[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 564-567]
[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--VETO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the veto message on S.J. Res. 22, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution 
     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 10:30 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally between the majority 
and the minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, 
January 26, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 306; that there be 15 
minutes of debate on the nomination, equally divided in the usual form; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate 
then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 2012

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
morning business on Tuesday, January 26, the Senate proceed to Calendar 
No. 218, S. 2012, with a period of debate only until 3 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my Republican colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We are here today to vote in about half an hour on overriding the 
President's veto, a congressional action that would not have allowed 
the country to move forward with the so-called waters of the United 
States rule.
  The waters of the United States sounds like a lot until you look at 
the map beside me. This is a map of the State of Missouri and of what 
would be covered under EPA jurisdiction, if this rule is allowed to go 
into effect.
  This is a map from the Missouri Farm Bureau that nobody has taken 
issue with, and the red part of our State would be covered by Federal 
Government authority. So 99.7 percent of the State would suddenly be 
under the jurisdiction of the EPA on all things related to water: water 
running off the parking lot, water running off your driveway, water 
running off your roof, water falling into your yard, water falling into 
a vacant lot if someone wants to build a house on that vacant lot--all 
of those things in 99.7 percent of the State. I think that three-tenths 
of 1 percent may be some unusual seepage area where the water runs away 
in a way that the EPA hasn't yet figured out how to assert jurisdiction 
over.
  The law passed in the early 1970s, the Clean Water Act, said that the 
EPA would have jurisdiction over navigable waters. So, if you believe 
the EPA and believe this rule and believe in the President's veto, 
navigable waters would apparently be every drop of water in 99.7 
percent of Missouri.
  If the President and the administration and the EPA want to change 
the law where it no longer says ``navigable waters,'' but where it says 
virtually all the water, there is a way to do that: Introduce a bill, 
come to the Congress, and the Congress votes on that bill. If the House 
and Senate approve it--I know this sounds like it is a pretty 
pedestrian discussion. But apparently the President and EPA don't 
understand that it is the way to change the law. It is not just that 
somebody decides that all of the water in Missouri--or to be accurate, 
99.7 percent of the water in our State, of the geography of our State 
on any water issue--suddenly becomes the jurisdiction of the EPA.
  I will assure you that if the EPA gets this jurisdiction, there is no 
way that they can do what they say the Environmental Protection Agency 
should do. That is the case in Missouri.
  I am joined by my colleagues from North Dakota and Wyoming to talk 
about this. Certainly, we have been on the floor repeatedly to talk 
about this. We also talked about remedies. A great remedy would be that 
any regulation that has significant economic impact should be voted on 
by the Congress. It is a bill we have all co-sponsored called the REINS 
Act. Now the analogy here is pretty good--to put the reins on 
government. But what would really happen in the REINS Act is that 
anybody who would vote for a rule like this would have to go home and 
explain it. Frankly, I think anybody who doesn't override the 
President's veto had better be prepared to go home and explain it.
  Senator Barrasso and Senator Hoeven have been vigorous in this fight. 
As to Senator Hoeven, I know this is something that matters where he 
lives and where we live, but it is also a great indication of what 
happens when the government somehow believes that no matter what the 
Constitution says or what the law says, the all-knowing Federal 
Government should be in charge of everything everywhere--in this case, 
virtually all the water in the country.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, that is absolutely right. I join my 
distinguished colleague from the State of Missouri, as well as my 
colleague from the State of Wyoming and our colleague from the State of 
Iowa.
  This is an incredibly important issue. It is probably the No. 1 
regulatory relief that all business sectors need. Starting with our 
farmers and ranchers, this is a huge issue. This crosses all sectors 
because this is a big-time overreach by the EPA, and it really affects 
all property owners. You are talking about private property rights that 
are at stake here.
  There is a fundamental principle at stake in terms of how our 
government works, as well. The EPA has taken

[[Page 565]]

through its own regulatory fiat additional authority that it does not 
legally possess. It has done so under a legal theory that it has 
advanced called ``significant nexus.'' Essentially, it has gone beyond 
the jurisdiction it has, which is regulation with regard to navigable 
bodies of water, such as the Missouri River, for example, to, in 
essence, say it can now regulate all water wherever it finds it 
anywhere.
