think 
you would be hard pressed to come up with a third rule that would do 
anywhere as much damage as the two rules they already have out there do 
to the American economy.
  In April of 2015, a memo from MG John Peabody to Assistant Secretary 
Darcy of the Corps of Engineers, states that ``in the Corps' judgment, 
the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no 
connection to the data provided .  .  . and logical inconsistencies.'' 
This is the view of the Corps of Engineers--not necessarily my favorite 
Federal agency--on the EPA rule.
  This rule would also mean that Federal bureaucrats, assuming you 
could ever assemble enough of them to do the job the EPA says they like 
here, can decide what falls under the jurisdiction, and they would be 
deciding from a long way away. This kind of authority is barely able to 
be exercised by the local city or county. It becomes even more 
complicated when the State department of natural resources gets 
involved. It would be impossible to do and will slow down both the 
economy and add cost to families.
  Thirty-one States, including mine--including this State here, where 
again only the red part is covered by the waters of the United States 
rule--have sued the EPA to overturn the rule, and the courts appear to 
be listening. The district court that covers our district and North 
Dakota issued an injunction for 13 States. Then in early October, the 
Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay on the rule.
  So not only is the Congress concerned and involved, or a majority of 
the Congress--unfortunately, only 59 Senators were concerned with 
something that 60 Senators could have solved--but so is Federal agency 
after Federal agency, and the courts themselves are saying this should 
not be allowed to happen.
  I hope we see the Congressional Review Act put this issue exactly 
where it deserves to be--on the President's desk. He appointed the head 
of the EPA. The Senate confirmed the head of the EPA. I didn't vote to 
confirm the head of the EPA. In fact, I held that nomination back as 
long as I could possibly hold the nomination back, hoping the new 
nominee would suggest they were going to be better than the person who 
had been holding the job before. This rule indicates the EPA doesn't 
really have the best interest of the country at heart. They do not have 
a reasonable way to enforce the authority they say they would like to 
have. So I look forward to the President having to deal directly with 
this issue and that the American people will pay attention, as we all 
do, to the job we are sent here to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                               The Budget

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague from 
Michigan for her outstanding remarks. I too want to talk about the 
budget. We have agreed to a bipartisan budget framework, and that has 
been very good. We have avoided a shutdown, and we have avoided 
defaulting on our debt. I am glad the brinkmanship that some on the 
other side of the aisle wanted to play did not prevail. That is a very 
good thing.
  Now we have to move forward. I want to join my colleagues to ask our 
friends on the other side of the aisle to engage in a fair process on 
the omnibus that must follow. The budget, after all, is only a 
blueprint. Now it is up to Democrats and Republicans to fill in all the 
details and honor the agreements that both sides worked to pass 
together. Already we have some on the other side of the aisle 
threatening to insert policy riders that should have no business in an 
appropriations process, particularly a delicate one like this.
  So first things first--let us be crystal clear. If folks on the other 
side of the aisle insist on inserting poison pill riders into the 
omnibus bill and the Republican leadership on either the House or 
Senate side goes along, they will be dragging us into another 
government shutdown. We are happy to debate any of these so-called 
poison pill riders but not to use the whole budget process as a 
hostage.
  The only reason that our colleagues who want these riders want to use 
the budget process and hold, in fact, the whole rest of the American 
people hostage is because they know they can't win on their own. They 
can only do it by hostage-taking, by saying we won't fund the 
government or this part of the government unless we get our way on 
these nonrelated riders. Well, we Democrats, on both sides of the 
Capitol, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, are totally united on 
preventing poison pill riders in riding along on an omnibus.
  Yesterday, I was disappointed to hear Speaker Ryan, who I think is a 
fair man--and I have worked with him on a number of issues--say that he 
expects to use the power of the purse to push riders. Again, the power 
of the purse does not give anyone the right to jam through ideological 
riders that can't stand on their own merits. The power of the purse 
doesn't give anyone the right to hold government hostage until we 
repeal parts of Dodd-Frank or defund Planned Parenthood. That doesn't 
make any sense.
  The power of the purse means, and has always meant in this grand 
Republic in our history, that Democrats and Republicans, House and 
Senate, work together to produce a fair budget that strengthens our 
national and economic security, free of poison pill riders.
  Second, with respect to the timetable for these bills, I want to echo 
my friend Senator Stabenow in saying we have to see the whole funding 
picture up front before we move to any comprehensive funding 
legislation.
  I understand our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do 
Defense first--sure. Then what about the rest of the budget? In 2010, 
we did Defense and then did a CR for the rest of the budget. And then 
it leaves the fight on riders undone.
  Now, they say they need a vehicle. It is true. There are lots of 
vehicles. You don't need the Defense bill for a vehicle, No. 1, and, 
No. 2, you don't have to do that vehicle now. What should be happening 
now is the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, should be 
negotiating the whole picture, the whole omnibus. When they come to an 
agreement, we can then move them on the floor of the House and the 
Senate.
  So we all agree the Nation breathed a sigh of relief when we agreed 
to a balanced framework that would see us lift the sequester caps for 
domestic as well as defense spending. We can't be goaded into passing 
an increase in defense spending without seeing the rest of the omnibus 
to make sure both sides are part of it, because 50-50 was always part 
of the deal. Let us see the 50-50, and let us see the details.
  What we also believe has to be part of the deal is no poison pill 
riders, whether they be Democratic or Republican. Those should be for 
another day and not risk a government shutdown, which is still a very 
real possibility if some of the ideologues have their way and say it is 
my way or no way.
  So for this budget agreement to work, we need to see each piece of 
the appropriations puzzle before we move forward on defense spending. 
That is not too much to ask. Democrats want a simple, fair process to 
fill in the blueprint we agreed on in the budget--no poison pill, no 
sleight of hand.

