[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1017-S1028]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO REVISED DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.J. Res. 27, which is at the desk; and that at 2:30
p.m. today, it be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on
the passage of the joint resolution without intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the joint resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the
Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised
Definition of `Waters of the United States' ''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Small Business
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have the honor of being the chair of
the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee here in the U.S.
Senate, and there has been a lot of activity during the Biden
administration that deals with our economy.
The Biden administration has a proud record of legislative
accomplishments, from the American Rescue Plan to the bipartisan
infrastructure bill, to the Safer Communities Act, to the Inflation
Reduction Act, to the CHIPS and Science bill, to the PACT bill, and the
list goes on and on. But I want to talk a little bit about the
accomplishments under the Biden administration for small businesses,
and I am very proud of what we have been able to do to help small
businesses in our country.
We have 33.2 million small business owners in America. They are the
drivers of our economy. We say they are the backbone of our economy; I
think they are also the backbone of our communities. They create jobs,
and they do most of the innovation that we see. It makes America more
competitive and creates more job opportunities and economic
opportunities.
Over 99 percent of our businesses in the United States are small
businesses, and nearly 50 percent of all U.S. employees work for small
companies. So it is critically important that we pay attention to our
small businesses, and, of course, it was challenging during the COVID-
19 pandemic.
I will just give you one example of why it is so important, giving
one example in Maryland. I am sure you could give an example in every
one of our States. This past Friday, I was at Sabatino's restaurant in
Little Italy, Baltimore. We see many times that the economic growth of
ethnic communities has been spurred by innovation by small companies.
Sabatino's is one of those restaurants, which is iconic to Baltimore
today. It was started in 1955 by two individuals, two immigrants who
started Sabatino's restaurant. It is now an iconic restaurant in
Baltimore where we like to go for good political discussion. It is in a
pretty famous neighborhood. It is where Nancy Pelosi grew up. It has
incredible food. It is for good company and good food, and it is an
anchor in that community for its economic growth.
There are a lot of small business owners who are in that neighborhood
who are continuing to provide job opportunities and economic growth and
a future for Little Italy in Baltimore.
We could give many, many examples of that type of activity by a small
company, a small business, that has really saved a neighborhood and
preserved it for its future.
The Biden administration has a proud record in support of small
businesses. Let me just give you some of the numbers. Twenty twenty-one
was a record year for the growth of small businesses in this country.
We had the largest number of new business growth, small business
growth, in the history of America, and it was led by women-owned small
businesses. Women of color led among the women business entrepreneurs.
This is attributable to the fact that the Biden administration has
been concentrating on helping our small businesses but has paid
particular attention to those small businesses located in traditionally
underserved communities. That has led to programs that have helped. I
will give you one example: women's business centers. The President
announced just this week increasing the number of women's business
centers in our community.
When President Biden took the oath of office, we had one women's
business center in Maryland, and it was doing really great service,
helping women get through the maze of bureaucracies and obstacles that
were in their way to start a small business or grow a small business.
It was located in Rockville, MD, and provided great help. Today, we
have four women's business centers in Maryland, one located in
Salisbury, which is a rural part of our State, to help women business
entrepreneurs in rural Maryland. We have one at Morgan State
University, a historic Black college in Maryland, and it is an HBCU
that has provided tremendous opportunities for minority business
owners. We just recently opened another women's business center at
Bowie State University, an HBCU in the Washington area, in Prince
George's County.
These are concrete steps the Biden administration has taken to not
only grow our small business opportunities in America but to make sure
we pay attention to those who have been left behind in the past.
Let me just give you another example of how we have delivered through
the Biden administration to help our small business community.
We delivered for the people, for individuals like Carl Williams of
Los Angeles, who founded Royal Men Solutions. After he was released
from prison, Carl heard about the Minority Business Development
Agency's Entrepreneurship Education for Formerly Incarcerated Persons
Center in Los Angeles. His dream of becoming a third-generation
carpenter and making his father proud took flight through this program.
Carl explains, and I quote:
The information the MBDA Center afforded me was invaluable,
teaching me the elevator pitch, understanding my competition,
standing out as a custom furniture builder, and knowing my
value. All of their advice was an intricate part of my growth
and development in the business world.
Well, one of the great accomplishments of the Biden administration
was to help our returning citizens, those impacted under the criminal
justice system, to give them an opportunity,
[[Page S1018]]
and they are taking advantage of that thanks to the Biden
administration.
Also in the Biden administration was the passage of the bipartisan
infrastructure package. Through the bipartisan Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, we were able to pass legislation that
establishes in statute the Minority Business Development Agency that
Carl depended upon--the MBDA.
We authorized $110 million per year for the Agency through fiscal
year 2025 and elevated the office by creating an Under Secretary
position to lead the Agency. The funds will expand the geographic reach
of the MBDA by authorizing the creation of regional MBDA offices and
rural business centers and creating the Parren J. Mitchell
Entrepreneurship Education Grants Program to support minority
entrepreneurs at HBCUs and MSIs.
I particularly like the program being named after the former
Congressman Parren J. Mitchell, a Congressman from Baltimore, who was
chair in the House of Representatives of the Small Business Committee
and was responsible for our first efforts to set aside to help small
businesses and minority small businesses.
We delivered for founders like Miles Barr, Richard Lunt, and Vladimir
Bulovic, who at MIT imagined a world where they could seamlessly help
limit our carbon footprint through transparent solar technologies. The
company has already started producing small-size windows that reduce
energy and may help reduce our total national energy consumption by up
to 12 percent. Thanks to funding from the Small Business Innovation
Research or SBIR Program, as we all know it, they were able to spin out
of MIT and embark on this private endeavor.
In the 117th Congress, with President Biden's leadership, we were
able to extend the life of and improve the SBIR and STTR Programs.
Through the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022, the Small Business
Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer Programs
were reauthorized, including their related pilot programs, through
September 30, 2025. The legislation also includes language that ensures
the largest SBIR and STTR award winners are adequately transitioning
and commercializing their technologies.
These actions we take have real consequences. These are companies
that need to have that ability to participate in government research.
That is what the SBIR Program and the STTR Program do. The Federal
Agencies that have the largest amounts of research must engage smaller
companies.
Now, guess which Agency is the strongest proponent of the SBIR
Program that we reauthorized under President Biden's leadership? It is
the Department of Defense because they know these small, innovative
tech companies are going to give them the technology they need to keep
America safe, and they are.
I look at my own State of Maryland, where we are blessed to have so
many high-tech companies that are working in defense, working in
healthcare, working in communications, and working in the environment
and energy. Thanks to our actions, these companies can now grow and do
their work and help our country solve our problems through the passage
of the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022.
The Biden administration delivered for veterans, women entrepreneurs,
rural communities, and the mom-and-pop shops that keep our communities
vibrant.
Because of COVID-19, we knew this was not a time to sit back and
watch the small businesses we loved close their doors. Instead, we
rolled up our sleeves and took care of Main Street. While we saw too
many small businesses close, we saw many of them come back stronger
than ever before, and entrepreneurs did the same. In a remarkable
comeback under the Biden administration, we have seen 10.5 million new
business applications, making 2021 and 2022 record years.
Through the Inflation Reduction Act, we helped small businesses
reduce their energy costs while improving their environmental
sustainability.
Through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, small
businesses across the country will receive the help they need to
modernize the way they do business in order to grow and succeed.
Look, I want American entrepreneurs and small business owners to know
that they should dream big. Our Nation is on path to make those big
dreams a reality. I am very proud of the progress we have been able to
make during these past 2 years. I am looking forward to working on
behalf of small businesses in this Congress with my partner Senator
Ernst on the Small Business Committee.
