block similar legislation for a final vote on the disapproval resolution is expected today at noon eastern. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord, of us all, everything belongs to you. use our lawmakers today to

accomplish your will. as they strive to be your peacemakers, remind them that no evil can stop the unfolding of your purposes and providence. lord, show them how to use this day's fleeting minutes for your glory. sanctify their thoughts, words, and deeds throughout this week and in all the days of their lives. bless those who support them in their work, rewarding faithfulness with your divine approbation. we pray in your great name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me begin this morning by congratulating kentucky's governor-elect and the entire republican ticket on a big win at home last night.

erly i remember when the -- i remember when the republican nomination was hardly worth it in kentucky. we used to have to beg people for it. the governor-elect and i are no strangers to spirited competition but we're also conservative kentuckians happy to see change coomg -- coming to frankfurt. yesterday's election was a statement about where the people of my state want to see us headed and it's not down the road of government control and big labor. they want fresh ideas, growth, innovation, opportunity, and greater control over their lives and designation. they want a change in direction. here's something they certainly don't want: more of this administration's top-down, "washington knows best" approach

from everything from health care to how best to use our natural resources. the administration's so-called waters of the u.s. regulation would grant federal bureaucrats domination over nearly every piece of land that has ever touched a pothole, ditch, or puddle at some point. it would force the americans who live there to ask federal bureaucrats for permission to do just about anything on their own property. we're not talking about just a few acres falling under bureaucrat control here and there. according to analysis by the american farm bureau we're talking about centralized federal control extending to nearly 92% of wisconsin, 95% of california, 98% of new york, 99% of pennsylvania, and if you believe this, 100% of virginia,

the entire state. this isn't some clean water regulation. it's an unprecedented federal power grab that clumsily and poorly pretends to masquerade as one. it's obvious why waters of the u.s. would be a left-winger's dream. it's equally obvious why democratic leaders would want to pretend this rule is about clean water rather than admit what it's really about. because the true purpose and scope of this regulation is basically indefensible. 31 states have already filed suits against it. two courts have ruled it's likely illegal and one court found that the rule was so flawed that it had to be the result of a -- quote -- "process that is inexplicable, arbitrary and devoid of a reasoned process." that's why we considered the bipartisan federal water quality protection act yesterday. the legislation, a bipartisan -- is bipartisan and it's simple.

it says that e.p.a.'s resources should be used to actually protect the lakes and rivers we all cherish rather than for the administration to launch arbitrary ideological attacks on middle-class homeowners and family farms. this bipartisan legislation would have required america's clean water rules to be based on the scientific collaborative process the american people expect, not some arbitrary or inflexible process that's devoid of reason, like we had with wotus. but a balanced process that actually takes the views of those it affects into serious consideration. i thank the senator from wyoming, senator barrasso, for his impressive work on the bill, a bipartisan majority of the senate voted to support it. but most democrats showed an ideological power grab over sensible clean water rules yesterday. to many kentuckians, this regulation feels a lot like the

latest in a sustained obama administration regulatory assault on their families. well, the senate's going to pursue another avenue today to protect the middle class for this unfair regulatory attack. our colleague from iowa, senator ernst, has introduced a measure that would allow congress to move forward despite the democratic filibuster. it would overturn the regulation in its entirety. a majority of the senate voted to support this bill just yesterday. we'll vote on final passage later today. and because this measure cannot be filibustered, we expect it to pass. i would ask my colleagues who voted against bipartisan commonsense clean water legislation yesterday to think differently today. work with us to protect the middle class instead of defending a -- quote -- "inexplicationable, arbitrary -- inexplicable arbitrary regulation that's probably illegal and almost certainly violates the clean water act."

one other matter, mr. president. we live in a time of diverse and challenging global threats. it's a time when we see isil consolidating its gains in both iraq and syria. it's a time when we see the forces of assad marching alongside iranian soldiers and hezbollah militias, a time when see russian aircraft flying above them in support. and it's a time that commanders tell us additional resources are required to ensure the safety and preparedness of our troops. i think it's time to finally support the men and women who volunteer to protect us. the last excuse not to do so, the setting of a top-line budget number, has been cleared away. we fixed that. there's no reason our colleagues shouldn't join us in moving forward now. these brave men and women aren't poker chips in some washington political game. they are the sisters and fathers

and daughters and neighbors who voluntarily and selfishly -- selflessly put themselves in harm's way so that we might live free. these are the men and women we will salute this month on veterans day. it's not enough just to support those who defend us then. we need to support them right now. finally, mr. president, i understand there's a bill at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: s. 2232, a bill to require a full audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

democratic leader. mr. reid: just a brief word on the republican attack on the clean water act. the bottom line is the administration's clean water regulation will protect 117 million people. so, the cries about this legislation flies in front of the facts. 117 million americans are being protected. mr. president, yesterday the republican leader once again filed a motion to invoke cloture on the department of defense appropriations bill. it was another example of the republican leader wasting the senate's time on a repeated cloture vote that he knows will fail. republicans tried this piecemeal approach already. it didn't work. we came within hours of defaulting and not extending the full faith and credit of the united states. we came within days of shutting down the government. even though two-thirds of the republicans in the house and the

senate voted to close the government, default on their debt we were able to craft a budget agreement that focuses on the middle class and pentagon. now it's time to move on and pass an object appropriations bill that addresses the defense and needs of the middle class and keeping with the budget that passed last week. there is no reason we can't get an omnibus bill to fund all the government by december 11, which is the deadline. if the republicans balk, the government will close. again remember, two-thirds of the republicans in congress already voted "no." they agreed they voted to default on the debt of this country and to close our government. that should give everyone pause. mr. president, over the last several months the koch brothers have been on a public relations campaign. this koch propaganda campaign has accelerated in the past few weeks. charles and david koch have been