  Now think about that. If part of the executive branch or a regulatory 
agency can unilaterally say, ``You know what, we are not just going to 
operate under our legislative authority; we are just going to take 
additional authorities that we don't legally have in order to do what 
we think is our job,'' then we have a fundamental problem because that 
defies the underlying concepts of the checks and balances of our 
government, where the legislative, judicial, and executive all offset 
each other in order to protect private property rights. That is 
absolutely what is at stake here.
  Essentially, the EPA has set a rule where they can regulate water 
anywhere in any capacity. So if a farmer, after a rain storm, goes out 
and wants to move water in a ditch, or even an individual private 
property owner wants to do that, do they have to apply to the EPA for a 
permit? How do they know? To whom do they go? Are they going to get 
consistent rulings? Why in the world should they be subject to an 
agency without legislative authority, just deciding that they are going 
to have jurisdiction or authority in cases where they don't have it? It 
is a very important principle in terms of protecting private property 
rights as well as the fundamental fact that it has a devastating impact 
on farmers, ranchers, and every sector of our society.
  I would turn back to my colleague from Missouri and ask him to touch 
on, maybe for just a minute, what we can do about it. We are on the 
floor today to have a vote, and I think we need to point out how 
important it is that our colleagues join us in making sure that we 
override this Presidential veto.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I appreciate that. This is a bill that has 
been on the President's desk. It passed the Senate, which means that 60 
Senators were supportive of this rule not being able to go forward in 
its current status. The President vetoed the bill. This would be a time 
for the Congress to stand up. If you didn't have any other interest in 
this fight, it is the time for the Congress to stand up and say: If you 
are going to change the law, the only way to change the law is for the 
Congress to change the law. The President appears to be willing to 
discover all sorts of ways that can't be found in the Constitution to 
change the law. But even if you were on the other side of this issue, 
even if you want to come to the floor of the Senate and vigorously 
argue that the EPA needs the jurisdiction of all the water in the 
country, as a Member of the Senate, the Senate should do that, the 
House should do that, and the Constitution should work.
  Senator Barrasso, it is clearly not working here.
  ``Navigable waters'' has been used in Federal law since about 1846, 
and until the last couple of years when the EPA asserted differently, 
everybody always thought they knew what that meant. If you could move 
something on it, navigate it, then the Constitution says the Federal 
Government has the obligation for interstate commerce. So debating how 
much of the Missouri River, as Senator Hoeven brought up, is navigable 
is a constitutional debate to have because it is a commerce issue.
  I say to Senator Barrasso, suggesting that all the water in the 
country is navigable doesn't make sense. The Senator has been one of 
the leaders in trying to point out for months and years now that this 
rule will be ruinous to economic activity.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I want to agree and second everything 
that my colleague from Missouri, Senator Blunt, had to say--that 99.7 
percent of his State is underwater according to the EPA.
  We had a hearing, and I looked at a map of Wyoming that the EPA 
presented. It looked like the entire State of Wyoming was underwater, 
according to the EPA. This is an incredible overreach on the part of 
this administration, this EPA.
  It is so interesting, because the President of the United States 
said: Well, if you have better ideas, bring them. If you have better 
ideas, bring them. Well, we did. A number of us cosponsored bipartisan 
legislation--a number of Democrats supported it, as well--to allow for 
Congress to establish the principles of what a new EPA rule would look 
like. It didn't say to get rid of the whole thing. It said there are 
ways to make it better; let the people on the ground make those 
decisions.
  Who are the best stewards of the land? Here we are. The Presiding 
Officer, the former Governor of South Dakota, knows that the people of 
his State have a much better love of the land of South Dakota, just as 
the former Governor of North Dakota, who is on the floor, knows that 
the people on the ground in North Dakota have a much greater love of 
the land and respect for the land and desire to protect the land and 
the water and to keep the water clean, just as we do in Wyoming and in 
Missouri. That is what this is about.