[[Page 17291]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S.J. Res. 22.
  Mr. WICKER. And that deals with the waters of the United States rule; 
is that correct, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  

  Mr. WICKER. If I could, I would also like to ask that Senator Blunt's 
poster be placed back on the easel, because I agree with what the 
Senator from Missouri had to say about the so-called waters of the 
United States rule. It is a massive Federal overreach, a massive 
Federal land grab with hardly any environmental benefit, if at all. The 
map behind me of my neighboring State of Missouri points this out. 
Everything in red would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water 
Act. Almost every square inch of the State of Missouri and other States 
would be subject to this massive overreach of a statute that was never 
intended to do that.
  So I was pleased just a few weeks ago when the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Sixth Circuit pretty much agreed with us, on a temporary basis 
at least. They ordered a nationwide stay of the Obama administration's 
wholly unnecessary waters of the United States rule. I agree with the 
court's action. I agree with the 31 States that have filed lawsuits 
against this rule. I agree with the efforts in this Chamber to overturn 
it.
  I appreciate Senator Barrasso's legislation entitled the Federal 
Water Quality Protection Act, and I certainly appreciate the efforts of 
the junior Senator from Iowa, Senator Ernst, and will be supporting her 
efforts when we vote at the top of the hour.
  The waters rule is an unlawful--unlawful--attempt by the EPA and the 
Army Corps of Engineers to wield enormous power over our Nation's land 
mass, as this chart points out very dramatically. Americans are 
concerned--and Americans are right to be concerned--by this Federal 
overreach. The rule could have far-reaching effects on our lives and on 
our private property.
  I am particularly concerned about what this rule could mean to our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers, especially in States such as 
Mississippi, where agriculture is one of the leading industries. The 
administration's attempt to expand the scope of waters of the United 
States under the Clean Water Act would lead to unprecedented regulatory 
authority--unprecedented regulatory authority--and everything from 
property rights to economic development could be affected. Small ponds, 
even ditches would be subject to the decisions of Washington 
bureaucrats.
  This expansion of Federal regulation could also adversely affect 
conservation efforts that are working at the State level in States such 
as Mississippi. We have begun considerable work with farm drainage 
ditches to enhance conservation. The waters rule threatens to undermine 
this important work. So it actually puts us back a step in terms of 
conservation.
  Moreover, this rule makes States, cities, counties, and private 
citizens vulnerable to confusing and expensive legal challenges.
  Just get ready for the Federal Government to come in with legal 
challenges. Because of the regulation's lack of clarity, the Federal 
Government could declare jurisdiction over almost any kind of land or 
water, as this map of Missouri points out. Even areas that may have 
been streams or wetlands more than a century ago could come under the 
rule of this expansive regulation. The rule's exemptions do not make 
clear whether water in tile drains, for example, or erosion features on 
farmlands could fall under Federal control. At the very least, these 
flaws should be fixed before the rule is fully implemented, and I do 
appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Iowa in challenging this.
  Americans should worry and Americans should be concerned that the 
Obama administration has pushed forward with this rule despite these 
legitimate concerns being voiced over and over again by 31 States. 
State and local governments, farmers, small business owners, and 
landowners are worried about how this unilateral expansion could lead 
to substantial compliance costs, fines, legal battles, and permitting 
requirements--very expensive to job-creating agriculture and 
agribusiness.
  As they do with many of the administration's other onerous rules, 
Americans are asking: What is the benefit? What is the environmental 
benefit here? No one is arguing that our waters should not be 
protected, but water sources such as isolated ponds and ditches that do 
not threaten to pollute navigable waters should not become a regulatory 
burden for States, for municipalities, or for private citizens.
  I am a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I 
participated in a number of hearings on the WOTUS rule this year. It is 
clear the rule should be revised in a way that protects the rights of 
farmers, ranchers, and landowners--and the American public, for that 
matter.
  Senator Ernst is absolutely correct. Her resolution of disapproval 
would allow us to send this message to the EPA and the administration: 