going to great lengths to convince the american people that they're not just a couple of billionaires who are trying to dismantle social security and closed the export-import bank putting americans out of work and costing the government billions of dollars. these two men fought -- bought a zoo in ohio and fought the republican mayor in colorado springs, colorado, as he tried to fix the city's potholes. they stopped both from having. the kochs want everyone to believe they're not the ones rigging the system to benefit themselves or their wealthy friends. the koch brothers are spending vast wealth holding newspaper and television interviews on their propaganda campaign. despite all their efforts, this koch media tour failed to bury the one simple truth. the koch brothers are trying to buy america. during an interview yesterday, the scales fell away once again

to reveal the kochs true intentions. in justifying his and his brother's efforts to inject hundreds of millions of dollars in conservative political campaigns -- in fact, almost a billion -- charles koch said -- quote -- "i expect something in return." close quote. the kochs are getting plenty in return. so far they bought the republican house, republican senate, the government shutdown, announced the speaker of the house, shuttered the export-import bank, the republican presidential field which nearly every candidate kowtows to these billionaires. but that's not all. the kochs have also procured a media that is intimidated by their billions, too intimidated to hold them accountable. consider yesterday's interview on msnbc's "morning joe" show. this is classic. listen. here's some of the questions that joe and mika asked the koch

brothers. joe scarborough asked -- quote -- "it's hard to find people in new york, liberals. we were talking about this before. liberals or conservatives alike who haven't been touched by your graciousness, whether it's toward the arts or cancer research. you think you got that from your mom?" close quote. mika asked sitting in your choold -- childhood home, in topeka, kansas, we have the koch brothers, which was a good brother." close quote. another tough question. joe then asked -- and i quote -- "you guys both play rugby, right? play together?" close quote. sometimes, most of the time there weren't even questions. there were just compliments. at one point here's what joe

said -- quote -- "you sound like my dad. that's very diplomatic. that's very good. wow. those were some really tough questions asked by the host of "morning joe." that's sufficient journalism. those questions are so easy, they may even qualify them to moderate the next republican presidential debate. it seems that some journalists are determined not to get on the wrong side of the koch brothers and their billions. after all, we've seen how koch empire targets people, cities, states that do anything that conflicts with the koch brothers' radical agenda. when the media rolls over for these modern-day robber barons as it's doing now, our country's in trouble. as charles koch himself said, he and his brother are not spending this money for altruistic reasons.

they're doing it for one reason only -- for the profit of themselves and their fellow billionaires who have rigged the system against the middle class. they said it themselves. they want something in return. and what they want is profit for their corporations, their own publicist once explained why the koch brothers are trying to buy a new government. quote -- "it's because we can make more profit, okay?" close quote. that's what this is all about. that's what this is all about for charles and david koch. bigger profits, more money, $100 billion or more isn't enough. by their own admission, the kochs will spend and spend and spend until they get the government they want, a government that lets koch industries do what it wants, a government whose sole role is to make these billionaires even richer. and unfortunately for the united states, the supreme court has constructed a political system that allows them to do just

that. citizens united, this case citizens united, cited in january, 2010, has effectively put the united states government up for sale to the highest bidder. right now the highest bidder are the koch brothers. right now, our country has no real restrictions on how much money a billionaire or millionaire can spend to buy the government they want. all the power goes to the wealthy, and that puts middle-class americans at a significant disadvantage. so we can't stand idly by while our government sits on the auction block, and neither should any american sit idly by. instead, we should be working to rid the system of the koch brothers' dark money. but this cannot and will not happen if reporters and journalists refuse to ask charles and david koch questions, maybe even probing questions. otherwise, no one is holding these two oil bearons accountable for their nefarious

actions. mr. president, i see no one seeking the floor. i will ask -- i'm sorry. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.j. res. 22 which -- s.j. res. 22, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 286, s.j. res. 22, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter eight of title 5 united states code, and so forth. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided in the usual form. mr. heller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. inhofe: would the senator yield? i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the senator from nevada that i be recognized unless an intervening minority should come in, and that i be recognized after that minority. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak on an

issue that will impact every single one of my constituents and probably every colleague's constituents here in this -- in this body, namely the environmental protection agency's and the army's corps of engineers definition for navigable waters. i also, also known as waters of the u.s. this overreaching and burdensome regulation is bad for nevada and frankly, mr. president, it's bad for the nation. my home state of nevada is one of the driest states in the nation, and the water of course is a very, 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 u.s. 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 products liability is to cut red tape regulations handed down by washington bureaucrats.