I just want the small business owners of America to know that we are
on their side, and we are going to continue to provide the help so they
can help America grow. They are the backbone of our economy and the
backbone of our communities, and we stand with them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Madam President, I come before this Chamber alongside my
colleagues from Maryland and Nevada to talk about the importance of our
small businesses in New Mexico and across the country.
I also want to thank the chair of the Small Business Committee, Mr.
Ben Cardin, for the work he has consistently done, his leadership in
this space, but his understanding of what is happening across the
country and the need to fight alongside our small businesses to make
things better for them. So I want to thank the chairman as well.
For the past 2 years, the Senate Democratic majority and the White
House have made it our mission to support and revitalize the small
businesses that are the backbone of our local communities. We have been
hard at work building economic security for the middle class, putting
people back to work, and investing in the American dream.
I know every Senator in this Chamber and all Americans have a small
business they depend on to get from one place to another, from one day
to the next. For me, one of them is in Santa Fe, NM, Midtown Bistro, an
incredible location run by a very extraordinary family. Anytime you
want a good meal and a warm welcome, you just go on down to Midtown
Bistro. This was the dream of restaurant owners Edmund Catanach,
Melissa Salazar, and Angel Estrada--to make folks feel at home, and
they do.
But when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, restaurants and small businesses
all across America struggled to make ends meet without daily customers
or revenue. Midtown Bistro, like so many family-owned small businesses,
looked to the Federal Government and received a grant to keep things
running and fulfill payroll each and every week. Melissa said that
without those funds, they would have had to close their doors after
decades of serving the Santa Fe community. Thankfully, that didn't
happen.
Edmund, Melissa, and Angel's story is the story of thousands of small
business owners who earned grant funding from the Federal Government in
the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are extremely proud to have
secured more than $169 million in restaurant revitalization funds for
restaurants like theirs throughout New Mexico. And that does not
include everyone.
One of the first things congressional Democrats did when President
Biden took office 2 years ago was expand the Paycheck Protection
Program, the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, and the Shuttered
Venue Operators Grant Program. These expansions helped the smallest
businesses--especially in rural areas--that were still hurting from the
pandemic try to get back on their feet, keep workers on the payroll,
keep their doors open.
Democrats have always made it a priority to help folks who need it
most. This kind of relief is vital for keeping the heart of America's
economy alive.
For a lot of people, it is the late-night diner that serves up the
best cup of coffee in the country before the morning work shift begins
or the local cobbler, who knows exactly how you like your work boots to
be resoled, or the plumber you can call any time of the night to fix a
leaking pipe.
All of these small businesses started with a dream, a desire to make
things better, to help people. I know the heartbreak COVID-19 brought
on a lot of our small businesses and people all across America--local
staples that bring so much vibrance and life to our communities.
[[Page S1019]]
However, in the face of a nationwide tragedy, our small businesses
didn't throw in the towel and call it quits. Instead, they got
creative, like Midtown Bistro turning an outdoor space into a new way
to safely reach their community. Our small businesses continued to
provide vital services that helped our economy and kept it afloat
through these really tough times. For that, I just want to say thank
you to all of them.
This Chamber must continue supporting the countless small businesses
that keep our economy and our country moving forward. Senate Democrats
will continue pushing for expanded opportunities for small businesses
to access the capital and credit they need to start or expand
businesses, which will, in turn, get more Americans back on the job,
create more opportunities and more successful ventures.
One big hurdle that keeps small businesses from unlocking their full
potential is not being connected to affordable, high-speed internet to
create a website and access the online economy.
I am very proud to have been part of the team and a family that is
going to make that possible for people all across the country. There
are many ways we can work together, but I am very proud of my
colleagues, of what I have learned, and, again, I thank our chairman
for leading the conversation in that committee and driving home
policies so that we can act to make a difference in the lives of those
who have invested in and started small businesses.
We can do more and we can do better, but I am very proud of how we
have been able to get things done that make a benefit in people's lives
today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Lujan for his
leadership on behalf of small businesses.
Senator Lujan is absolutely right. There are a lot of areas that are
not necessarily within the jurisdiction of the Small Business Committee
that directly affect small businesses, and one of those is access to
broadband. Senator Lujan understands that for small businesses to
succeed, they have to have access to affordable, high-speed internet.
And Senator Lujan has also been critically important in so many of
the other areas--challenges that we have confronted, particularly
during COVID. So I just want to thank him for his leadership on behalf
of small businesses and the people of New Mexico.
We are joined on the floor by Senator Rosen, and I just want everyone
to know of her valuable contributions to the Small Business Committee.
She has been one of the leaders during these 2 years with the record I
just went over of accomplishments under the Biden administration. But
she is a real leader in recognizing that, if we are going to succeed
with women entrepreneurs, we need to deal with childcare, and, today,
small business tools are not fully available to small business
operators of childcare. Senator Rosen is our leader in trying to make
sure that we correct that and do something about it.
I also appreciate her knowledge and understanding and leadership on
the regulatory challenges that small businesses confront and taking on
that challenge to see whether we can't provide some relief.
So I just really wanted to acknowledge her extraordinary work on
behalf of small businesses in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, well, I want to thank Senator Cardin for
his leadership on small business. For the 4 years I have been here, he
has been a friend and a mentor, and he has really encouraged me in so
many ways to find my voice for Nevada, for this country, and I
appreciate his leadership. Thank you.
And the Senator is right. Small businesses, well, they are the engine
of the U.S. economy. They foster innovation. They create jobs. They
provide a lifeline for families.
And, in Nevada, small businesses make up 99 percent of all
businesses. Our small business economy, it is thriving. It is
increasingly diverse, allowing many Nevadans to achieve the American
dream by being entrepreneurs and providing for their families.
These businesses, they are crucial for Nevada's economy. We should
encourage and support them by making it easier to start and operate
small businesses, increasing access to capital to help them grow and
succeed, and cutting through that redtape that is far too often a
barrier.
So here in this Chamber, we must focus on helping small businesses
overcome the enormous challenges that they face and the obstacles they
experience just to get off the ground.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, my top priorities have been expanding resources in
support for Nevada's small business--the owners, the employers, and
their workers. And so from introducing a bipartisan bill to help those
graduating from minority-serving institutions to open a business to
sponsoring bipartisan legislation to help veterans start small
businesses in underserved communities, to urging the Small Business
Administration to open a Veterans Business Outreach Center in Nevada, I
have been fighting for businesses time and time again, and I will keep
fighting.
I am also working in a bipartisan way to make small, nonprofit
childcare providers eligible for Federal resources so that they can
grow, create jobs, and provide more affordable childcare options in all
of our communities. And this just means so much to our families. It
gives them so much peace of mind.
And I am going to continue, as well, to advocate to open up Federal
loans for State-legal cannabis small businesses. They are job creators
in our State and in a growing number of States across the country.
And we can also help our small businesses by reducing the burden that
entrepreneurs face, well, when they get started. The exhaustive hoops
that American entrepreneurs have to frequently jump through--from
obtaining permits to fulfilling licensing requirements--well, it can be
a real challenge for people just to get those businesses off the
ground.
And so that is why I am proud to announce that, today, I am
introducing bipartisan legislation to help small businesses by cutting
through the bureaucratic redtape that often prevents them from getting
off the ground.
My legislation would create a centralized website. This website,
entrepreneurs can come and visit to get all the information they need
from the Small Business Administration on Federal, State, and local
licensing and business permitting requirements, with information and
resources all in one place, because I believe we should be making it
easier to start a small business, and we must make sure that
entrepreneurs are in the best position to succeed right from the
beginning. And having them going to a one-stop website, that is a start
because I know that when we invest in our small businesses and our
entrepreneurs, when we invest in our communities, when we invest in our
hard-working families, well, together, we create a successful future
for our State and for our country.