  It is about letting people who have the best interests and who are 
the best stewards of the land make those decisions--not, again, a 
Federal grab. It is absolutely absurd, and it shows a President of the 
United States who is acting in a way that I believe is lawless to the 
point that the courts have now weighed in.
  The courts have begun to weigh in on the concerns with this rule that 
we are going to vote on today. We hope we override the veto of the 
President, because the courts have said: Hey, we need to take a pause. 
Judge Erickson of the District of North Dakota on
August 27 issued an injunction that blocked the waters of the United 
States rule in 13 States because he said the rulemaking record was 
``inexplicable, arbitrary, devoid of a reasoned process''--devoid of a 
reasoned process. Yet the President is saying: Oh, no, they have got it 
all right. The President is wrong. The United States Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals put a nationwide stay on the rule in October. The 
court stated in granting the stay that ``the sheer breadth of the 
ripple effects caused by the rule's definitional changes counsels 
strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo for the time being.''
  Yet the President of the United States ignores it all. Congress needs 
to have a say. The courts are having a say. The President needs to 
realize that his actions have huge impacts--negative impacts--on the 
economies of our States, our communities, and certainly of the entire 
country. So it is a privilege to be here to join my colleagues from 
South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, and soon my colleague from Iowa 
who will weigh in, supporting the effort to override the President of 
the United States on this specific piece of legislation.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, we are urging our colleagues to do just 
exactly that--vote to override and reassert the constitutional 
authority of the Congress. To finish up our part of our discussion this 
morning is somebody who also understands the importance of the land, 
what it means to love and appreciate the land, how you can do that 
closer to the land than farther away, the Senator from Iowa, Mrs. 
Ernst.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues--the 
Senators from Missouri, North Dakota, and Wyoming--for their colloquy. 
This is a big deal, not just for those of us from these States but for 
all Americans. We have a choice today. We do have a choice. We can 
stand with our farmers, our ranchers, our small businessmen, our 
manufacturers, our homebuilders, or we can stand with an overreaching 
Federal agency that is committed to expanding its reach to over 97 
percent of our lands in Iowa and, as my colleague from Missouri stated, 
99.7 percent of the land in Missouri.
  I know what I am going to do. I am going to stand with my 
constituents. I am going to stand with Iowans who

[[Page 566]]

have told me time and again that their voices were not heard in this 
process and that their livelihoods are being threatened.
  Instead of listening to those who will be most impacted by this rule, 
the EPA thought it would be better to use taxpayer dollars to illegally 
solicit comments in an effort to falsely justify their power grab.
  A little over a week ago, President Obama, in his State of the Union 
Address, pledged a willingness to work with Congress on cutting 
redtape. This bipartisan legislation presented a great opportunity to 
do just that, but instead he sided with unelected bureaucrats and an 
unchecked Federal agency. So apparently he must have already forgotten 
what he had said.
  I would also like to remind everyone that in November, 11 of my 
Democratic colleagues voted to uphold President Obama's rule at the 
behest of liberal special interests. Then immediately they ran for 
cover by sending a letter warning the EPA that they may oppose the rule 
in the future if it is not fixed. Only in Washington could someone 
reserve the right to do their job at a later time. Here we are 3 months 
later, and this rule is not fixed. Well, I say to those colleagues: 
Today is that later time. Join me in helping to fix this rule today.
  In closing, we all want clean water. That is not disputable. I have 
continuously emphasized that the water we drink needs to be clean and 
safe. However, this rule is not about clean water; it is a regulatory 
power grab that harms our farmers, ranchers, small businesses, 
manufacturers, and homebuilders. Stand up for them today, not for a 
Federal agency gone wrong.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote to scrap this ill-conceived 
waters of the United States expansion.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, by vetoing Senator Ernst's Congressional 
Review Act resolution, President Obama is ignoring the pleas of States, 
local governments, farmers, small businesses, and property owners all 
over this country. He is ignoring the conclusion of legal counsel for 
the Corps of Engineers that the rule is ``inconsistent with the Supreme 
Court's decisions in Rapanos and SWANCC.''