unfortunately, time and time again, this administration is bound and determined to issue overall burdensome regulations that damage the economy and stifles 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 hardworking nevadans. i have long been an outspoken advocate and cosponsor of senator barrasso's legislation, the federal waters quality protection act, which would make the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers redo this rule and consider stakeholders' input, something they completely ignored the last time around. mr. president, considering that 87% of my home state is advantaged by the federal government, who i often refer to as our federal landlords, it's easy to see why this rule is thought of by many back home as

yet another federal land grab. i've heard from many of my constituents who have shared with me their staunch opposition to this rule like marlo from ruby valley and darryl from yarington. they write about this rule, and i quote -- creates confusion and risk by providing the agency with almost unlimited authority to regulate at their discretion any low spot where rain water collects, including farm ditches, drainages, agricultural ponds, and isolated wetlands found in and near farms and ranching. the e.p.a. may tell you that farmers and ranchers are protected from this regulation by exemptions under the clean water act. the problem with this so-called exemption is if you made any changes on your farm land or your ranch since 1977, that impacts any land or any water on your property, you don't qualify for an exemption. think about it again. since 1977, if you have made any

changes on your ranch land or your farm that impacts water or land, you 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 marlo and darryl, i believe this rule needs to be redone with significant impact 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 e.p.a., due to the left circle the wagon mentality of the obama agenda. and although i was sad to see this vote fail, today i'm proud to stand in support of senator ernst's resolution of disapproval which will send this regulation back to the administration, send a clear message that congress doesn't

accept overreaching regulations created by washington bureaucrats. the fact is, mr. president, 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's 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 kills jobs and stifles 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 limits land use, infringes on property rights and diminishes 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 animus 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 in the u.s. 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's why i urge my colleagues to stand with me against this administration's heavy-handed mandates. mr. president, thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, yesterday, 41 senators refused to have a substantive debate on an issue that's critically important to all of our constituents. the scope of the 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. now, later in the day, i was extremely disappointed to learn that 11 of those 41 senators agreed that the e.p.a.'s rule is flawed, but instead of doing their job to provide legislative clarity to the e.p.a. on the regulation of our nation's waters, they wrote a letter. in this letter, they told the e.p.a. that they had concerns with the rule, but instead of acting now, they reserved the right to do their jobs simply at a later time. if only three, only three of these 11 senators who signed this letter would have voted to proceed to the bill, we would cd have worked with them to resolve their concerns and ours about the wotus rule. as senator sasse so eloquently reminded us yesterday in his maiden speech, which also took place yesterday, what are we here for if not to have a

substantive debate on issues? no wonder the american people think the congress is not looking out for their interests. instead of doing their jobs, 11 senators asked the e.p.a. to change the final rule to guidance. well, that can't happen. you can't do that. that would be a violation of the -- of the administrative procedures act, and i think most of us know that. these 11 senators also asked the e.p.a. to enforce the rule in a way that will protect people who are not regulated today, and that also won't happen. the wotus rule is on the books. even if the e.p.a. doesn't bring enforcement action against someone, some activists -- activist and environmentalist community is going to file a lawsuit, and we know what the result of that would be. in his letter -- the letter i am referring to, the 11 democrats agreed that e.p.a. 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

e.p.a. to provide that clarity and offering perfecting amendments if they wished to do so, they wrote a letter. i know i'm sounding real critical here. in a minute, i'll tell you why, because this happens to be in my rural state of oklahoma the number-one issue of our farmers and ranchers. it's a big deal. the e.p.a.'s entire rule-making 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. e.p.a. wanted to be able to control isolated ponds, wetlands, dry channels that carry water only when it rains, but they were blocked because the supreme court said that the clean water act is based on the authority over navigable waters. i think everybody understands this is -- the state has always had the authority but certainly if they are navigable waters, i agree the federal government should be involved. first, the e.p.a. backed

legislation -- this is legislation i referred to yesterday by senator feingold in the senate -- this is five years ago -- and congressman oberstar in the house. legislation to take the word navigable out. if you take the word navigable out, everything is then in the authority of the federal government. to support this legislation, the e.p.a. created a propaganda message that action was needed to protect drinking water. well, the e.p.a. spread this propaganda even though they know that all sources of drinking water are already regulated. that's already done. that's a done deal. it should have been done and it was done. but the american people were not fooled. the bills that were so unpopular to the american people, even though senator feingold's party held the senate and 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 that he chaired. so the american people held them accountable. both of them, i might add, lost their elections for re-election to office in 2010. after that election, e.p.a. changed the strategy. even though the 2009 e.p.a. -- in 2009 the e.p.a. said that they needed legislation to expand federal control after congress rejected their attempt to take the word navigable out of the clean water act, they tried to do the same thing through regulation. now, this is exactly what this administration has been doing. every time they try to pass something legislatively, they can't do it, they get regulation. that's what they're doing. how many times did we vote on the global warming, the cap-and-trade bills, and each time they went down resoundingly in the united states senate? well, that happened over and over again, so what did they do? they say if we can't do it legislatively, we'll do it through regulation.

in this new regulation, the e.p.a. tried to dodge the supreme court rulings by pretending that all water has a connection to navigable water. the e.p.a. also cranked up its propaganda machine on -- machine. on may 19, "the new york times" said, and this is a quote, in the campaign that tests the limits of the federal lobbying law, the agency orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from republicans and enlist republic support in concert with liberal environmental groups and a grassroots organizing aligned with president obama. that was in "the new york times." they created a social media message and asked the people to send the e.p.a. director messages in support to back the e.p.a., a true echo chamber going back and forth. after soliciting comments using its propaganda machine, the e.p.a. claimed 90% of comments supported the rule and that every comment is meaningful to the e.p.a.