Americans do not deserve this unnecessary confusion and job-killing 
redtape.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in a few moments we will have an 
opportunity to vote on the Congressional Review Act, on the final rule 
under the Clean Water Act on waters of the United States. Yesterday, I 
thought we had a rather robust discussion and debate about this, the 
Barrasso bill, which would have not only prevented the final rule from 
going forward but also would have changed the underlying bill. Cloture 
was not invoked.
  Now we are on the CRA--the Congressional Review Act--that would stop 
the rule from going forward. Yesterday on the floor of the Senate, I 
explained to my colleagues why I hope they will reject this motion and 
allow this rule to go forward. My main reason for saying that is that 
since 1972, Congress has had a proud record on behalf of public health, 
on behalf of our environment and protecting the people of this country 
from the dangers of dirty water. Before the Clean Water Act, we saw 
rivers that caught fire. In the Chesapeake Bay, we had the first marine 
dead zones reported. We made a commitment as a nation that we were 
going to do something about clean water, and Congress in a very 
bipartisan way passed the Clean Water Act as a commitment to the people 
of this country that we would take steps to protect their drinking 
water, to protect their public health, and to protect their environment 
so that the legacy would be cleaner water for future generations.
  This Clean Water Act--the reason why we have this rule is because of 
a couple of Supreme Court decisions which basically unsettled what most 
people understood to be regulated waters. By a 5-to-4 decision in 
Rapanos, the Supreme Court's ruling sent it back to EPA to come up with 
additional regulatory guidance, throwing into question the well-
established thoughts that waters generally that flow into our streams, 
into our wetlands, and into our water supply were regulated waters. So 
this final rule is a response to the Supreme Court decisions in order 
to give clarity to those who are affected by the Clean Water Act. So if 
we reject the rule, we are, in fact, removing clarity and we will go 
back to the stage where people don't know whether a particular water is 
regulated under the Clean Water Act.
  I was listening to my colleagues on the floor give examples of where 
they say regulation will take place, when, in fact, in agriculture, 
there is basically no change in the regulatory structure. There are no 
new permitting requirements for agricultural activities.
  If we don't go forward with the regulation, the risk factor is that 
approximately one-half of the stream miles in this country will not be 
fully protected. That is a huge risk to the public health of the people 
of this country.
  Approximately 20 million acres of wetlands will not be regulated. 
Wetlands are the last frontier to filter

[[Page 17292]]

water before it enters our water systems, our streams, our drinking 
water supplies. Do we really want to call into question that type of 
deregulation of clean water, which is critically important to public 
health and the drinking water supplies of Americans?
  If this rule does not go forward, the source of the drinking water of 
approximately 117 million Americans will be compromised. One-third of 
the people of this country will see that we are not fully protecting 
their drinking water, and if we have an episode, they will be asking 
what did we do in order to protect their basic health. They expect us 
to make sure that when they turn their tap on, they get safe drinking 
water, and that when they bathe, they have safe water in order to 
bathe, and we are not doing everything we can to do that if, in fact, 
we block this rule from going forward.
  In reality, what we are doing is saying: No, we are not going to let 
science guide what goes forward; Congress is going to tell us whether 
the EPA can regulate our water based upon science. I don't think we 
want this to be a political decision; I think we want this to be a 
scientific decision.
  As I said earlier, agriculture practices are not changed under this 
final rule. Many have mentioned the court challenge. Any regulation 
coming up by EPA is going to be subject to court challenge. We know 
that. And the courts have not been helpful. The 5-to-4 decision left a 
lot in question. Ultimately, we are going to have to rely upon a court 
decision. Let's get there sooner rather than later and not go back to 
the drawing board and delay the necessary regulations for our country.
  Yesterday on the floor, I quoted from business leaders, environment 
leaders, small business leaders. Let me share a couple other quotes 
about why it is important for us to allow this rule to go forward. Let 
me talk about a business concern. This is a quote from Travis Campbell, 
president and CEO of Far Banks Enterprises, an integrated manufacturer 
and distributor of fly fishing products. He says:

       My company depends on people enjoying their time recreating 
     outside, especially in or near watersheds. Clarifying which 
     waterways are protected under Clean Water Act isn't a nice-
     to-have, it is a business imperative.

  Allowing this rule to go forward helps America's businesses, helps 
our economy.
  I will give two quotes on the health issue.
  This is from Dr. Alan Peterson, a family physician in Lancaster 
County, PA. He said:

       Because it would protect the streams that are the 
     headwaters of drinking water supplies for 1 in 3 U.S. 
     residents, this rule is a health imperative.

  Lastly, a person who used to be our health secretary in Maryland, Dr. 
Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health 
Association, stated:

       Our nation relies on clean water for basic survival--it's 
     essential for daily activities including drinking, cooking, 
     bathing, and recreational use. When that water is polluted, 
     Americans are at risk of exposure to a number of harmful 
     contaminants. We are pleased that EPA has moved forward with 
     this strong, evidence-based rule that will be vital to 
     protecting the public from water pollution and keeping our 
     nation healthy.

  For the sake of our public health and the sake of our environment, 
for the sake of our economy, and for the legacy of this Congress to 
protect the people of this Nation, I urge my colleagues to reject the 
motion that would stop the final waters of the United States rule from 
going into effect.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. ERNST. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on the 
joint resolution that is before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, we have a choice today to stand with our 
farmers, ranchers, small businesses, manufacturers, and homebuilders, 
or stand with an overreaching Federal agency pushing an illegal rule 
greatly expanding its power. That is an easy choice for me. I am 
standing with my constituents. I am standing with Iowans.
  Rolling back this harmful WOTUS rule is hugely important to my State 
and, I know, to many others. I especially wish to thank the junior 
Senator from Wyoming and the senior Senator from Oklahoma for all their 
hard work on this issue. I also wish to thank those from the other side 
of the aisle who recognize the harm this rule will have and are 
supporting this bipartisan effort to halt an expanded WOTUS.
  I am proud to stand with them and all of my other colleagues who have 
decided to act today to push back against yet another power grab by the 
EPA. This is what the American people expect. They expect us to take 
the votes and debate the issues of the day, not simply put in writing 
how we may do our job tomorrow when it is more convenient or wait for 
the courts to solve a clear problem.
  Every community wants to have clean water and to protect our Nation's 
waterways. No one is disputing that. I grew up on well water. I 
understand that clean water is essential, but that is not what this 
vote today is about.
  To build on what the junior Senator from North Dakota, my colleague 
from across the aisle, said yesterday, to suggest that 31 States, 
agricultural groups, the Association of Counties, our Governors, 
municipalities--that we are all wrong is absolutely insulting.
  Look at this grass waterway behind me. This is from Iowa. This was 
taken by one of my staff members as he was out on RAGBRAI, the 
Register's Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa. This is what we are 
debating. This is what the rule is about. Should Washington, DC, 
bureaucrats control the land in this farmer's field? The clear answer 
is no, they should not.
  As so many of my colleagues mentioned yesterday and this morning, 
this confusing WOTUS rule threatens the livelihoods of rural 
communities and middle-class Americans. It threatens to impede small 
businesses and manufacturing. It impacts middle-class Americans. These 
people are the backbone of this country. How can these industries 
flourish when under this rule they will be faced with excessive 
permitting requirements that will delay future projects and 
conservation efforts? They can't.
  Yesterday we saw many of our colleagues across the aisle block a 
commonsense bipartisan measure designed to stop the harmful impacts of 
this rule. They claimed this rule is grounded in science and the law. 
Science and the law? Really? The Army Corps' memos show that the 
science was blatantly ignored by the EPA in favor of politics, and two 
Federal courts have already called into serious question the legality 
of this WOTUS rule and the science behind it.
  This claim is in spite of the fact that Members on the other side 
voted for Senator Barrasso's legislation yesterday. This is in spite of 
the fact that Members of the other side also support this legislation, 
and this is in spite of the fact that 11 Democrats sent a letter to the 
EPA yesterday stating their concern over serious issues with this rule. 
Yet this administration continues to unilaterally enforce its harmful 
agenda on the American people.
  We must take a stand, put our constituents first, put American jobs 
first, and say: No more, Mr. President. It is time to put politics and 
ideology aside and start listening to the commonsense voices of the 
American people. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I haven't talked about the popularity of 
the Clean Water Act, but every poll has shown that the overwhelming 
majority of Americans support what EPA is doing in protecting our water 
supply. They are for this rule. They are for a commonsense, science-
based way to protect their drinking water. They are for a 
scientifically based, commonsense way to make sure that their rivers 
are