  He is ignoring determinations by two Federal courts that EPA's 
``waters of the United States'' rule is likely illegal and therefore 
should not go into effect until the 32 States that have sued to stop 
this rule have their day in court. Finally, he is ignoring a legal 
decision issued by the Government Accountability Office that, in 
developing this rule, EPA broke the law.
  According to GAO's December 14 decision, EPA's attempts to defend and 
promote their rule were not legitimate. In fact, GAO found that EPA's 
actions constituted illegal covert propaganda and grassroots lobbying. 
EPA conducted covert propaganda when they drafted a message of support 
for the WOTUS rule and then convinced 980 people to send that message 
to their social media network. GAO estimates that this message reached 
about 1.8 million people who had no idea that they were receiving a 
message that was written by EPA. In fact, the public was encouraged to 
send the EPA-written message back to EPA--the ultimate echo chamber. 
This is covert propaganda taken to a new extreme.
  EPA engaged in grassroots lobbying activity when they posted messages 
on their official government website that directed the public to visit 
the websites of environmental activist groups who were soliciting 
opposition to congressional efforts to send this WOTUS rule back to the 
drawing board. In fact, EPA linked their government website to ``action 
alerts'' issued by these activist groups.
  Because EPA's covert propaganda and lobbying efforts are illegal, 
they also violated the Anti-Deficiency Act. This act prohibits the 
unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars.
  EPA issued a statement disagreeing with GAO, but their opinion is 
irrelevant. We live in a world of law. Federal agencies don't get to 
decide what laws they chose to obey. EPA does not get to decide what 
constitutes a violation of the ban on propaganda and lobbying. EPA does 
not get to decide what constitutes a violation of the Anti-Deficiency 
Act. GAO does, and GAO has issued its legal decision.
  If EPA continues with this illegal activity, they will do so knowing 
and in willful violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and a knowing and 
willful violation is a crime.
  By vetoing S.J. Res. 22, President Obama is aligning himself with an 
illegal rule and is encouraging illegal agency activities and the 
unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars. This has to stop. No Member of 
this body should associate himself or herself with these activities.
  Please join me in voting to override this veto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to 
oppose the joint resolution that we will be voting on shortly, to 
support the Clean Water Act, and to support the clean water rule.
  I was listening to my colleagues. First, let me say that the basis of 
the regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency is based 
upon the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress 
because Congress recognized that it had a responsibility to the 
American people for clean water. For public health reasons, for 
economic reasons, for reasons of generations, we needed to make sure we 
have clean water supplies for drinking, recreation, public health, and 
our environment. So the authority to issue this clean water rule comes 
from an act of Congress.
  Administrations have been enforcing the Clean Water Act for many 
years. It was fairly well understood--the waters of the United States--
until there were a couple of Supreme Court cases. The Rapanos case was 
in 2006. It required further clarification; otherwise, decisions were 
made on a case-by-case basis, giving great uncertainty as to what is 
covered and what is not covered. That was a decade ago. Congress could 
have acted during that decade, but Congress chose not to act. We could 
have clarified the law and therefore given EPA specific instructions, 
but instead the uncertainty has remained.
  I have often listened to my colleagues talk about how one of the most 
demanding problems we have is that we create uncertainty--a short-term 
extension of tax provisions, a short-term CR--that we don't give 
predictability, and that is one of the things we need to do. For 
farmers and ranchers and developers and the American people to be able 
to take full advantage of the opportunities of this country, they need 
to know the ground rules.
  That is exactly what this clean water rule does. It sets the 
parameters of what is going to be regulated and what is not. It uses 
the prior application--before the Supreme Court cases--as its 
guideline. It does not pave new ground. It is basically what the 
stakeholders and the public thought was the law before the Supreme 
Court cases, which added to the uncertainty.
  If you listen to some of my colleagues, you would think they just 
pulled this regulation out of thin air. They had over 400 meetings with 
stakeholders--a 2-year process. Millions of comments were reviewed 
before the final regulation was issued. So this went through a very 
deliberative process.