however, the corps of engineers told my committee, the committee that i chair, the environment and public works committee, that only 39% of unique comments supported the rule and 60% were opposed. the difference is that e.p.a. is counting each e-mail address on a list as a separate meaningful comment. for example, e.p.a. counts a list of nearly 70,000 e-mail addresses sent in by -- quote -- "organizing for action. that's president obama's political campaign arm. they counted those as 70,000 comments. it's really only one. apparently the e.p.a. considers an e-mail address more meaningful than substantive comments submitted by states and by local governments. by farmers and ranchers and property owners. e.p.a. ignored the significant concerns raised by these groups and they should not have. i'm sure 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. we are a rural state. he says, of all the problems that farmers and ranchers have in oklahoma, the -- these things are not found in the farm bill, not in the ag bill. they are in the overregulation of the e.p.a. he's talking about endangered species, where you can put your fields, where you can't. of all the regulations of the e.p.a., the most onerous is the water regulation because this will allow the federal government to have an army of bureaucrats crawling over every farm and every ranch and not just in my state of oklahoma but throughout america. we've got a rule that two courts have already said 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're going to act but it could take a long, long time.

in the meantime they'll go forward and overregulation will continue. we only have one way to stop the rule right now, and that's coming up, and that is senator ernst has a c.r.a. a lot of people don't know what the c.r.a. is, but it forces responsibility of members of the senate. there are a lot of senators who would rather -- they want overregulations, many of them do. the liberal ones do. and so they would rather go ahead and go home when people complained about it and say, hey, it wasn't us. we didn't do that. that was an unelected bureaucracy that did that. a c.r.a. would not let them get by with that because that means the president is going to veto it, which he would. then it comes back to override the veto. the constituents in america are going to know how their united states senator is voting. senator ernst's c.r.a. would do that, and 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 him. with that, i yield the floor. i ask consent that all time spent in a quorum call before 12 :00 noon vote -- before the 12:00 noon vote be charged equally against both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. 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 and the effort that she has led that would lead to a resolution of

disapproval of this very wrongheaded rule. i also want to acknowledge the good work of my colleague from wyoming, senator barrasso, who yesterday we had an opportunity to again discuss the impact, the devastating impact of the wotus rule as we lovingly refer to it as. but an effort, a combined effort to address the concerns that so many of us have across the country about the waters of the u.s. rule that has stemmed from the e.p.a. and the army corps. this wotus rule, i think you've heard so many of us speak to, is not only an overreach. it is a significant overreach that will allow for an expansion and, i believe, a dramatic expansion of the federal government's ability to regulate our lands and regulate our

waters for the people in the state of alaska, they look to this particular rule that is out there. and 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 that we have seen before it. so i'm here today to urge my colleagues in the senate to support the resolution of disapproval that we have now pending, that we'll 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 really across the country who have raised this as an issue. we have sent letters out there. we have questioned the e.p.a.

administrator about the impacts of the rule. i had an opportunity to have a field hearing in alaska earlier this year with senator sullivan joining me, focusing on those -- those areas of what we would consider to be federal overreach, those areas that hold our state back from any level of economic activity and development and time after time after time the concern was it's this waters of the u.s. and again this expansive interpretation of the clean water act. as literally divined by the e.p.a. the concern about how its negative impact to our state will be felt. in addition to many of the legislative efforts that are out

there, as chairman of the interior appropriations subcommittee, i included a provision within the interior appropriations bill to halt implementation of the waters of the u.s. rule. i am a cosponsor of the bill that we -- that we tried to advance yesterday and that was unfortunately blocked, and i am also a cosponsor of the disapproval resolution that's being offered by our colleague from iowa. my position on this is really pretty simple. the wotus rule cannot be allowed to stand. the agencies have got to go back to the drawing board. and i certainly am not alone in this view. it's a rile controversial rule. it stands out amongst many of the rules that we have seen finalized by this administration, but of the controversial ones that are out there, i would argue that if this is not in the top tier, if it's not the top, it's certainly

number two, and it is -- it is a rule that is controversial enough so that it draws bipartisan opposition to this rule as well. we've got a large majority, a bipartisan majority of the house that opposes it, and thin 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. and then just last month, the sixth circuit of appeals issued a nationwide injunction to prevent implementation of the rule. now, i -- i welcome what the courts have done so far but i don't think that congress should sit back on this and hope that we get the right legal outcome.

we should not just be sitting back because that right legal outcome may come, may come months, it may come years from now or it might not be that right outcome. our opinions here in the congress are based not solely on what the courts say. we have to look to the reach, to the impact of this rule and then determine whether or not it is appropriate. and again, my answer to this is pretty simple. it's no, it's just not appropriate. the agencies are claiming that the wotus rule is somehow or other just a clarification, and they have gone one step further and they have kind of renamed it. they're 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 that we should all be working to. but just changing the name on

this does not make it so. in fact, this rule really is just muddying the waters, excuse the pun there, but what we're doing here, what e.p.a. is doing, we're creating confusion, we're certainly creating uncertainty, and it opens the door to greater regulatory costs and delays for projects all over the country. now, there have been many colleagues that come to the floor and talked about kind of the mechanics of the wotus rule, and unfortunately they are pretty complicated. when you start talking about categorically jurisdictional waters, when you try to explain this significant nexus analysis, the only people in the room that are really captivated by what you're talking about are the lawyers that might be in a position to gain some benefit because they're working these

cases. but most, most farmers in iowa, most miners in alaska are not thinking about what a categorically jurisdictional water is and whether or not there's a significant nexus from my little plaster mining operation to a body of water. this is -- this is not where people are thinking. i want to use just 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, and to understand the reach of this rule in the state. the map, state of alaska, so big we can't even fit it all on one chart because really we need to go all the way out to the aleutian chain and we don't have all of southeastern in it, but we have the bulk here. alaska, plain and short, is

covered in water. it's just wet. according to -- to our state government, alaska has more than 40% of the nation's surface water resources. now, 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% of the nation's entire surface water resources. so we're talking over three 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 that are concerned about the impact of this rule, i don't mean to diminish your problems, but think about where we are in alaska, where 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 two 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 the small little lakes. out in the whole southwest alaska, you fly over it, you look at it, and it's -- it's

just dotted with small little lakes and water bodies. it's just wet in alaska. and surprise, if it's not wet, it's frozen. think about the permafrost that we have there. and so how do you deal with the permafrost? how is that considered in this proposed rule, in this waters of the u.s.? if it's frozen, is it waters of the u.s.? well, you know, we don't know, but we're going to go ahead and just assume that it is going to be covered. so we've got to -- we've got a map here where what you see is blue. the reason it's blue is because all of this is waters.

