vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 55. the nays are 43. the motion is agreed to. pursuant to 5 u.s. c. 802-d-2, there are ten hours of debate equally divided on the joint resolution. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. nern -- mrs. ernst: i'd like ting thank my friends and colleagues for supporting this effort and

look forward to lively discussion on the e.p.a.'s overreach and the wotus rule. i would urge my fellow republicans and fellow democrats to consider what this overreach does that home states. just as it does in iowa, it covers 97% of our land. just encourage them to listen to their constituents carefully as we move forward on this debate and vote. again, thanks to my colleagues for supporting this effort. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate shall come to order. the senate will be in order.

mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. madam president, i'd like to congratulate our friend and colleague, the senator from iowa, on this strong vote on the motion to proceed to this congressional resolution of disapproval of this overreaching regulation issued by the environmental protection agency. but i want to talk a little bit about this rule, but i also want to talk about how symptomatic this is of the overreach we're seeing coming from the executive branch, particularly when it involves rule making. this actual rule is a product of a -- actually a response to a supreme court decision and a number of other decisions by the lower courts which held previously that the federal courts -- that the federal government had overreached when it comes to trying to regulate so-called navigable waters of the u.s. there's no real question, i think, in anybody's mind that under the interstate commerce provisions of the united states

constitution the federal government has a responsibility when it comes to navigable waters. but as the sixth circuit court of appeals said in a decision it handed down on october 9, the plaintiffs in the case against the environmental protection agency in this particular rule established a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims where they said that the rules treatments of tributaries adjacent waters and waters having a significant nexus to navigable waters is at odds with the supreme court's decision in the rapanas case handed down in 2006. it said also that the provisions of the rule make it unclear as to the distance limitations, whether it's harmonious with the decisions of the supreme court. so, for example, if you can say, well, the tributary that feeds

another body of water that feeds another body of water that then feeds another body of water, it eventually gets into navigable water is subject to the rule-making authority of the environmental protection agency, it is in conflict with the decision in the rapanos case, and i i don't believe would ever withstand congressional -- excuse me. constitutional scrutiny. moreover, the sixth circuit court of appeals said the rule making process by which the so-called distance limitations were adopted is suspect. it said it did not include any proposed distance limitation in terms of -- in use of the terms like adjacent waters or significant nexus. so that under the opinion of the sixth circuit court of appeals, a body of water could be far removed from that navigable water and still be determined as an adjacent water or have a significant nexus and be subject to the far-reaching provisions of the rule. the sixth circuit court of

appeals also said that there was no scientific support for the distance limitations that were included in the final rule. and so, the plaintiffs contended in the sixth circuit agreed that this rule is not the product of reasoned decision making and is vulnerable attack as impermissibly arbitrary or capricious under the administrative procedures act. ordinarily the court of appeals for the sixth circuit is that i had they would not issue a stay -- said that they would not issue a stay pending the resolution to the challenge of the rule. but they said 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. they also noted that the rule had already been stayed in 13 different states where previous litigation had been filed and decided. so as a result, on october 9,

the sixth circuit court of appeals issued a nationwide stay for the very rule that's the subject of this congressional review act vote that we just had and we will have after ten hours of debate. but beyond the arcane provisions of the administrative procedure act in what's navigable water, what's an adjacent water, what has a sufficient nexus and the like, i think what we need to recognize, that this rule represents the single-largest private property grab perhaps in american history, because it claims as federal jurisdiction private property that previously had not been thought of as having any nexus or connection with federal authority or even interstate commerce. potholes, drainage ditches, culverts, stock coms, things like that that arguably now are within the ambit of this rule and that cannot be the case. that's why so many of us have

heard not just from our farmers and our cattle raisers and agriculture producers, but we've heard from people in the construction business, people who are just concerned about this private property grab, and they've said this cannot be the case. like i said, farmers and -- ranchers, home build erts, the con criewt -- concrete industry, any industry that develops on real estate will likely be impacted. i'm very happy that under the the senator from iowa's leadership we have gotten this far and i hope that after this debate, perhaps tomorrow, we will be in a position to send this to the president of the united states stating views of the united states senate and congress that this rule simply is too broad and cannot stand. this is not -- this is not -- the sixth circuit court of opinion is not a substitute for what we do under the