And so I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me
in cutting redtape, bringing down those barriers, and increasing
information access for all of our small businesses.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, again, I want to thank Senator Rosen for
her leadership, and we certainly are looking forward to taking up the
legislation that she has introduced.
H.J. Res. 27
Madam President, I know we are on debate on the waters of the United
States.
The rule provides for exceptions for ranchers and farmers. I would
hope that we reject the resolution.
I would like to start my statement of support for a strong definition
of ``waters of the United States'' with a reflection on the history of
the Clean Water Act.
Congress overhauled the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
originally enacted in 1948, with amendments in 1972 that gave the act
its current dimensions. The 1972 legislation spelled out ambitious
programs for water quality improvement that industries and
municipalities are still implementing today.
[[Page S1020]]
The 92nd Congress held a series of votes on the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which would later come to be
known as the Clean Water Act. The Senate passed the bill, which came
out of a conference committee with the House after 39 meetings, by a
vote of 74 to 0. The House passed the bill by a 366-to-11 vote.
Nineteen-seventy two was a Presidential election year. Despite a
first term notable for its landmark environmental achievements,
President Nixon vetoed the bill in an attempt to set himself apart from
his opponent, George McGovern.
Bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate overrode President
Nixon's veto, and the bill became law on October 18, 1972. The Senate
vote was overwhelming. Meanwhile, State and local leaders, as well as
advocates of all stripes, were central in the push for this legislation
to be enshrined in law.
Contrast this show of congressional unity with our situation today,
where we are relying on President Biden for his veto if the Senate
passes this joint resolution of disapproval of the rule the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--
jointly submitted relating to ``Revised Definition of `waters of the
United States.' ''
The rule under attack finally delivers a clear, workable definition.
On December 30, 2022, the Agencies announced the final ``Revised
Definition of `waters of the United States' '' rule. On January 18,
2023, the rule was published in the Federal Register.
The Agencies' final rule establishes a clear and reasonable
definition of ``waters of the United States'' and reduces the
uncertainty from constantly changing regulatory definitions that has
harmed communities and our Nation's waters.
This commonsense, science-based approach recognizes that pollution
upstream can have downstream impacts, so we must protect the system to
safeguard downstream communities and our environment. The rule also
maintains longstanding Clean Water Act permitting exemptions for
routine farming and ranching activities.
The rule ought to be durable in part because it was informed by
extensive public comment to establish a definition that supports public
health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic
growth. In developing the proposed rule, EPA and the army reviewed and
considered the extensive feedback and recommendations the Agencies
received from States, Tribal governments, local governments, and
stakeholders through consultations, meetings, and webinars.
In 2017, Chairman Carper and I led 19 Senators in a letter to then-
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt opposing the Trump administration EPA's
plan to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which would have weakened
safeguards for the Nation's waterways.
Last year, on February 28, 2022, 13 Senators joined me in a letter to
the EPA applauding the rule to revise the definition of ``waters of the
United Sates.'' Our letter explained how the rule takes significant and
positive steps toward restoring strong clean water protections that are
critical to meeting the Biden administration's commitment to
environmental justice.
Clean water is essential for improving public health outcomes through
the provision of safe, affordable drinking water for all Americans, no
matter their location.
In the interim, I led a bicameral letter with my Chesapeake Bay
watershed colleagues to Michael Regan, who is currently the EPA
Administrator, and to Lieutenant General Scott Spellman, the Chief of
Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
We urged them to rescind the harmful Navigable Waters Protection Rule
the Trump administration implemented, and replace it with a rule that
restores strong Clean Water Act protections to the Chesapeake Bay and
other waterways and wetlands across the country.
The Bay receives half of its water from a network of 110,000 streams
and 1.7 million acres of wetlands, most of which are non-navigable
tributaries and non-tidal wetlands that drain to those tributaries.
Scientific research attests to the critical importance of small
headwater streams in removing pollution from higher-order streams and
rivers, and in preserving aquatic and riparian life throughout the
entire system.
Small streams and wetlands do not just provide habitat for wildlife
and trout and other fisheries that enhance outdoor recreation
opportunities; they also clean water for farmers that drive our economy
through the production of food.
Water pollution has never respected political boundaries. Using the
Congressional Review Act to attack this thoughtfully crafted rule would
be a mistake for healthy watersheds and clean water supplies across the
country.
I urge all my colleagues to reject this damaging resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the joint
resolution for congressional disapproval striking down the President's
revised definitions of waters of the United States.
As a fifth-generation farmer, I know how hard-working Kansas farmers
work daily to protect our environment and conserve our precious
resources. Farmers serve as our land's original and best stewards. We
all want to leave this world cleaner, healthier, and safer than we
found it.
Since coming to Congress, we have worked hard alongside our farmers
and ranchers and rural landowners to ensure our waters become cleaner
and healthier and, at the same time, protect our land and water from
aggressive government overreach.
This includes working with the previous administration to roll back
purposeless, ``one size fits all'' Federal WOTUS regulations that drive
up the cost of doing business for Kansans and are detrimental to their
ability to care for their crops and livestock.
As Kansas farmers, ranchers, businesses, and even municipalities know
all too well, the Obama-era definition of WOTUS in 2015 dramatically
expanded the Federal Government's reach with minimal improvements in
water quality.
Today, this White House's reckless expansion of the WOTUS rule only
adds more regulations, more redtape, and costs to everyday life in
Kansas. This level of Federal overreach is harmful and ill-advised.
It is important to note that my colleagues and I requested the
administration suspend the rulemaking until the Supreme Court completes
its consideration of Sackett v. EPA. This would allow Congress to craft
a lawful, predictable, and reasonable rule.
But this request has fallen on deaf ears. Moving forward with this
rule is the administration's attempt to revive the Obama-era WOTUS
rule, which was rightfully blocked in nearly half of the United States
due to litigation in courts across the country.
Now, as the saying goes, history repeats itself, and a Federal judge
recently blocked the implementation of the brandnew rule in Texas and
Idaho.
Now, back home, my farmers are already bracing for the impact. In
fact, I heard from one organization that said:
Farmers and ranchers should not have to hire a team of
lawyers and consultants to determine how we can farm our
land.
And I agree.
Kansan after Kansan I have met with on this issue has told me this
administration didn't consider their input on the new WOTUS definition,
further proof of the clear disconnect between DC bureaucrats and the
hard-working farmers and ranchers who provide our Nation's food.
Agriculture, oil and gas, energy, the housing industry, road
builders, bridge builders, construction workers, and municipalities
have all voiced their disapproval of the rule and the costs of the
negative impacts that its adoption will have on American industries and
consumers.
It seems this administration only listens to radical
environmentalists rather than the hard-working, pragmatic voices of the
people who love the land which has been handed down from generation to
generation, just like in my family--people who care every bit about the
environment as any soul on Capitol Hill does. These are the same people
who feed, fuel, and clothe America.
This rule is the Biden administration's attempt to federalize our
waters
[[Page S1021]]
and take control of our private land and leave our producers with more
questions than answers, more costs than gain.
In fact--get this--mitigation costs related to the current White
House WOTUS may cost farmers and ranchers over $100,000 per acre. The
value of this land itself might be $1,000, $2,000, maybe $5,000 an
acre, but mitigation will cost us $100,000 per acre.
Let me ask a couple of simple questions: Should a dry creek that only
has water run through it during a rain be a waters of the United
States?
Should playas in western Kansas be a waters of the United States?
Should ditches draining into a dry creek bed be a waters of the
United States?
Should water trickling off the terraces my grandfathers built 50-some
years ago to prevent soil erosion and the tall lush grassy waterway
that is home to pheasants and quail and turkey and deer and rabbits--
should this be a waters of the United States?