this is the national hydrography of streams, rivers and bodies for the state of alaska, september, 2015. e.p.a. has produced maps of the waters and wetlands in each of our 50 states. our colleagues in the house actually had to force the agency to release these maps last year. but again, almost the whole state of alaska is shaded in, and that's what the e.p.a. wants to be able to regulate under this rule. so what -- what exactly could that cover? what are we talking about? it could be out here in bristol bay where it's all about -- bristow bay where it's 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 bristow bay. out here in fairbanks, could be

a new neighborhood that wants to accommodate to deal with a growing population there that would be subject to regulation. it could be a pars -- 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 a native claim settlement act doesn't get you beyond regulation through the e.p.a. it could be the new industrial park in anchorage that wants to -- wants to diversify, wants to help expand the economy there. it could be an energy project up on the north slope, the arctic slope that a regional corporation wants to pursue. but again, it's either wetlands or it's clearly perm a process up there. or -- perm a process up -- permafrost up there. or it could be a gas line, where we're hoping to run a gas line

down the slope into tidewater and valued ease. this is a major project that our legislature is working on right now. they are in the midst of a special session. it will run across -- you want to talk about wetlands and rivers and areas that will be subject to this -- to this permitting requirement. it could be any of these. it could be many, many more. and that really brings us to the potential impact then of the wotus rule. i'm not certain that the agencies will try to stop every project in the state. that's 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 is affected, but any project could be targeted. and think about that. if you're trying to make an

investment decision, if you're a business that is seeking to expand but you have that level of uncertainty because you don't know if you're going to be targeted, that's tough. it's tough to make these decisions. we know that these agencies have cast an extremely wide net with this rule, and we know from keystone x.l. and from our experiences in alaska that regulatory decisions are not always fair or impartial or even logical within this administration, and we know again that almost everything in alaska is either near water, it's wetlands or it's permafrost. you add it all up, you add it all up, folks, and almost every project in alaska could suddenly be subject to federal permitting under the clean water act, and that in turn means that 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 two years to do, so you're adding costs and you're adding delay, and the delay adds to further costs. some developers just give up. they raise the white flag and they say i'm tired, i'm frustrated. i can't run this regulatory gauntlet, and they give up. all of this would be in addition to the significant regulatory burdens that alaska is already facing. one last example that i'll leave you with comes from craig, alaska, down here in southeast. this is -- 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 down payment to a mitigation bank prior to permitting. again, this is for a small project in a community of 1,200 people, and, again, it's your tribal organization trying to bring in some low-income housing units. and they're going to have to p spend $46,000 just to get started. think about what they could have done with those dollars toward that project. and imagine then, this is a town like craig, when you scale this up to communities like anchorage and fairbanks, what do those costs mean to you? there's just too much at stake here. so, again, i oppose the wotus rule, strongly oppose the wotus rule because of the uncertainty that it will create, the delays that it will deliver and the costs that it will impose.

and 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 because further this rule could dampen our efforts to begin new resource extraction projects which we depend on for a majority of our state's budget. and finally, i oppose the wotus rule because it is yet another regulatory burden for alaskans, for people all over the country. and this is on top of all of the other regulations that we have seen in our state, from the interior department's antienergy decisions to e.p.a.'s quest for project veto authority before, during, and after the permitting process. if gets to a point, mr. president, where it's just too much. it's just too much. and this is where we must come

together and stand to stop it. so i thank my colleagues for their leadership in this and look forward to the opportunity to support the disapproval resolution that is pending before the body. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. 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 in the house and senate finally pulled back from the brink of 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. and 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. and 3:00 in the morning i think it was when we had the final vote on early friday morning, but we put that in place and had some confidence that 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 that they care about, both security, growing the economy, making sure that we're investing in middle-class families, strengthening our defense, and so on.

but now, not even a week later, republican leaders are back to their old tricks again. and we are really 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 trip to undo the bipartisan budget agreement through the back door. and we've seen this movie before, mr. president, a few years ago. passing the department of defense appropriations and then forcing everything else into a long-term continuing resolution. so 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 in a comprehensive budget

moving forward. no tricks to undo the bipartisan budget agreement. frankly, our families deserve a budget that grows the economy, invests in our middle-class families. we all know -- how many of us have said is the issue that folks don't have money in their pockets and good-paying jobs and can't do what they need to be able to do to put food on the table, send their kids to school, pay the mortgage and 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. and we need to strengthen our national defense, our national security broadly. and 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 tell you as a border state in michigan, we need to be

concerned. we hear a lot of debate and discussion about border security. we need to make sure that we are adequately funding border security. cybersecurity, for us it means things like 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, firefighters. it includes airports, a whole range of things that need to be looked at comprehensively. we want to see the whole budget, mr. president. we want to see the whole budget, not just department of defense. we want to see the agreement on the whole budget so we know there aren't going to be any tricks. and 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 that people care deeply about growing the economy and jobs, and that means supporting small business. it means investing in making