congressional -- under this particular act, congressional review act. it is part of our responsibility as members of the united states congress. so, in my state, i'm sure as in other places around the country, fajr -- farming and ranching is more than a job. it is a way of life and it's part of our culture and very definitely a family affair. in fact, about 98% of all farms and ranches in texas are family-owned. so when i'm back home and have the chance to visit with those who provide the food and the fiber to feed and clothe us, they are very concerned about this legislation, as they should be, because it not only represents a threat to their way of life and their ability to provide for their families and for our states and our country, it is a power grab really unprecedented in u.s. history. back in may, the environmental

protection agency released a final rule that's supposed to protect our water. and who could be opposed to that? well, nobody, if they had done it within the constitution and within the law. now, that sounds innocuous enough, but in reality it acts as a federal land grab, one that would add significant cost to our farmers and ranchers and has the potential to greatly intrude on the private property of landowners. so while we all can agree that clean water is a priority, the obama administration has overstepped that goal and pitted the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers against the hardworking farmers and ranchers at texas and across the country. but it's not just the agriculture sector, as i mentioned a moment ago. i've been hearing from a lot of stakeholders back home who are incredibly concerned about the negative potential impact this rule will have on their business. this rule is such a vast expansion of federal jurisdiction that multiple

sectors of our economy could be adversely affected. like i said, home builders, oil and gas industry, mining companies and manufacturers. this rule is not just some simple, straightforward provision to protect water. it is a veiled threat against the private sector and a blueprint for stifling economic growth in our country. in 2014, the economy in my state grew at roughly 5.2%. we were among the most fortunate states in the nation to see a lot of job growth and opportunity. that's why people are moving to texas, because that's where the jobs are. conversely, we saw across the country in 2014 our economy grew at roughly 2.2%. and while we've been encouraged to see the unemployment rate tick down little by little, the truth is when you start getting into the numbers, you realize that the labor participation rate, the percentage of people

actually looking -- actively looking for work is at a 30-year low, thus giving that lower unemployment rate, making it look better than it really does. so this is an important piece of legislation, and i know a lot of people are paying attention to it back home and across the country because of its impact. i'm frustrated we weren't able to move the earlier legislation forward due to a filibuster by the minority in this case who clearly are trying to do everything they can to protect this administration and its overreach, but of course all of us are going to be held accountable at the ballot box, as we should be. and anyone who has voted against proceeding with this commonsense legislation to rein in an out-of-control federal agency i believe will live to regret that

decision. madam president, i just want to say one other thing on a different topic. sort of in the quiet after we celebrated the 15,000th vote of the senator from vermont very publicly the other day, our more reticent and perhaps even shy occasionally senator chuck grassley, the senior senator from iowa, celebrated his 12,000th vote in the senate. senator grassley is well known for his consistency and for his steadfast commitment to the people of iowa, and i have to tell you i don't know any senator that worked harder to get and to keep the trust and confidence of the people that he represents. so this 12,000th vote should come as no surprise. he actually hasn't even missed a vote since 1993, and every year for more than 30 years, senator grassley has demonstrated his commitment to the people of iowa by visiting every one of the

state's 99 counties, and i know for his junior senator colleague, senator ernst, he keeps her running just trying to keep up with him. that's an impressive record for anyone and one that many, including our presidential candidates, sometimes need to try to duplicate. so i want to speak just a second beyond statistics about senator grassley because i have the honor of serving with him on both the finance and judiciary committee. he has worked tirelessly not just for the people of iowa but for all americans. indeed, my colleague shares my concern for creating a more open and more transparent government. as somebody who is conservative by ideology and by nature, i'm not necessarily up here sent here by my constituents in texas to pass more rules and regulations. i'm here to hold the government and particularly the bureaucracy accountable. and one way we can do that

without adding additional regulations and rules and costs to the taxpayer is by encouraging open and more transparent government, because with that comes accountability. senator grassley has used his role as chairman of the judiciary committee to advance these values and to hold government and the bureaucracy accountable for the benefit not just of iowans but for the benefit of the american people. so i'd like to thank the senator from iowa for the great example he sets for the rest of us and applaud him for casting his 12,000th vote. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak in support of my colleague from iowa's c.r.a.,

congressional review act amendment on waters of the united states. west virginia is no stranger to the crushing consequences of harmful regulations. our unemployment rate is the highest in the nation. layoff notices keep coming. and declining revenues from coal severance taxes are eroding our state's budget. i read an article earlier today saying that this far into the fiscal year for the state of west virginia, we're $91 million in deficit position. the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers rule known as the wotus rule is just the latest example of a regulatory environment that threatens to put west virginians and other americans out of business. everyone can agree, the senator from texas just talked about this and i know the senator from iowa has talked about it frequently that we must protect our drinking water resources, and we also must protect our precious natural resources. but a rule that subjects puddles