[[Page 17293]]

clean. Whether it is because of their concern for the environment and 
their children and grandchildren's health or whether it is their 
concern about our economy, recognizing that clean water is necessary 
for agriculture and for our activities--recreational activities along 
our waterways which are critical to our economy--for all of those 
reasons they support the Clean Water Act.
  I urge my colleagues to look at the rule. It doesn't regulate new 
activities in agriculture. It doesn't require anything different than 
has been historically the role of the Clean Water Act in protecting our 
waters. It deals with waters that are affecting our water supply. It 
doesn't deal with isolated ponds. It doesn't deal with ditches. They 
are not regulated under this law any differently than they were in the 
past.
  I urge my colleagues to look at what is in this regulation, not the 
claims that have been made. The EPA listened to the different interest 
groups. There were over 400 meetings with stakeholders across the 
country to provide information, hear concerns, and answer their 
questions. EPA officials visited farms in Arizona, Colorado, my home 
State of Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Texas, and Vermont.
  The 207-day public comment period on the proposed rule resulted in 
more than 1 million comments. All of this public input helped to shape 
the final clean water rule. The act does not require any new permitting 
from the agricultural community. There is an exemption under the 
existing Clean Water Act, which is preserved by this final rule. Normal 
farming, silviculture, and ranching practices--those activities that 
include plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting 
for production of food, fiber, and forest products--are exempt. They 
are not covered under this final Clean Water Act. Soil and water 
conservation practices and dry land are exempt. Agricultural storm 
water discharges are exempt. Return flows from irrigated agriculture, 
construction, and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation 
ditches on dry land are not covered under the rule. Maintenance of 
draining ditches is not covered under the rule. Construction or 
maintenance of farm, forest, and temporary mining roads are not 
covered.
  When my colleagues come in and say that this ditch is being regulated 
under the Clean Water Act, it is not the case. Only those flows of 
water that directly impact our streams, impact our wetlands--those you 
want to make sure we cover because they affect our drinking water 
supply for one out of every three Americans, because they affect our 
public health for those of us who swim in our streams and our lakes, 
and because they affect those of us who enjoy the recreation of clean 
water. That is why we have small business owners. That is why we have 
the businesses that depend upon clean water. That is why we have a lot 
of people around the country saying: Look, it is in our economic 
interest to make sure this rule goes forward.
  The bottom line is, the stakeholders need clarity. This rule will 
allow that process to go forward so that we can get clarity in the 
implementation of the Clean Water Act, which was jeopardized not by 
Congress and not by EPA but by the Supreme Court's decisions. It is our 
responsibility to make sure that clarity exists.
  If Congress blocks this clean water rule from going forward, we are 
adding to the uncertainty that is in no one's interest, whether it is a 
person who depends upon safe drinking water or the safe environment or 
a farmer who wants to know what is regulated and what is not. All of 
that very much depends upon clarity moving forward.
  EPA listened to all the stakeholders, and it is important to allow 
this rule to go forward. I urge my colleagues to reject this effort to 
stop the final act from going forward. Let our legacy to our children 
and grandchildren be safe, clean water for drinking and recreational 
purposes for our economy. Since 1972, we have had a proud history of 
allowing and building upon safe and clean water. I urge my colleagues 
to reject this effort to stop this rule from going forward.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield back my time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The joint resolution having been 
read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Rubio
     Vitter
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 22

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and 
     the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Clean Water 
     Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States''' (80 Fed. 
     Reg. 37054; June 29, 2015), and such rule shall have no force 
     or effect.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________