things, in growing things, which i talk a lot about in michigan. that's what we do. we make things and grow things, and there are efforts to support that, that we need to do. and, frankly, some of that is in critical partnerships with the private sector and job training. the number-one issue i hear about from manufacturers today is in fact the national association of manufacturers tells us there's 600,000 unfilled jobs today because we don't have people with the right skills for the right job. that's something we need to address in our budget. job training, education, college affordability. how many times have we heard about young people, or in our own families know of young people that have come out of college and done everything we told them to do: go to college, get good grades, graduate. and come out with more debt than if they were trying to buy a big

house. in fact, realtors tell us now they can't qualify young couples to buy a house because of their college debt. that is part of the debate on this budget. education, access to jobs, job training, support for small businesses, support for our manufacturers. another critical area in our budget that we want to make sure is adequately funded is our ability to save lives through medical research. new treatments, new cures that we all have heard so much about that we're 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 $5 medicare dollars is spent on alzheimer's disease and dementias. parkinson's, mental illness, addictions.

that doesn't count what needs to happen around cancers. it doesn't count how close we are if we were to really double down on medical research in this country. juvenile diabetes, we could go on and on. that's part of this budget. we want to see what's being funded on medical research and 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've got to have is a look at the entire budget. mental health, substance abuse, services for veterans, whether it's veterans in job training, whether it's veterans providing them an opportunity to have a home and live in dignity, whether it's mental health, substance abuse services, that's in this budget. we need a comprehensive budget. we need to know -- the american people need to know the whole budget and that there's not going to be tricks in this

process. protecting our natural resources. for us allowing the great lakes, 20% of the world's fresh water, it is incredibly important we know what the great lakes restoration initiative, how that's funded, how we are supporting our clean air and clean water and land initiatives. we have new challenges, outrageous things like what is happening in flint, michigan, where there's lead -- 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, 70, 80, 100 years, we are now seeing and multiplied by a series of errors and incredibly bad misjudgments at the state

level, at the minimum. but we are seeing situations where we're going to need to support efforts on making sure we can upgrade our pipes, our water pipes and other -- water and sewer. that's all a part of this budget. so when we look at, mr. president, moving forward, you know, last week at the end of the week was a good time because we were able to -- it was an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way, avert disaster, actually come together as the american people want us to do every day. people in michigan say can't you guys just get something done? can't you just work together? at the end of last week we actually did that. we actually came together and developed a plan, a two-year overall budget process. now it's implementing it through negotiations. what we are committed to do as

democrats is implementing 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 are the most interest among republicans, the department of defense and then potentially seeing 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 together to implement a bipartisan budget that we voted on. no backdoor tricks. we unfortunately 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, mr. president, rather than trying to have a vote on only

moving forward on the defense appropriations. i would urge that the republican leadership would put that strategy aside, give the prorption the time that -- give the appropriators the time they need. we have a good group of people on both sides of the aisle as appropriators. we can work together and provide us a balanced, responsible budget for the united states of america that will grow the economy, investment in our middle-class families and strengthen our national defense. and i'm hopeful that in the end that's what will happen. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? 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 e.p.a. rule on water to talk about the reasons that e.p.a. shouldn't do this, the long-term understanding of what navigable waters meant, the ability for e.p.a., 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 which shows the farm bureau projection that i believe other projections agree with of how much of our state would be covered by this new jurisdiction of the federal government over essentially all the waters in the country. if you'll notice, the only part of missouri that would be covered under the waters of the united states rule is just the part thation in red. -- that's in red. only 99.7% of the state would be under this new jurisdiction that the e.p.a. would ask for, that nobody surely believes the e.p.a. 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 e.p.a. going forward with this rule. this isy

not just the e.p.a. versus against a few people who are concerned about it. it's the e.p.a. versus anybody that's looked at it. according to the small business administration, -- by the way, mr. president, 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, and of course anything that raises utility company power costs raises the cost to the consumer. there is no mythical way that anybody else pays for that except the people that get utility bills, which almost every person in america, or at least the family of almost every person in america. the home builders association of st. louis believes that if this rule goes into effect, on average the increased costs 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. they believe that would increase by ten times. so to build the -- the average permit to build a home if this silly waters of the u.s. thing is allowed to happen would go from a little under $30,000 to $271,000.596. and the -- $271,596, and the wait time would go to just over two years to get the permitting, mr. president, to build a home. the s.b.a. also says the rule will increase permitting costs generally by $52 million in the country, just for permitting costs generally, and environmental metgation costs by $113 million every -- year.

with the addition of the power rule that the e.p.a. also has out, i think you would be hard to come up with a third rule that would do anywhere as much damage as the two rules that they already have out there to the american economy. in april of 2015, a memo from major general john peabody to the assistant secretary of the corps of engineers, secretary darcy, states that in the coors judgment, the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no connections to the data provided and logical inconsistencies. so this is the corps of engineers, not necessarily my federal -- my favorite federal agency. this is their view of the e.p.a. rule, and this rule would also mean that really the federal bureaucrats, assuming you could ever assemble enough of them to do the job that the e.p.a. says they would like here, can decide

what falls under the jurisdiction, and they would be deciding from a long way away. you know, 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 costs to families. 31 states, including mine, including this state here, where again i will point out only the red part is covered by waters of the u.s. 31 states have sued the e.p.a. to overturn the rule. the courts appear to be listening. the district court that covers our district in 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, a majority of the