and ditches to regulations just goes too far. e.p.a.'s unprecedented expansion of federal authority has very serious consequences, both in the state that i represent, west virginia, but throughout the rest of the country. in my state of west virginia, the steep, mountainous terrain means the e.p.a. would have oversight over any land located in a valley or low-lying area. well, if you have been to west virginia, you know you're either on a mountain or you're in a valley in a low-lying area. there is very little flat land. the west virginia coal association pointed out that the wotus rule would trigger -- quote -- a alphabet soup of statutes, regulatory programs and federal regulatory agencies involved in traditionally nonregulated activities. something as simple as digging a ditch on a farm or building a home on privately owned property could be under the per view of the e.p.a., and a failure to comply with that rule could result in fines as high as

$37,500 a day. a county commissioner from montegalia county recently wrote to my office expressing concerns that this wotus rule would impede the county's attempt to develop tracts of land needed to attract employers in west virginia. i remind you, developable land in a state like mine is very difficult to create because it's not natural and it would create a lot of those low-lying areas and ditches and puddles that this regulation goes way beyond to regulate. a small business owner in scott depot, west virginia, shared her concern that small businesses were not adequately considered in the wotus rule. i quote -- "government regulations like the proposed rule are complicated, expensive to navigate, and a real obstacle to my growing business. this change and its ridiculous overreach and restrictions could decrease land value and hinder

my ability, her ability as a private landowner, to expand, develop and use her own private land. we talk a lot about creating jobs in this country. this is a quote from a business owner who is concerned about her ability to control her own destiny with her own small business with her own privately owned land. i think this is the reason that 31 states, including west virginia, are suing to overturn this misguided rule and two courts have already found it likely illegal. rather than incorporating thoughts from congress and concerned americans, this misguided rule doubles down on overreach and threatens to impede small businesses, agriculture, manufacturing, coal and natural gas production and many other vital sectors of the economy as the gentleman from texas just talked about. the decision by the sixth circuit of appeals to block implementation of the wotus rule nationwide confirms that wotus was the wrong approach to protecting our water resources and reinforces the need to rein

in this administration's unprecedented and overreaching regulations. along with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, just this morning -- or just this afternoon at 2:30, i proudly supported senator barrasso's federal water quality protection act which would have directed the e.p.a. and the corps of engineers to withdraw this rule, go back to the drawing board and issue an alternative approach that is crafted in consultation with state and local governments and small businesses. the bill we voted on earlier today received bipartisan support from 57 senators but only partisan opposition. both republicans and democrats supported moving forward on the federal water quality protection act because we wanted to offer a real solution that would bring clarity and common sense to the protection of our nation's waters. this legislation would have provided certainty to farmers, manufacturers, energy producers, state and local governments and anyone seeking to do virtually

anything on private land. unfortunately, 41 democrats stopped a bipartisan majority from considering this bill. we must now consider other options to block the misguided wotus regulation issued by the e.p.a. and the corps of engineers, and i'm glad that we will have the opportunity to vote on a congressional review act resolution of disapproval offered by the senator from iowa. this resolution would protect hardworking west virginia families, small businesses, energy producers and others across the country who would be unfairly burdened by this onerous and deeply flawed wotus rule. the wotus rule would lead to a massive expansion again of costly permitting requirements and hinder our already struggling economy and -- an outcome west virginia and the nation simply cannot afford. so i urge my colleagues to join with me and the senator from iowa who is leading the charge in such an admirable way in supporting this important effort to block the harmful wotus rule.

and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. madam president, today i rise in support of the critical bipartisan legislation that was before the senate earlier today but also in support of the senator from iowa's proposal that is before us now. while the measure earlier today failed to secure the necessary votes, the fight is not over. the federal water quality protection act would have enabled american citizens to maintain control over their water resources, and it would have stopped the administration's wotus rule. congress has already limited the federal government's regulatory authority under the clean water act to only navigable waterways,

but instead of following along, this administration has broadened the definition of waters of the united states and extended federal authority far beyond the law's original intent. the rule which is commonly referred to as wotus exponentially expands federal jurisdiction over all water, from prairie potholes to ditches and everything in between. ultimately, this rule prevents state and local agencies from effectively regulating our water by placing control in the hands of washington bureaucrats. i am proud to have worked with my colleagues on a bipartisan effort to overturn this dangerous rule and force both the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers to go back to the drawing board. our legislation known as the