Under President Biden's rule, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineer
will attempt to answer these questions on a case-by-case basis, meaning
that the answer and the cost might change every time. That is no way to
do business.
In a time of economic uncertainty, this unpredictable, ambiguous
rulemaking will amplify the efforts of inflation felt by ag producers
and American consumers. No American industry would be safe from the
impending rising costs, all while the Biden WOTUS rule fails to achieve
the goal of improved water quality.
The regulated community spent the better part of the last decade
trying to operate under several different definitions of ``waters of
the United States.'' We cannot allow the Biden administration to take
us backward yet again.
Farmers and other ag producers are the original stewards of the land,
and we all have a special interest in protecting the quality of our
Nation's waters. Consistent and clear guidelines and regulations are
key to such protections. We cannot keep moving the proverbial goalpost.
The Biden administration's failure to understand the ramifications of
this is alarming. As Members of Congress, we must ensure agricultural
producers and other stakeholders have the regulatory certainty to take
care of our Nation's land and water resources, the lands and waters
that we love, the lands and waters that we are leaving to the next
generation--to my children and to my grandchildren.
I, therefore, urge the support of the Joint Resolution for
Congressional Disapproval, striking down this administration's revised
definition of ``waters of the United States.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I believe I have 15 minutes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not an order for time.
Mr. CARPER. I would ask that I be granted 15 minutes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.J. Res. 27, a Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove the
Biden administration's rule defining the ``waters of the United
States,'' or WOTUS, as it is popularly known.
To many Americans, the definition of the ``waters of the United
States'' may not seem like a controversial matter. To understand why it
is, though, we need to first ask ourselves, how did we get here to this
point?
Well, a little more than 50 years ago, Congress came together to pass
the Clean Water Act. In doing so, Congress affirmed our Nation's
commitment to protecting and restoring waterways from industrial
pollution. Until that point, our Nation's waters--which were and
continue to be critical to our health, to our environment, and our
economy--were subject to indiscriminate pollution and destruction.
Polluters could dump their waste into upstream waters without
consequence.
In fact, some of you may recall that the Cuyahoga River in Northern
Ohio was so polluted that it caught fire in 1969, not far from where I
went to college as a Navy ROTC midshipman during the Vietnam war. The
memory of that fire remains with me still today.
When Congress passed the Clean Water Act, there was no confusion--no
confusion or uncertainty--about what it was seeking to protect. At the
time, there was broad bipartisan concern over the health of our
Nation's waters. There was also consensus that we needed to fix a very
real and a very costly problem. America's waters needed once again to
be drinkable; they needed to be swimmable; and they needed to be
fishable.
During the Senate debate on the Clean Water Act all those years ago,
Democrats and Republicans alike spoke in support of the legislation.
Senator Ed Muskie, a Democrat from Maine and the bill's lead sponsor
said:
[T]he rivers of this country serve as little more than
sewers to the seas. Wastes from cities and towns, from farms
and forests, from mining and manufacturing, foul the streams,
poison the estuaries, threaten the life of the ocean depths.
The danger to health, the environmental damage, the economic
loss can be anywhere.
That is his quote from all those years ago.
Senator Howard Baker, if you recall, a Republican from Tennessee who
was also a Republican leader in this body for a number of years had
these words to say:
[T]he economy of this Nation can absorb the costs of
cleaning up pollution without inflation or without a loss in
economic productivity.
He went on to say these words:
If we cannot swim in our lakes and rivers, if we cannot
breathe the air God has given us, what other comforts can
life offer us?
Senator Baker's words were true then, and they ring true still today.
Thanks to the Clean Water Act, our Nation's waters are remarkably
cleaner than they were five decades ago. The same Cuyahoga River that
caught fire all those years ago is now cleaned up and home to more than
60 species of fish.
The simple fact is the Clean Water Act remains our best tool to
safeguard our nation's waters from persistent pollution, protecting our
health, protecting our environment. We cannot afford to turn back the
clock on these protections for our Nation's waters and those who depend
on them.
In a nutshell, that is why I support President Biden's commonsense
rule defining which of our Nation's waters need to be protected under
the law. It is also why I oppose--what I believe to be--a misguided
Congressional Review Act resolution to invalidate it.
After multiple administrations' failed attempts to create a lasting
WOTUS definition, the 2023 Biden rule represents--what I believe--is a
fair balance. The rule protects our Nation's waters and wetlands and
provides flexibility for those who need it. And that last ``and'' is
important--and provides flexibility for those who need it. And,
particularly, the Biden rule thoughtfully responds to many concerns
that the agricultural community in my State and in other States have
voiced over the years.
In fact, the Biden rule makes agricultural exemptions clearer and
more consistent with other existing regulations. For example, the rule
includes express exemptions for farming on land designated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture as prior converted cropland, an exemption
long-sought by the agriculture community in my State and, I suspect, in
most of the other 49 States. According to the American Farm Bureau,
there are approximately 53 million acres of prior converted cropland in
the United States--that is 53 million acres of farmland that the Biden
rule makes clear should not be regulated--should not be regulated--53
million--million with an ``M.''
If the CRA resolution of disapproval were to become law, it would
overturn this important clarification for agricultural activities under
the Biden rule, including the one I just mentioned. The Environmental
Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers would also be
prohibited from developing substantially similar regulations in the
future. All of this would lead to confusion and uncertainty from our
farmers and ranchers. We don't need more uncertainty; we need less.
Many of our colleagues who oppose the Biden rule say they prefer the
Trump administration's so-called Navigable Waters Protection Rule. I
would like to remind them that the Trump rule actually earned its name,
I think, for good reason--Trump's dirty water rule was vacated not just
by one court but by multiple courts. I think at least
[[Page S1022]]
two Federal courts vacated that rule. These court rulings found that
the Trump rule failed to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Water
Act. Overturning the Biden rule will not bring the Trump rule back.
I will say that again. Overturning the Biden rule will not bring the
Trump rule back. The courts have already spoken--not once, but twice--
with respect to the Trump rule.
Instead, all that this CRA would accomplish is to create a new phase
of litigation and even more uncertainty, neither of which we need. We
have also heard some of our colleagues argue that protecting streams
and wetlands under the Clean Water Act is an overreach. The science,
however, is abundantly clear. The health of our waterways is
inextricably linked to our streams and to our wetlands. As we all know,
wetlands are valuable for our economy, our environment, and our planet.
So how is that, you might ask? How is that? Well, wetlands protect
our communities from dangerous and costly flooding. One acre of
wetlands can store up to 1.5 million gallons of floodwater. In total,
that means that wetlands in the United States provide $2.9 trillion in
value just by reducing and delaying floods. That is more than the GDP
of every State and territory in 2022, except maybe for California. It
is also worth noting that nonflood plain wetlands buffer floodwaters by
capturing runoff during storms.
So when I hear the criticisms that the Biden WOTUS rule is bad for
our economy, put plainly, I could not disagree more. Some may say that
our Nation cannot afford the level of protection for our waterways and
wetlands provided by the Biden rule. As it turns out, the converse is
true: We cannot afford not to protect it.
The reality is that because of the interconnectedness of our
waterways, streams, wetlands, oceans, and estuaries, how private
property owners manage their land has the potential to affect us all.
If your upstream neighbor pollutes the water or drains a wetland, that
can impact your property too. Similarly, what one State does can impact
neighboring States as well as States even further downstream.
May I add one other thing? The Clean Water Act reminds us of the
moral obligation all of us have to follow the Golden Rule: to treat
others the way we want to be treated. The Biden rule requires us to be
good neighbors and stewards of our planet, while also providing
flexibility for those who need it. I, for one, am grateful for that.
As the late Senator Baker put it more than 50 years ago, right here
on this very floor, he said.