congress, unfortunately only 59 senators were concerned with something that 60 senators could have solved, but not only the congress is involved but federal agency after federal agency, the courts themselves, 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 e.p.a. the senate confirmed the head of the e.p.a. i didn't vote to confirm the head of the e.p.a. in fact, i held that nomination back as long as you could -- as i could possibly hold the nomination back, hoping that the new nominee would suggest they were going to be better than the person who had been holding the job before. this rule indicates that the e.p.a. doesn't really have the best interests of the country at heart. they don't have a reasonable way to enforce the authority they say they would like to have, and

i look forward to the president having to deal directly with this issue and the american people paying attention as we all do the job we're sent here to do. and i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. and first, let me thank my colleague from michigan for her outstanding remarks, and i, too, want to talk about the budget. you know, we have agreed to a bipartisan budget framework, and that's been very good. we have avoided a shutdown. we've avoided defaulting on our debt. and i'm glad that 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, and 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's up to democrats and republicans to fill in all the details and honor the agreements that both sides work 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's be crystal clear. if folks on the other side of the aisle insist on inserting poison pill riders into the omnibus bill and the leadership, republican, on either the house or senate side, goes along, they will be dragging us into another government shutdown. we're happy to debate any of these so-called poison pill riders, but not using the whole budget process as a hostage. and the only reason that our colleagues who want these riders want to use the budget process and hold i 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 not related riders. well, we democrats on both sides of the capitol, both ends of pennsylvania avenue, are totally united on preventing poison pill riders from riding along in an omnibus. now, yesterday i was disappointed to hear speaker ryan, who i think is a fair man -- i've worked with him on a number of issues, but yesterday he said 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, say, we repeal parts of dodd-fringe

or defund -- dodd-frank or defund planned parenthood. that doesn't make any sense. the power of the purse means and has always meant 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. and second, with this 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 c.r. for the rest of the budget. and then it leaves the fight on riders undone. now, they say they need a vehicle. it's true. there are lots of vehicles. you don't need the defense bill for a vehicle, number one. and number two, you don't have

to do that vehicle now. what should be happening now is how 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 senate. so we all agreed the nation breathes 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 for 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's see the 50-50, and let's see the details. and 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's 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's 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 slights of hand. thank you, mr. president, and 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? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. wicker: well, if i could, i'd also like to ask unanimous consent 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. and 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 -- of a statute that was never intended to do that. and so i was pleased just a few weeks ago when the united states 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 who 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 wotus rule is an unlawful, unlawful attempt by the e.p.a. 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, on our private property. i'm particularly concerned about what this rule could mean to our

nation's farmers and ranchers, especially in states like 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, mr. president, regulatory authority. 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 like mississippi. we have begun considerable work with farm drainage ditches to enhance conservation. the wotus 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 confuseing an expensive legal -- 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 many 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 form lands could -- on farmlands could fall under the federal control. at the very least, these flaws should be fixed before the rule

is fully implemented, and die appreciate the efforts -- and i do appreciate the efforts of the gentlelady from iowa in challenging this. americans should worry, americans should be concerned, mr. president, 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, could lead to fines, legal battles and permitting -- and permitting requirements. very expensive to job creating agriculture and agribusiness. like many of the administration's other onerous rules, americans are asking, what's the benefit, what's the environmental benefit here? no one is arguing that our waters should not be protected,

but water sources like 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'm a member of the environment and public works committee. i've 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 e.p.a. and the administration. americans do not deserve this unnecessary confusion and job-killing red tape. thank you, mr. president.

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. in a few moments, we'll have an opportunity to vote on the congressional review act on the final rule under the clean water act on waters of the u.s. and yesterday we had i thought a

rather robust discussion and debate about this. and in the barrasso bill that would have not only prevented the final rule from going forward but also would have changed the underlying bill. and the cloture was not invoke. now we're on the c.r.a., the congressional review act, that would stop the rule from going forward. and yesterday on the floor of the united states senate i explained to my colleagues why i would hope that they would reject this -- this motion and allow this rule to go forward. and my main reason for saying that is that congress since 1972 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. we had in the chesapeake bay the

first dead zone, marine dead zones that were reported. and 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, to protect their environment so that the people of this country, the legacy would be a 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 5-4 decision, the supreme court really sent it back to e.p.a. 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 act, 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 in their activities. so if we reject the rule, we are, in effect, removing clarity and we will go back to the stage where people don't know whether a particular water is -- is regulated under clean water act or not. and i was listening to my colleagues on the floor give all the examples of where they say regulation will take place. when, in fact, if you're in agriculture, there's basically

no change in the regulatory structure. we are -- there's no new permitting requirements for agricultural activities. the risk factor if we don't go forward with the regulation is that we're talking about approximately one-half of the stream miles in this country will not be fully protected. that's 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 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, approximately 117 million americans, the source of their drinking water will be compromised.