federal water quality protection act would have required the administration to consult with states and local stakeholders before imposing federal regulations on our state-owned water resources. additionally, the bill would have ensured a thorough economic analysis to make sure that that was conducted before restricting states from managing their own natural resources. the importance of allowing our states to manage these resources hit home during a senate environment and public works committee field hearing that i chaired in lincoln, nebraska, this past march. at the hearing, a wide variety of nebraska stakeholders provided personal accounts of how this rule will affect families, businesses and communities all across our

state. one witness from the nebraska state home builders association noted that 25% of the current costs associated with building a new home, they're due to existing regulations. adding more federal rules and regulations will only put that american dream of owning a home out of reach for most of us. that's not right, and that is not the kind of government that people want. additionally, the commonsense nebraska coalition noted the sweeping impact of this rule on everyone, from county officials trying to build a road to farmers trying to manage that rain water runoff. the wotus rule affects much more than rural america. our municipalities, they're

charged with waste water, storm water and flood control systems, as well as providing drinking water, electricity and natural gas to our citizens. taxpayers will be the ones that shoulder costs. taxpayers will shoulder these added costs. we're going to pay more for road construction, we will pay more for levees that protect our drinking water, we will pay more for waste water imimprovements, and that, madam president, well, that will cost our families. those higher taxes will hurt our families. with the expanded definition of navigable water under this rule and our extensive aquifer system, the federal government can assert control over nearly

all the water in the state of nebraska. nebraskans take their role in protecting and conserving our natural resources very seriously responsible resource management including the stewardship of our water is the cornerstone of my state's economy. we also understand that the people closest to a resource, they're the ones who manage it best. and that's a principle that is shared across this country. that's why i am committed to working with my colleagues to manage responsibly our nation's water for our current and our future generations. i don't believe the federal government should focus on ways to make life harder for people.

that's not what we were sent here to do. instead, we need to explore policy options that will promote growth and conservation. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of the federal water quality protection act. this important bipartisan legislation would have set clear limits on the federal regulation of water. i'm disappointed that the obama administration would force this irresponsible, overreaching rule on hardworking americans. we have a duty to roll back this rule. we have a duty to prevent the harm that it will inflict. i encourage all of my colleagues to come together, come together

on this so we can ensure that job creators, communities, understanandfamilies from acrosy can continue to proces to prosp. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: snrom colorado. mr. gardner: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: there is a saying engraved on the walls of the colorado state capitol by thomas

hornsby farrell that reads here is a land whose life is written in water. i come to the floor to talk about the most precious natural resource in the west and that is of course our water. water in the west helped shape communities, agriculture, tourism and industry. the management of that water has been traditionally controlled at the state and local level, not the federal government. colorado is the origin state for four major river basins, the colorado, the arkansas, the platt and the rio grande. these water basins help make for a robust agriculture economy throughout the state. according to the department of agriculture, this industry contributes nearly $41 billion to the state economy and employs nearly 173,000 people. colorado has more than 35,000 farms and ranches and more than 31 million acres for farming and ranching. the state ranks in the top five nationwide for production of

products ranging from potatoes and cantaloupes to sunflowers and wheat. unfortunately, the environmental protection agency has decided to put forth a rule that would endanger many of these farms as well as the jobs and local economies that they help support. the waters of the united states rule known as wotus would significantly expand the definition of navigable waters under the clean water act. with this rule, the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers have unilaterally decided isolated ponds and irrigation ditches may be subject to the same federal oversight as the mississippi river. and they are doing all of this based on authority passed by congress more than 40 years ago. instead this rule could have significant negative impacts on agriculture, industry and local utilities and water districts merely by the uncertainty it creates with local entities trying to determine if their water is subject to federal oversight. according to the colorado farm bureau, an additional 1.3 million acres of land and an

additional 170,000 stream miles in colorado alone could be subjected to federal government jurisdiction. it's important to point out that colorado is the lower 48 state, one of the only lower 48 states that has all water flowing out of and no water flowing in to. farmers and ranchers would likely be subjected to increased permitting requirements under section 404 of the clean water act to canals and ditches on their own land, and even if their land is exempted, as some would have you believe from the wotus rule under the proposed exclusions there is already an air of uncertainty for these farmers and ranchers who will have to try and navigate the federal bureaucracy to determine if they have to apply for the increased permitting requirements. not to mention that it's no secret that the environmental protection agency often works very slowly in the regulatory and permitting process. two water projects in colorado with bipartisan support, the northern integrated supply project and gross reservoir