[I] have found that the kind of natural environment we
bequeath to our children and grandchildren is of paramount
importance.
Those words were true then, and they are even more true today.
So let me say this again: The planet that we bequeath to our children
and the planet that we bequeath to our grandchildren is of paramount
importance to them, and it is also to us as their parents and their
grandparents. With that thought in mind, I strongly urge my colleagues
to join me in opposing H.J. Res. 27.
Madam President, I was coming down on the train today and thought
about a visit I paid to a farm probably about a half dozen years ago.
It was a beautiful day like today, and we had farmers--scores of
farmers who were there. It was organized, I believe, by the Delaware
Farm Bureau.
We had people from the administration, the Senate Democratic
administration, who had come. And they had come to listen, to hear from
the farmers that were gathered, their concerns with an earlier version
of this rule, the waters of the United States rule. And the farmers,
among other things, said: We want some certainty. We want some
predictability, and we want you to listen to us. We want you to listen
to our thoughts, and we want you to make sure that the next time you
write something like this, you take our thoughts into consideration.
I don't have time in the short time that has been allotted to me to
go chapter and verse about the words that were spoken by farmers in my
State on that day, but the words that have been spoken by farmers all
over this country in the weeks and months since then have been taken
into effect, and simply saying that they have been ignored is just not
true. It is just not true.
Changes have been made, and they are reflected in the document that
we are going to be voting on here in a bit--reflected in the good work
that has been done by this administration.
How much time do I have left, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You could speak as long as you like.
Mr. CARPER. That could be scary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I'm sorry. The vote is in 15 minutes.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I think we have another Senator from
West Virginia that is ready to speak over here.
I want to just close with this. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
stands ready to work with farmers and ranchers to assist them with
compliance. I will say that again: The U.S. Department of Agriculture
stands ready to stand with farmers and ranchers to assist them with
compliance.
Finally, I think this is a moderate rule that thoughtfully responds
to the concerns of farmers and ranchers. I met with Administrator Regan
personally. This is not the Trump rule, and this is not the Obama rule.
It is a compromise, and I think it is one that deserves to be
supported.
So I would ask for a vote that is against the measure that is before
us today.
I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I want to thank the chair for
presenting his side of the argument.
Now I think we are going to hear the other side of the argument on
why taking this rule down will pass today--because of the strong
opposition to it.
Today, we are going to have the opportunity to bring a divided
Congress together, united in rejecting misguided and unnecessary
overreach by the executive branch.
In its attempt to regulate basically anything and everything, the
Biden administration, once again, overstepped its boundaries in the
Waters of the United States rule, or WOTUS, as we have heard, and they
did this this past December. It is the third major change in 8 years.
The chairman talked about all of the uncertainty. This is the third
change in 8 years to the definition of what ``waters'' are and what is
a subject of Federal jurisdiction. With this comes more uncertainty,
more redtape, and more government for millions of Americans.
It is clear we need to take action in the face of this burdensome
rule, and it is exactly why I have introduced the Congressional Review
Act resolution of disapproval that we are about to vote on. So let's
take a look at the new rule issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers.
President Biden's new WOTUS rule repeals the 2020 navigable waters
protection rule that provided predictability and certainty for our
farmers, our ranchers, our miners, our infrastructure workers, our
homebuilders, and our landowners such that they can rely on. That 2020
waters rule properly implemented the Clean Water Act by protecting
America's waterways through coordination and cooperation between the
States and the Federal Government. Who knows their States better than
the State regulators?
This new definition, however, drastically expands Federal
jurisdiction over streams, wetlands, and private property at the
expense of the States and their citizens. It also adopts a subjective
``significant nexus'' test for determining what is and isn't subject to
Federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, up to and including dry
ditches--it doesn't sound like a navigable water to me--that could fill
with rain during a storm event even in the middle of the desert.
To sum it up, the Biden administration's WOTUS rule tells States and
individuals that the Federal Government knows best. It is true to form
for this administration so we shouldn't be too surprised.
It is also important to note that this is all happening while there
is a pending court case at the Supreme Court, right now, that will make
many of these same determinations, but they couldn't wait. Of course,
they couldn't wait. They had to grow the Federal Government's authority
and redesignate waters that had never been designated before.
[[Page S1023]]
So let's take a look at the impacts this WOTUS rule would have on
farmers and on small businesses.
There are 17,000 small businesses in the small State of West Virginia
that will be impacted by this rule and our own ability to build in the
future. We should be setting predictable, reliable policy for America's
farmers and ranchers. Instead, under the Biden WOTUS rule, if I am a
rancher in Arizona or a cattle farmer in Montana or own a family farm
in West Virginia, I will literally have less control over my own land.
Previously converted cropland and even irrigation ditches may now
require a permit under this new regulation.
The American Farm Bureau says:
Farmers and ranchers should not have to hire a team of
lawyers and consultants to determine how we can farm our
land.
Do you know what will happen? They won't hire the team of lawyers.
They just won't farm their own farmland. Yes, that is what millions
fear from this new ``waters of the United States'' definition.
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture says
that this rule will ``significantly increase the regulatory burdens and
create further uncertainty for state departments of agriculture,
farmers, and ranchers across the country.''
Along with those who live and work in rural America, this rule will
target employers of all sizes across our country as well. The National
Federation of Independent Business writes that the Biden WOTUS rule
will ``make compliance a nightmare for small businesses,'' adding, ``If
there was ever a time to not impose additional burdensome regulations,
that time is now.''
Often the cornerstone of our communities, small businesses need
policies that support, not penalize them.
Our Nation's future depends on our ability to build. That includes
transportation, infrastructure, and energy projects of all kinds.
President Biden knows that our Nation's broken permitting process
threatens to undercut some of our own shared legislative
accomplishments on infrastructure investment.
Yet, at a time when we should be streamlining our Nation's permitting
and review process, the Biden waters rule makes things worse. It comes
at a time when we are trying to build here in America. It will require
more people and more projects to seek more Federal permits, which is
time and money and doesn't improve the environmental oversight. The
environmental oversight is there, but it will cause fear that the EPA
will take enforcement action at any given moment with eye-popping
fines.
The Associated Builders and Contractors writes that the Biden WOTUS
rule will ``cause building delays due to regulatory uncertainty, plus
increased permitting and mitigation costs, which will make it more
difficult and expensive to grow food, produce energy and build critical
infrastructure for the 21st century.''
We have heard our Nation's farmers, small businesses, and our
builders loud and clear: President Biden's waters rule is bad policy at
an even worse time.
Now, I have been asked what a Congressional Review Act resolution
would do, and during a recent Environment and Public Works hearing,
this issue came up.
If approved by both Houses of Congress and signed into law, this
resolution would overturn the overreaching and expansive WOTUS rule
issued in December and return to a narrower and more practical
definition that was put in place prior to 2015. You may hear that this
will leave waters unprotected. That is simply not true. The regulatory
authority for waters that are not navigable nor travel interstate will
be returned to the States as Congress intended in the Clean Water Act.
Importantly, my resolution would prevent a substantially similar and
overbroad definition from being written again. It would not prevent the
EPA and Army Corps from issuing a narrower replacement rule that
actually is common sense and addresses stakeholders' and elected
officials' concerns and seeks to clarify the status quo.
As you have just heard, States and the regulated community, including
farmers and ranchers, have been very clear in their conclusion, and I
agree: The Biden final rule on WOTUS is a significant expansion--not a
narrowing--of Washington's role in regulating land and waters across
the country, and it creates more uncertainty than it cures.
The expansion of Federal authority and the encroachment on States'
rights and private lands is the precise reason we have seen
overwhelming support for my CRA resolution.
When I introduced this resolution of disapproval, I was proud to do
so with our friends and counterparts in the House of Representatives.