  First and foremost, it offers certainty on the application of the law 
and uses the prior application as the main way of determining what is 
covered, and it rejects the case-by-case uncertainty that is under 
existing law.
  The rule protects public health, our environment, and our economy. 
Let me talk a little bit about that. One out of every three Americans 
would be getting drinking water that would not be covered if we don't 
get the Clean Water Act in full application--67 percent of Marylanders.
  There are millions of acres of wetlands that are at risk of not being 
regulated. Wetlands are critically important for flood protection in 
many of our States, to recharge groundwater supplies--important to many 
of our States--to filter pollution. That is very important. It is 
important in Maryland. The Chesapeake Bay and the

[[Page 567]]

Chesapeake Bay's environmental future very much depend upon the quality 
of the upstream waters and wetlands. It is at risk if we don't move 
forward with the full application of the Clean Water Act.
  It is certainly important for wildlife habitat. I hear all of my 
friends talk about how important it is to preserve our wildlife. Well, 
that is very much engaged in what we are talking about. It also deals 
with our economy. Some of my colleagues have talked about that. 
Certainly I can talk about the wildlife recreation benefits in my State 
of Maryland--a $1.3 billion-a-year industry in Maryland and over $500 
million in fishing alone. Well, let me tell you something. If you have 
polluted waters, you are going to lose your wildlife recreational 
industry. It is critically important for recreation. I think my 
colleagues understand that.
  My colleagues talk about agriculture. Agriculture, of course, needs 
clean water. We would be the first to acknowledge that clean water is 
very important to agriculture. As it relates to the agricultural 
community, there are so many special exceptions in the clean water 
rule.
  Let's at least be straight as to what is covered and what is not 
covered. Many of the examples that have been given on the floor of the 
Senate are not covered bodies of water under the clean water rule that 
is being proposed.
  The bottom line is that this rule is not only good for our 
environment, it is not only good to make sure people have safe drinking 
water, it is not only good to make sure that we have clean streams, 
that wetlands are protected, and that water bodies that flow into 
navigable waters are protected so we have clean water for the purposes 
of our environment, but it is also important for our economy because of 
the direct impact it would have, and it is important to many industries 
that depend upon clean water supplies. Many of them are very much 
dependent upon clean water supplies in order to produce the products in 
agriculture that are critically important.
  For the sake of our environment, for the sake of our economy, I urge 
my colleagues to reject this resolution.
  Let me add one last point. We are all proud Members of the Senate. We 
are all proud Members of this Congress. I would hope one of the 
legacies we want to leave when this term is over is that we have added 
to the proud record of those who served before us in protecting our 
waters and in protecting our air because that has been the legacy of 
the Congresses before us--the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the 
Chesapeake Bay Program, the Great Lakes. Congress was responsible for 
many of these programs.
  On the Chesapeake Bay, but for the actions of Congress, that program 
would not be what it is today. The funds would not be there. We 
initiated it. It was not even in the administration's budget. We did 
that because we recognized that the Chesapeake Bay is a national 
treasure, the largest estuary in our hemisphere. We understood that, so 
we acted.
  So what is going to be the legacy of this Congress? Is this going to 
be a Congress that moves in the backward direction in protecting our 
clean water? I hope that is not the legacy of this Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of clean water, to be on 
the right side of what Americans expect us to do and to protect the 
water supply of our Nation and to vote against this joint resolution.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the veto message 
     on S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution 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.
         Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, John Thune, Johnny Isakson, 
           Steve Daines, Roy Blunt, Cory Gardner, Deb Fischer, Pat 
           Roberts, Thom Tillis, John Cornyn, Joni Ernst, David 
           Vitter, Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso, Ron Johnson, 
           Thad Cochran.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
veto message on S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution 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, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Cruz), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have vote ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 40, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--40

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Alexander
     Boxer
     Coons
     Cruz
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Scott
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
40.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Cloture not having been invoked, under the previous order, the veto 
message on S.J. Res. 22 is indefinitely postponed.
  The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________