expansion, languished in the regulatory process for more than a decade. the waters of the united states rule is simply not the answer. the federal government should not be passing expansive new laws without the consent of congress to regulate every drop of water. now the e.p.a. wants you to believe that the proposed wotus rule is not a major expansion of power, that this rule does not add any new requirements for agriculture or interfere with private property rights or include the regulation of most irrigation ditches. fortunately, our nation maintains a separation of powers. on october 9 the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit issued a nationwide stay for the waters of the united states rule after a lawsuit was filed by 18 states including the state of colorado. the order of stay specifically states that the rule effectively redraws the jurisdictional lines over our nation's waters and that the states and others will be harmed if the justice system did not act. i applaud the sixth circuit for their actions and for the 18 states that moved forward to protect control of the water

within their boundaries. now i believe it's time for congress to act. unfortunately yesterday we watched as a bipartisan -- excuse me. a partisan, a strictly partisan minority blocked consideration of senate bill 1140, the federal water quality protection act authored by senator barrasso of wyoming. this legislation which had moved through the senate under regular order and in a bipartisan fashion would seek to have the e.p.a. and others make significant revisions to the wotus rule and would throw out the current rule. it calls for significant consultation with state and local governments who actually control the water. i believe this consultation process is a significant step forward. i've heard from many water districts and utilities throughout colorado and they all have major concerns with the wotus rule in its current form and the unintended consequences of the rule. but because of this partisan minority of senators blocking the legislative vehicle to try to address the many shortcomings of the wotus rule, i believe we have no other choice than to

move forward in disproving of the rule in its entirety. i applaud senator ernst of iowa for her work in introducing senate joint resolution 22 which provides for disapproval of the waters of the united states rule. and that is why i come to the floor today to urge a "yes" vote on s.j. res. 22, because in colorado, we know that we have to stick up for our water rights. in colorado, we know that we have to stand up for our water law. and in colorado, we know that we have to keep the feds' hands off of our water rights. i urge the adoption of this measure. thank you, madam president. i yield back my time.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you. i am here actually to address some of the recent developments on the keystone x.l. pipeline. before going into that, i'd like to take just a minute, though, and mention the congressional review act that's before us and how important it is that we pass it. i want to commend senator ernst for her diligence on this very important matter. the waters of the u.s. is a

regulation issue by the e.p.a. that goes far beyond their statutory authority, far beyond the statutory authority that congress has given them under legal theory, referred to as significant nexus. it's something that i worked on for a long time. in fact, it included a bill which would defund the regulation as part of the e.p.a. appropriations bill in our appropriations, both at the subcommittee and full committee level. so i certainly hope and feel that the good senator from iowa will be successful in this c.r.a. effort, as far as getting it through congress, both the senate and the house, i think it will go through in strong fashion thanks to her good work and of course the underlying importance of the issue. but obviously our challenge will be with the administration. and i hope that the administration will look at the strong support here in congress, listen to the people of this great country, the farmers and

ranchers across our country, the small business people across the country who know so well that wotus is a serious problem for them. i hope the president will consider them and not veto the legislation, but i'm concerned that he will veto it. and if he does, we will continue to work through the appropriations process to defund this legislation. and so again, even if we're not able to deauthorize it through the c.r.a. process, we will work to defund it. of course the disadvantage with defunding is that only goes for a year, but obviously that would take us through most of the balance of the obama administration and hopefully get us to a fresh start. i think the key point here, though, is we rescind this onerous legislation. that can be through deauthorizing it, through defunding it and in fact it can be through litigation. i think something in excess of

30 states have joined in litigation across the country, pushing back on this onerous regulation, and in fact the federal district court in north dakota stayed the regulation, and that stay was upheld, the injunction was upheld by the sixth circuit court of appeals in cincinnati, ohio. right now there is a national stay on this legislation, which i think just goes to show that we're on the right track here because we're coming at it from so many angles with so many people who are just saying look, this is common sense. this is a big-time overreach by e.p.a., it adversely affects farmers, ranchers, small business, property rights, in fact, in this great country, and adversely affects people's property rights, and so through deauthorization, defunding and the legal process we will work in fact to rescind it.

again, i just want to echo the strong comments of my esteemed colleague from the great state of colorado, and also acknowledge and commend the good senator from the state of iowa on her efforts to lead the charge. i'd like to speak, as i said, for up to ten minutes as if in morning business on the subject of the keystone x.l. pipeline. yesterday, after seven years, after seven years starting in september of 2008, the trans-canada company asked the u.s. state department to cause or suspend its application to build the keystone x.l. pipeline. the company asked for that pause because it is working through an application process for route approval by the public service commission in nebraska.