Led by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam
Graves, the House passed this measure with bipartisan support,
including nine Democrat votes. It is important to note that two of
these Democrat votes came from the ranking member of the House
Agriculture Committee and the ranking member of the House
Appropriations' Agriculture Subcommittee. These are folks who know the
needs of our farmers and rural Americans very, very well and who
bravely put the best policy forward ahead of partisan politics. So I
thank them for their support in this effort.
It demonstrates, again, that it isn't about party; it is not about
party lines. It is about standing up to the needs of those who live and
work in rural America. Well, we can stand by them today. We can also
give a boost to our future transportation, infrastructure, and energy
projects of all kinds across our country.
With this resolution, we are sending a clear message that Congress,
even a divided Congress, will defend working Americans in the face of
Executive overreach.
With that, I appreciate the support we have received in our effort to
place this important check on Executive overreach, and I encourage my
colleagues to vote yes on my resolution of disapproval.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
occur immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on H.J. Res. 27
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint resolution
is considered read the third time.
The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
The yeas and nays have been previously requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
Young
NAYS--43
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Duckworth
Durbin
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
[[Page S1024]]
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Coons
Feinstein
Fetterman
McConnell
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Nebraska.
Maiden Speech
Mr. RICKETTS. Madam President, I rise today humbled and honored to
stand in this Chamber to represent the people of the great State of
Nebraska.
The first time I walked into this Chamber, I got chills. This Chamber
represents the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the American people;
it represents the shared values we have had for nearly two-and-a-half
centuries; it represents just how exceptional our Republic, how
exceptional America is.
Today, it is all too easy to take for granted just how exceptional
our great Nation is. Our Founders threw off the tyranny of a King with
an idea. It was a really radical idea that our rights come to us
directly from God, not from a King, and that governments were
instituted to protect those rights. It was a brandnew idea that our
rights are ours; that they are endowments from God, not consent from
some government.
Even today, after 246 years, our founding principles are just as
true. These values--like the rule of law, checks and balances,
federalism--they are critical to our Republic. We are strongest when we
follow them, and we are never weaker than when we stray from them.
We are also strong because of our Constitution. Our Constitution--
forging a government of the people, by the people, for the people--is
the greatest governing document ever written.
The primary purpose of our government is to secure people's liberty
and happiness, their peace and prosperity, and we have done it really,
really well for nearly two-and-a-half centuries. This is incredibly
rare. We have created a bubble in world history. For most of human
history, people have worried that somebody bigger than them would come
and take their stuff or a foreign army would rampage across the
landscape, burning down everything--not here in America.
Another advantage of our system is that it unleashes the power of
individuals' unbounded potential. In America, it doesn't matter where
you start; with enough grit and hard work, you can go anywhere. That is
why the world wants to come here. That is why they send their best and
brightest students to study and train here. That is why nearly every
major innovation and breakthrough comes from America. That is why so
many have sought a better life in our great Nation. Through our
strength, we remain the cornerstone of global peace and prosperity.
Our greatness is also reflected in our commitment to defend freedom
here in this building, in our courts, and even on battlefields. It
requires much of us as patriots and citizens, and if we are not
vigilant, it could easily slip away. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan,
freedom is only one generation away from extinction. We don't pass it
on to our children in the bloodstream; it must be fought for each and
every day.
We must not lose sight of the things that make America so
exceptional. That is our commitment to our God-given liberties.
Our Founders were concerned that as government got too big, it would
tend toward tyranny and rob people of their freedoms. Here in the
Senate, if we continue allowing the Federal Government to grow too big
and too intrusive, we risk our peace and prosperity; we risk losing the
very values that have always made America great. However, if we hold on
to those founding principles, we have a path to an even brighter future
for this great Nation.
The Framers of our Constitution believed that government closest to
the people is best able to serve them. This is common sense. What works
in Nebraska may not work in New York. That is why we have the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution--that the powers not specifically
delegated to the Federal Government are reserved for the States and the
American people. That is why top-down Federal mandates usually do more
harm than good.
In my home State of Nebraska, we have shown America what is possible
when the Federal Government gets out of the way and allows States to
lead. We have proven that limited and responsive government works best.
During my time as Governor, we kept the size and scope of government
small. We empowered people. We ran government more like a business. The
reality is, when government works better, people are served better. We
dramatically improved the level of services that we provided to
Nebraska families. We got help to people in need faster than ever
before. For example, we reduced the on-hold time for people calling our
economic assistance phone line by 75 percent. We made it easier for
citizens and businesses to work with the State. As an example, we cut
the time it takes to issue a permit by nearly in half.
We achieved millions of dollars in savings while doing so. And do you
know what saving money allows you to do? It allows you to give back to
people their tax dollars in the form of tax relief. We provided
billions of dollars in tax relief, including to our veterans and our
seniors, by phasing out the taxes on their retirement income and Social
Security.
We attracted new investments and jobs for communities big and small.
We employed a record number of Nebraskans, and our unemployment rate
fell to a historic low.
We made government work better. We proved that we can do a better job
of providing services while controlling our costs. We also proved that
we can respect people's freedoms and liberties while keeping people
safe. During the pandemic, we kept kids in classrooms, people at their
jobs, and government open. And we were ranked the No. 1 best pandemic
response State.
All of this reflects our conservative Nebraska values. In Nebraska,
we respect people's freedom. We value strong communities, family, and
faith. We honor our law enforcement and our military. We expect a
limited, accountable government. We believe in personal accountability
and responsibility and the incredible potential of the individual.
Nebraska is what America is supposed to be.
But, nationally, we have strayed from these values. Too many take our
freedom for granted. Too many focus not on what is good but on their
grievances. Too often, we hear resentment rather than reverence for the
very principles that made this a great Nation. Too many have forgotten
the old adage that a government big enough to give you everything you
want is strong enough to take everything you have.
Massive and reckless spending to fund bigger programs has seriously
weakened our economy. Families and businesses are struggling under the
burden of high taxes, high inflation, and rising interest rates. A wave
of job-killing regulations from Washington is harming American
agriculture and industry.
At the same time, the Federal Government is failing in many of its
most basic responsibilities, like keeping us safe. Undeniably, national
security is paramount to the Nation's freedom and prosperity. It is the
Federal Government's most important responsibility, but the Biden
administration has turned a blind eye to the humanitarian and security
crisis at our southern border.
Vulnerable people are dying, victims of the cartels. Fentanyl and
other dangerous drugs are flooding into our Nation. So are suspects on
our terrorist watch list. And what comes across the border, whether it
is the drugs, the criminals, or the human trafficking victims, they
don't stay there. They impact every community. It is costing Americans
their lives.
Taryn Lee Griffin was a 24-year-old mom of two when she died in
Lincoln, NB, of a drug overdose. She was out with friends when she took
a pill she thought was a prescription drug. It was laced with a lethal
dose of fentanyl. Her mom, Liz, said: Our daughter is everyone's
daughter. She is right.
Our sons and daughters, our friends and neighbors, they are paying
the price for this crisis with their lives every day. It is shameful
and unacceptable.
This administration's incompetence on the southern border is matched
by
[[Page S1025]]
its foreign policy blunders. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan
projected weakness to our friends and adversaries, and American
servicemembers lost their lives, including Nebraskan Cpl Daegan Page.
Unbelievably, we left Americans behind and abandoned our Afghani
security partners. Our allies are seriously questioning our commitment
to our friends.
And, even worse, the bad guys, our adversaries--like the Chinese
Communist Party, regimes in Russia, Iran, and North Korea--they are
questioning our resolve.
Our freedoms and way of life depend upon peace. How do we maintain
peace? We maintain peace through strength.