that's one-third of the people of this country will see that we're not fully protecting their drinking water. and, mr. president, i assure you, if we have an episode, they'll 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're getting safe drinking water, when they bathe, that they have safe water in order to bathe. and we are really not doing everything we can to do that if, in fact, we block this rule from going forward. in reality, what we're doing is saying, no, we're not going to let science guide what goes forward. congress is going to tell us whether the e.p.a. can, in fact, regulate our water based upon science. i don't think we want it 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 a court

challenge. any regulation coming up by e.p.a. is going to be subject to a court challenge. we know that. and the courts have not been helpful. the 5-4 decision left a lot in question. ultimately we're going to have to rely upon a court decision. let's get there sooner rather than later. let's not go back to the drawing boards and delay the necessary regulations for our -- for our country. yesterday on the floor i quoted from some of the business leaders and environmental leaders, small business leaders. let me just share a couple other quotes about why it's important for us to allow this rule to go forward. let me talk again on the -- on a business concern. this is a quote from travis campbell who's president and c.e.o. of the fairbanks enterprises which is an integrated manufacturing and distributor of fly-fishing products. he says, "my company depends on people enjoying their time

recreating outside, especially in and near watersheds. clarifying which waterways are protected under clean water act is nice to have -- it isn't nice to have, it's a business imperative." allowing this rule to go forward helps america's businesses, helps our economy. let me give you two quotes on the health issue. one from dr. allen peterson, who's a family physician in lancaster county, pennsylvania. he says, "because it would protect the streams that are the head waters of drinking water supplies for 1-3 u.s. residents, the rule is a health imperativ imperative." and lastly, a person who i know, used to be our health secretary in maryland, dr. gorgis benjamin, who's the executive director of the american public health association. he states, "our nation relies on clean water for basic survival.

it is 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 the e.p.a. has moved forward with this strong evidence-based rule that will make it vital to protecting the public from water pollution and keeping our nation healthy." mr. president, for the sake of our public health, for 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 -- nation, i urge my colleagues to r reject e motion that would stop the final waters of the u.s. rule from going into effect. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. cardin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

i

quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: i ask unanimous consent to speak five minutes on the bill before us. oh, -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ernst rpts macall. mrs. ernst: may we lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ernst erpts objection.

mrs. ernst: i ask unanimous consent to speak for five minutes on the bill before us. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. ernst: we've a choice today, stand with our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and business owners or stand with a overreaching federal agency pushing and illegal rule greatly expanding its power. that's an easy choice for me. i'm standing with my constituents. i'm standing with iowans. rolling back this harmful wotus rule is hugely important to my state and i know many others. i'd especially like to thank the junior senator from wyoming and the senior senator from oklahoma for all their hard work on this issue. i'd also like to thank those from the other side of the aisle who've recognized the harm this rule will have and are supporting this bipartisan effort to halt an expanded wotus. i'm 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 e.p.a. 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's more convenient, or wait for the courts to solve a clear problem. mr. president, every community wants clean water, and to protect our nation's waterways. no one is disputing that. i grew up on well water, and i understand that clean water is essential, but that's not what this vote today is about. to build off of what my colleague from across the aisle, the junior senator from north dakota, said yesterday, to suggest that 31 states, agriculture 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 the register's annual great like ride across iowa. this is what we're debating. this is what the rule is about. should washington, d.c., bureaucrats control the land in this farmer's field? the clean answer is no, they should not, mr. president. like 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, 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. mr. president, yesterday we saw many of our colleagues across the aisle block a commonsense, bipartisan measure-to-designed to stop the harmful impacts of this rule. they claim 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 e.p.a. in favor of politics. and two federal courts have allegedly called into serious question the legality of this wotus rule and the science behind it.

and, mr. president, this claim is in spite of the fact that members of 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 e.p.a. 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's 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, and i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator prosecute maryland. 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 e.p.a. is doing in protecting our water supply. before this rule, before the commonsense, science-based way to protect their drinking water, they're for a scientific, commonsense way to make sure their rivers are clean. whether it is because of their concern for the environment and their children and grandchildren's health or whether it's their concern about our economy, recognizing that clean water is necessary for agriculture, it's necessary for our activities, recreational activities along our waterways, which is critical to our economy

-- for all those reasons they support the clean water act. but i would urge my colleagues, look at the rule. it doesn't regulate new activities in agriculture. it doesn't require anything different than what's 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're not regulated under this law any different than it was in the past. so i'd just urge my colleagues to look at what's in this regulation, not the claims that have been made. the e.p.a. 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. the e.p.a. officials visited farms in arizona, colorado, my home state of maryland,

mississippi, missouri, new york, texas, and vermont. the 207-day public comment period on the proposed rule resulted in more than one million comments. so a 270-day public comment period, one million comments? all this public input helped to shape the final clean water rule. the act does not require any new permitting from the agricultural community. basically, it does not require -- there's an exemption under existing the clean water act, which is preserved by this final rule. so normal farming, ranching practices, those activities include minor drainage and production of products are exempt. they're not covered under this final clean water act soil and water conservation practices in

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, or temporary mining roads are not covered. so when my colleagues come and say that this ditch is being regulated under the clean water act, it's not the case. only those flows of water that directly impact our streams, impact our wetlands, those you want to make sure that we cover because it affects our drinking water supply from one out of every three americans, because it affects our public health for those of us who swim in our streams, in our lakes; because it affects those of us who enjoy the recreation of clean water,

and that's why we have small business owners, that's why we have the businesses that depend upon clean water, that's why we have a lot of people around the country saying, look, it's in our economic interest to make sure that this rule goes forward. 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, not by e.p.a., but by the supreme court decisions. it's our responsibility to make sure clarity exists. and if congress blocks this clean water rule from going forward, we're adding to the uncertainty, which is in no one's interest. whether it is a person who depends upon safe drinking water or a safet safe environment or a farmer who wants to know what is

regulated and what is not. all of that depends on clarity moving forward. e.p.a. listened to all the stakeholders and it's important to allow this rule to go forward. i would 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 197 -- since 1972, we've 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.