the cover and the legislature in nebraska actually approved the route for the pipeline in nebraska, but after many lawsuits in the state of nebraska and demonstrations often led by movie stars and sore celebrities, the company has chosen, i guess what i would call, a belt and suspenders approach. essentially they have decided in spite of the fact that they have gotten approval from the governor and the legislature and that that decision has been upheld by the nebraska supreme court, they're going back and they're going through the process with the nebraska public service commission. so that's why i say it's really a belt and suspenders approach. now they're going back and in addition to the approvals they have already gotten, in addition to the decision by the nebraska supreme court, now they're going back through the public service commission process in nebraska as well.

now, the thing about that it will take about a year to do. now trans-canada is asking for forbearance from the obama administration, not because the company hasn't met all the legal and regulatory requirements. it has. it's met all of them and it spent millions of dollars doing so. but rather trans-canada is asking for forbearance on the project because the company is once again going through all of the requirements, all the regulations and all the red tape to get every approval, state, local and ultimately federal for the project. that's why i call it like i say the belt and the suspenders approach. now we'll see what the obama administration does with trans-canada's request. will they now hold off or wait on their denial decision which the obama administration obviously wants to make based on their environmental agenda or will they honor trans-canada's request to pause or suspend the

project just as they have made trans-canada wait now for seven years, seven years pending all of the administration's requirements. including the obama administration's adamant concern that the process in nebraska be fully completed before the administration renders a decision. remember, this administration made a big deal about waiting until the nebraska process was fully completed before the administration would make a decision, so let's see what they do. because i have just outlined that process will probably take another year. will they forebear on making a decision now after they held the process up seven years, will they honor the request by trans-canada to pause while the company completes this process in nebraska or will they say no, in spite of their concern that that be fully completed, will

they go ahead and in essence reverse themselves on process and deny the project? well, we'll see. we'll see what they do, but if they don't grant this pause or awes pend the application pending completion of the project in nebraska, it seems to me like a double standard. it seems like a double standard. on the one hand, they told the project up for seven years and they say the company must go fully through the process in nebraska so so for them now to say no, we're not going to provide the time to do that seems in fact like very much a double standard. as i have talked about here in this chamber before and as i think the administration is very well aware, and i think that's part of the reason they have held up on making a decision rather than turning down the project, this is a project that

is overwhelmingly supported by the people, poll after poll. 65%, 70% support by the american people. also it's supported by congress. passed overwhelmingly, more than 60 votes in this chamber pass with a big bipartisan majority in the house, and another consideration obviously now for the administration is what about the new administration in canada, the trudeau administration coming in, new prime minister in canada supports the project. so what's the message to canada if the administration says no, we're not going to honor the company's request for a stay or a pause, extension on the project now and instead goes ahead and turns it down? the administration's own quadrennial energy review dedicates a whole chapter to the benefits of integrating north

american energy markets. the administration states have -- quote -- energy system integration is in the long-term interests of the united states, canada and mexico as it expands the size of energy markets, creates economies of scale to attract private investment, lowers capital costs and reduces energy costs for consumers. end quote. right out of their own quadrennial energy review prepared by their own department of energy that says we need to work with canada on energy. so what will they do? in spite of all that, will they turn the project down now or will they treat the company fairly and give them due process? well, regardless, regardless of the decision that the obama administration makes, i think in the final analysis, the project will be approved. now, it might take a year, it might take a little over a year, but i think in the final analysis, this project will be approved, should be approved because the people of this country overwhelmingly support

it, recognize that it's in their interests and in their benefit, but what it really comes down to is the merits. in the final signals, a project should be approved or disapproved on the merits, right? and the merits are this. very simple. to build the kind of energy plan that we want for this country where we're energy secure, meaning we produce more energy than we consume, we have got to build the energy infrastructure we need to move that energy safely and efficiently from where it's produced to where it's consumed. that means we need pipelines, we need transmission lines, we need rail and we need road to move that energy as safely and cost-effectively as possible. if you think about it, that doesn't mean just oil and gas. that means all type of energy. that means renewables, too, to move those electrons through transmission lines. we need the energy infrastructure for the right

kind of energy plan for this country. energy from all sources, traditional and renewable to move that energy as safely and as cost-effectively as possible. and so what's the message here? the message is very simple. if we want companies to step up and invest the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars it takes to build that infrastructure, then we have to have a process of legal and regulatory process where they know that if they go through and they meet all the requirements, that they can then get approval for all the investment, the hundreds of millions that they invest to get that done and to build these projects. now, that's energy infrastructure we need to build so that we don't continue to rely upon opec or let russia dominate the energy markets or countries like venezuela, and ultimately that's what the american people want, because that energy security, that energy independence, if you will, working with our closest friend and ally like canada and developing energy in this country is what the american