Not for the first time in our history, we find ourselves at a pivotal
moment, facing what Ronald Reagan termed ``a time of choosing.'' I
believe the choice is clear. We must chart a path to greater freedom
and strength. We must remain the world's beacon of peace and
prosperity.
It requires us to get back to basics, back to our founding values.
Those values have guided me as Governor, and they will guide me here.
As Governor, we spent 8 years delivering on excellence.
I didn't believe the naysayers back then when I started, and I don't
believe them now.
Government can work better, and it can do so while respecting our
liberties. That is the goal I will work toward each and every day. I
will strive to make the Federal Government work better for the people
of this country. I will reject every effort to restrict our liberties
and undermine our values.
I will work to restore transparency and faith in the Federal
Government, and I will work to control spending, curb unnecessary
regulation, and limit the size and scope of government. I will work to
secure our borders and provide the resources to defend ourselves
against our enemies. I will work to assure that we have a well-trained,
well-led, and well-equipped military to defend us.
I will hold this administration and future administrations
accountable to the people of Nebraska, and I will always fight for the
best interests and freedoms of the Nebraskans I serve.
In spite of the challenges we face, I believe there has never been a
better time to be an American. However, many don't feel this way. We
must make the American dream real for them.
Throughout history, we have risen to meet every challenge. With our
founding values as our guide, we will again rise to meet the challenge
of this moment.
My experience in the Senate so far has reaffirmed my faith that we
have more in common than divides us. With that joy and faith in our
Nation, I ask God to continue to bless the great State of Nebraska and
the United States of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I am so happy to be joined in the U.S.
Senate by a Nebraska colleague as sharp, as capable, and as ready to
get to work as Senator Ricketts.
As Senator Ricketts noted, Nebraska is what America is supposed to
be. I know Senator Ricketts cares deeply about the people of our great
State and that together we will work hard to deliver results for
Nebraska. Senator Ricketts served Nebraska admirably as our Governor
for two terms, and I am confident that his time in the U.S. Senate will
further his legacy as an exceptional advocate for our State.
Just this month, Senator Ricketts and I collaborated by traveling to
the southern border to see firsthand the crisis that is unfolding
there. We have partnered on a number of bills to push back on the Biden
administration's bureaucratic overreach, including on WOTUS, and we
held a tele-townhall for our constituents.
I congratulate Senator Ricketts on his maiden speech here in the U.S.
Senate, and I look forward to many more opportunities to work together
toward the interest of our home State of Nebraska.
I congratulate the Senator and welcome him to the U.S. Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I want to welcome the Senator. We get to
add another plain-spoken Nebraskan to the U.S. Senate--people who bring
a commonsense, clear-eyed realism, a solutions-oriented approach to the
Senate. We are really grateful to have former Governor, now-Senator,
Pete Ricketts join the U.S. Senate, along with his colleague Senator
Deb Fischer. That is a powerful, powerful duo and will be a great
partnership for the State of Nebraska and make great contributions to
the U.S. Senate and to the betterment of our country.
And I know that, like a lot of people from their region of the world,
they understand--as he pointed out in his remarks--the importance of a
strong and secure America, an America that projects strength in the
world, not just militarily but economically, diplomatically.
And so as we work on these issues, we face lots of challenges, lots
of dangers in the world today.
I am just delighted to have another U.S. Senator who comes to us with
a record of accomplishments as a Governor. He got a lot of things done
when he was Governor of Nebraska. And, as a neighbor State, a State
that gets an opportunity to observe--and, actually, I share almost a
border with Senator Fischer, because my hometown and her home area are
literally, just as we speak, as the crow flies, in Nebraska and the
Dakotas, a few miles apart.
But we know that we are going to have two people here representing
that State whom I have been able to watch, not only from afar but now
up close, and just know how talented they are, how dedicated they are,
and, again, just how practical and realistic and commonsensical they
are about the challenges facing our country and about the solutions
that we need to put in place to meet those challenges.
So congratulations on your remarks and welcome. It is great to have
you here, and we look forward to serving with you, Senator Ricketts,
and to continue to serve with Senator Fisher.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Louisiana.
Crime
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with me today is Mr. Seth Brazier, who
is one of my colleagues in my Senate office.
Madam President, I want to talk about my city today, the city of New
Orleans. The city of New Orleans is iconic, and the whole world knows
it.
My first job in State government was with a reform Governor, back in
the late 1980s, named Governor Buddy Roemer.
Japan was doing extraordinarily well at that time economically,
making many foreign investments, and Governor Roemer traveled to Japan
to try to convince Japan to invest in Louisiana. And when the Governor
got back, he told me: Kennedy, my first meeting was very enlightening.
He said: In my first meeting, I met with about 50 Japanese business
people.
He said: I asked them how many of you have been to Louisiana?
The Governor said three of them raised their hand.
He said: Then I asked them another question. I asked these 50
Japanese business people: How many of you have been in New Orleans?
He said: Twenty-five of them raised their hand.
The city of New Orleans is iconic. Every State, every country would
love to have a New Orleans. Our city was founded over 300 years ago. We
are one of the oldest in America. It was founded in 1718. Our city is
envied for--let's see--our food, our music, our architecture, our
diversity, our dialects, our merriment, and our festivals--for our
celebration of life. In New Orleans, we dance with or without music.
But New Orleans is under attack. People there are being murdered.
They are being shot. They are being raped. They are being stabbed.
Their stuff is being stolen, and our quality of life is being degraded
because of crime--because of crime, a cancer on our city.
I want to give you a sense of the breadth of our problem. In 2022, we
had 280 murders in New Orleans. The victims ranged from six months of
age to 91 years old. Ten percent of these victims were under the age of
18. Seventy percent were people of color.
Listen to this. One out of every eight Black males who live in New
Orleans between the age of 15 to 24 will be shot--one out of eight.
Statistically, it
[[Page S1026]]
is more dangerous to be young and Black in New Orleans than it was to
be a marine in the battle of Fallujah during the height of the
insurgency in Iraq. Those are the numbers.
Last year, my city had the highest murder rate in the country, twice
the murder rate of Atlanta--twice. We had the most murders since 1996.
Our murder rate was up 141 percent since 2019, and it is not just
murder. Shootings in 2022 were up 88 percent from 2019, carjackings up
156 percent, armed robberies up 20 percent, and it is not much better
in 2023.
Now, behind these sterile statistics are real live human beings,
flesh and bones, blood and tissue.
In one of the most appalling cases that we have had, about a year
ago, in an area in New Orleans that we call Mid-City, four teenagers--a
17-year-old boy, a 16-year-old girl, and two 15-year-old girls--four
teenagers, carjacked a 73-year-old grandmother.
The teenagers pulled the grandmother out of the car and drove away,
but the grandmother's arm got tangled in the driver's seatbelt. The
teenagers kept going. They dragged her for a block until her arm was
severed. This lady bled to death at the scene.
Crime in New Orleans is affecting all of us in our city--residents,
visitors--every part of our city, but no one is hit harder than our
low-income communities. That is true both in terms of public safety,
and it is also true economically.
Most poor people are not criminals. They are not. But criminals often
prey on our lower income fellow citizens, particularly in their own
communities. Existing businesses then leave and they take jobs with
them and unemployment goes up and we have more poverty.
And those businesses that remain in our lower income communities--
they are often mom-and-pop shops with a small margin of profit--they
have to pay more for insurance; they have to pay more for security;
they have to pay more for credit, so they have to raise their prices,
and that makes people even poorer.
That is what crime does.
We have tried--we in New Orleans, we have tried everything. We have
around 900 police officers--we need 2,000--because many of our police
officers retire every day.