people want. that's what the american people want because it makes us strong and secure. so this is just one project. but it's about all of the projects that we need to build to make this nation energy secure. and that's why ultimately this project will be approved on the merits. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. too toomey: thank you, mr. president. i want to speak a little bit this evening about the budget deal that was recently enacted. let me just start -- i guess there are three parts of this i want to address. one is the spending increases. another is the debt ceiling. and finally there is the crime victims fund, which i am very, very upset about, mr. president. so starting with spending, it shouldn't be controversial, but of course it is, that we spend too much money here. we spend way too much money. there is any number of metrics

that would confirm and demonstrate how much we overspend, but i think the most compelling is the size of the deficit that all this spending is creating. with record revenue i want to underscore that, mr. president, the federal treasury is taking in record amounts of tax revenue. all-time record levels of revenue, we're still spending so much above and beyond that that this year we're going to run about a $450 billion deficit. now, there are some people in this arm that have practically sprained their arm patting themselves on the back because it used to be a trillion dollar deficit. that's true. but $450 billion is still way too much. we've got too much debt now and a $450 billion deficit this year is going to add $450 billion to a debt level that's already too big, and guess what? all forecasts, everybody's forecasts, liberal, conservative, democrat,

republican, c.b.o., private sector, everybody agrees the deficits are on path to get worse. so we're spending too much, our deficits are too big, they're adding to a debt that's too high, already doing damage to our economy, our ability to create jobs because of all the uncertainty and the risk that all this debt creates, and what happens? the only spending discipline we have been able to achieve in recent years, the spending caps that were enacted in 2011 the president insists we've got to bus them. now, many of us believe that we should be spending more on defense, and if you're going to do that, i think part of our job is to prioritize spending, national security, defending our country should be our number-one priority, and since we need to spend more there, you offset that with spending reductions somewhere else. that would be the prudent thing to do. but that's not what the president insisted on. the president insisted that if

we were going to spend anything more on defense, we had to match that dollar for dollar with increased spending elsewhere. so not only were we not offsetting the increase in defense spending, but we were compounding the spending by increasing it the nondefense spending. so this deal plus the spending caps and in fact the deficits will be larger than they otherwise would be. that leads me to the second point and that is the debt ceiling. let's think about the context of where we are. when president obama took office, the debt ceiling was below -- the total amount of debt owed to the public, the amount of money the treasury had borrowed because of previous deficits, that was less than $6 trillion. it's a very big number, but it was less than $6 trillion. by the end of next year, it's going to be over $13 trillion. so this president will have by the time he leaves office, he

will have more than doubled the total amount of debt that we've borrowed to fund these deficits. another way to think about it is that this president will have added to our debt burden by an amount greater than the sum total of every single one of his predecessors combined, from george washington to george w. bush. this is a staggering amount of debt that we've imposed on ourselves, our kids, our grandkids, our economy, our ability to be a productive country. and what did the president say in response to all this debt? give me the authority to borrow more, with no conditions. we're not even going to have a discussion or a negotiation about the underlying problem that's causing all this debt. and i think that's, frankly, outrageous. and it's extremely unusual because for decades now american presidents have met with congress and when we've had

discussions in the past about the level of debt and what we're going to do about it and when the presidents have said we need to increase our debt ceiling so that we can borrow more money, that has very typically included a discussion about dealing with the underlying problems. there are many examples, mr. president. back in 1985 during the reagan administration, it was in the context of a debt ceiling debate that we passed the gramm-rudman-hollings measures, which was about limiting our deficits and reducing the amount of debt we would incur going forward. in 1990, george herbert walker bush negotiated with congress the budget enforcement act, which was related to a debt ceiling increase at the time and which adopted measures to deal with the deficits of that day. in 1997, william clinton -- william jefferson clinton -- bill clinton, president clinton with a republican congress sat down and negotiated a balanced

budget agreement. and you know what happened? they balanced the budget. so president clinton decided to work with republicans in congress at dealing with this underlying problem, anding within a few years we actually had balanced budgets. and then in 2011 in the context of the debt ceiling increase that was discussed at the time -- and eventually raised -- these spending caps were established as a way toot least do something about -- as a way to at least do something about this runaway spending and these excessive debts. but this time the president had a different view. his view with as was there would be no discussions. we're not going to talk about the underlying problem. he wanted to have unlimited authority to borrow more money through the understand of his presidency, and that's what's in this deal. we can expect a whole lot more debt. that's exactly what's going to happen. which, by the way, contrary to what some in the administration like to say, has nothing to do

with paying for past bills. we've paid for those bills. this is to enable excessive spending going forward, the deficits that we're going to incur because this president is insisting on this overspending. let me goat the las get to the i wanted to talk about. by way of background, the crime victims fund is a fund that was established in 184. -- in 1984. it consists exclusively of moneys that are assessed to criminals, convicted criminals, corporate or individuals that as part of their punishment they are made to pay a fine. the fine goes into an account with the federal government. it actually -- it's quite substantial. year in and year out, this ends up being actually billions of dollars. the statute requires that a -- first of all, that all of this money go to victims of crimes and their advocates and,

specifically, it requires a priority for victims of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence. that those three categories of crimes would be given a special priority and there are organizations that do wonderful work across pennsylvania and across the country in helping people who are victims of these terrible, terrible crimes, that are so difficult to recover from. there are groups that people that do great work in helping these victims to recover. well, the whole idea of the crime victims fund is to take these dollars from the criminals -- not a penny of tax dollars -- and give it to the victims of crimes and the people who are advocates for them. what this budget deal does is takes $1.5 billion out of the crime victims fund and spends it on other things. i think this is outrageous. this is not taxpayer money, in the first place. it's not as though we don't have

victims of crimes anymore. obviously we still do. and we've got organizations that can do great work, if they had the resources. but in the absence of resources, it means children who are victims of child abuse don't get the counseling and the care they need. it means a victim of domestic violence doesn't have a place to stay when she needs protection from an abusing spouse. it means people who really need these services are going to go without because we're diverting this money that's supposed to be going to crime victims and we're spending it somewhere else. well, mr. president, the most important thing i want to say tonight is that it's not too late to fix this. what we passed -- what the congress passed and the president signed last week, it paves the way to misallocate this money from the crime victims fund. but it's not -- it doesn't require that that happen. and so i've got a bill that will fix this problem.

i've got a bill that -- it's called the fairness for crime victims act. and what it'll do is it'll require that the money go to the victims as it was always intended. by the way, the idea that we should not be diverting the crime victims fund to these other miscellaneous spending categories, that's a bipartisan idea. there is broad, bipartisan support for the idea that the crime victims fund should go to victims of crime. "the wall street journal" ran an article just on sunday. they quoted a crime advocate, describing the budget deal, saying -- and i quote -- "that this deal violates the integrity of a decades-old program that defends safe havens, counseling for abused children and financial aid for murder victims' families, among other programs." josh shapiro is the chairman of the pennsylvania commission on crime and delinquency. he wrote about this provision in the budget deal that it -- quote

-- "puts in danger our commitment to victims of crime throughout our country. democratic members of the pennsylvania statehouse agree with me that this money should not be diverted this way and they send in a letter, among other things, and i quote, that the budget deal increases spending to the detriment of current and future crime victims and that this constitutes a terrible precedent. mr. president, i couldn't agree more. that's why i hope we will pass my legislation, the feigns for - the fairness for crime victims act. it ends this injustice. it simply requires that congress allocate to crime victims and their advocates an amount equal to the sum of the previous three-year average that was -- that went into the fund. so a short way to think about it is, it means we're going to send to crime victims the money that comes in for crime victims and we're not going to send it somewhere else. it means that victims of crime

and their advocates are going to see a big increase in the funding because, for years, congress has refused to allocate all of the money that has been coming in. in the past, they just refused to allocate it. there are budgetary gimmickry reasons for doing that. this needs to come to an end. and we certainly can't continue diverting this fund to other purposes. so, mr. president, we've had colleagues, members of this body, come down to this floor and make the point that we shouldn't use medicare and social security funds as an a.t.m. to fund other programs. i agree. we also shouldn't use the crime victims fund, which is not a single dime of taxpayer money, we shouldn't use that to fund other programs, either. it is not too late to do the right thing for victims of some of the most heinous crimes that are committed anywhere. i urge my colleagues, let's pass

this legislation. this was reported out of the budget committee unanimously. there was very broad, bipartisan support. but what happened in this budget deal is an illustration of why my legislation is necessary. money that is left around in a pot somewhere in this town it gets spent pretty quickly by someone for something. this money needs to go to crime victims. if we pass my legislation, that's where it'll go. mr. president, i yield the floor.