We have tried paying higher salaries. We have tried paying better
benefits. We have tried curfews. We have tried task forces. We have
tried social programs. We have tried afterschool programs. We have
tried crime cameras. We have tried facial recognition. We have tried
conflict management. We have tried mentoring. We have tried youth
clubs. We have tried job training. We have tried enhanced educational
opportunities. We have tried prosecuting juveniles as adults. We have
tried hotspot policing. We have tried 12-hour shifts. We have tried
hiring administrative personnel to take the paper workload off our cops
to get them back on the street. You name it, and we have tried it.
We have tried everything but one thing--stop and frisk. Stop and
frisk. Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a police
officer may stop a suspect on the street without probable cause, and
that police officer can stop that person on the street without probable
cause so long as that police officer has what is called reasonable
suspicion to believe that the person stopped has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit a crime.
And after that person is stopped, if the police officer has
reasonable suspicion to believe the person stopped might be carrying a
weapon, the police officer can pat down that person on the outside of
his or her clothing. That is called stop and frisk. It is a very
effective law enforcement practice. It is used by police officers every
day in virtually every city all across America, and it has been used
since 1968.
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case--a very famous case--
called Terry v. Ohio. Terry v. Ohio. The very liberal Chief Justice--I
don't use the word ``liberal'' in a pejorative sense. I am just
describing him as many scholarly works have. The very liberal Chief
Justice Earl Warren actually wrote the opinion in Terry v. Ohio, and he
was joined in that opinion by Justices Hugo Black, John Harlan, William
Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, and Thurgood
Marshall. They all said together: Here is our opinion, Terry v. Ohio.
And what did that opinion say? That opinion said that under
appropriate circumstances, stop and frisk is permissible. It is
perfectly constitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Now, I want you to note that a police officer cannot stop and frisk
somebody on a whim, on a hunch. A cop does not have unfettered
discretion.
In order for a police officer to stop a person on the street, that
police officer--let me say it again--must have reasonable suspicion--
reasonable suspicion--to believe that the person has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit a crime.
And once again, once the person is stopped, the cop can frisk that
person on the outside of his clothing--called a pat-down--only if the
cop has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person stopped is
carrying a weapon.
Why does this cop have this authority? To protect the cop during the
questioning.
Reasonable suspicion is not a hunch. It is not a whim. It is an
objective standard. It is not probable cause. You have to have probable
cause to make an arrest, to conduct a search, for example, of someone's
home. Probable cause is a higher standard, but reasonable suspicion is
an objective standard. Reasonable suspicion exists, according to the
case law, as you know, Madam President--reasonable suspicion exists
when an objectively reasonable police officer, given the facts and
circumstances of that particular situation and considering the cop's
training and experience, would suspect that a person, as I have said,
has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. And if
probable cause is then established, of course, the person can be
arrested.
Every cop in America who goes through training academy--and every cop
in America does. Every cop in America knows about stop and frisk. Every
cop in America is trained in the law enforcement practice of stop and
frisk.
Let me give you an example: Let's suppose a police officer is driving
by and he sees an individual late at night walking along the street
with a coat hanger or a slim jim--do you all know what a slim jim is?
It is sometimes called a lockout tool. It is a way to get into a car if
you have lost your keys.
If a police officer sees someone late at night walking down the
street with a coat hanger or a slim jim looking in cars, the police
officer can stop that person. Can he arrest that person? No, he does
not have probable cause. No crime has been committed, but he has
reasonable suspicion to stop and talk to that person.
And once he stops to talk to that person, if he sees a big bulge here
in his top pocket, he may have reasonable suspicion to believe that
person has a weapon, and it would be dangerous for him, the police
officer, to keep talking to that person. So the police officer--he
can't make him take his jacket off or anything. He can just pat him
down to see if there is a weapon.
Now, I repeat: Cops all over America stop and frisk suspects every
single day, and they have for 50 years.
And you know who endorses it? The U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, like all police practices, it can be abused. Stop and frisk can
be abused. And when it is, it can be and it should be challenged in
court, and the abusing officer should be held accountable. But most
officers don't abuse it.
As many people know, Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg--two
New York mayors back-to-back--used stop and frisk extensively during
the crimewave of the 1990s and the early part of this century to fight
crime and gun violence in New York City. We have all read about that.
Crime fell dramatically. Now, some have said that is due, in part, to
stop and frisk. Some have said that stop and frisk had nothing to do
with it. Some have said that in some cases, the New York Police
Department abused stop and frisk, and those who maintain that position
said that too often police officers were stopping and frisking people
on the basis not of reasonable suspicion but on the basis of race or
national origin. And that is wrong.
A case was filed called Floyd v. City of New York. Floyd v. City of
New York. It was a class action. It was filed
[[Page S1027]]
against New York Mayor Bloomberg and others, alleging that the NYPD was
not stopping people on the basis of reasonable suspicion but on the
basis of race and national origin.
The Federal district court in that case ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs. The NYPD then set about the business of reforming its stop
and frisk policy, but Mayor Bloomberg left office, Mayor Bill de Blasio
became mayor, and for all practical purposes, he completely stopped the
practice of the stop and frisk.
So stop and frisk can be abused, and it is important to establish
practices and procedures to guard against that abuse.
But let me put this another way. This is how I look at it. Some cops
may and have violated the legal requirements for a proper Terry v. Ohio
stop and frisk. And when that happens, that may make that person a
racist or at least guilty of committing a racist act. But that does not
mean that the practice of stop and frisk is inherently racist. Because
some knuckleheads abuse it does not mean that the practice is
inherently racist.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court, with only one dissent, has said
that, properly applied, it does not violate the Constitution of the
United States and can be an effective law enforcement tool.
So when there is abuse, the abuse is on the cop. It is on the
officer. And most officers don't abuse stop and frisk.
And if it is proven he did something wrong, he should be held
accountable. The time has come. The time has come for my city of New
Orleans to try stop and frisk. It is time.
Now, some of our public officials in New Orleans are going to
probably disagree with me, and some are going to say: Well, we are
using stop and frisk already.
They are. Every now and then. Sometimes. But if you go talk to the
average cop on the street in the city of New Orleans--I have; I have
talked to many of them--they are going to tell you: The people with the
flags in their offices--the politicians and the big shots and the
political hierarchy--they are discouraging us from using stop and
frisk. They don't want us to use stop and frisk.
I think it is time. We tried everything else, Lord knows. It is time
to allow the men and women of the New Orleans Police Department to use
stop and frisk without fear of losing their jobs.
I do not believe that the New Orleans Police Department is racist.
Let me say it again: I do not believe that the New Orleans Police
Department is racist, systemically or otherwise. I do not believe that
the average New Orleans Police Department police officer is racist. My
God, the NOPD is 58 percent Black and people of color and 35 percent
White.
Now, we have a Federal consent decree in New Orleans for our police
department. It is between the U.S. Department of Justice and the city
of New Orleans. It oversees the New Orleans Police Department or, as we
call it, NOPD. It was signed and entered into by Mayor Mitch Landrieu
in 2010.
The consent decree does not prohibit stop and frisk. In fact, the
consent decree provides for stop and frisk. I want to quote from the
consent decree:
NOPD officers may only conduct investigatory stops or
detentions where the officer has reasonable suspicion that a
person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in the
commission of a crime.
Does that sound familiar?
That is right out of Terry v. Ohio, where the U.S. Supreme Court
almost unanimously said stop and frisk, when used appropriately, is a
very effective law enforcement tool.
Now, the consent decree goes on--wildly, in my opinion. It mandates a
stop-and-search data collection and review procedure. So the consent
decree says, if you are going to use stop and frisk, you have got to
collect all the data.
I think that is a great idea.
The consent decree also requires the police officer, when he or she
uses stop and frisk, to document the stop and frisk and detail the
reasonable suspicion in writing--in writing. In New York, they call
this report a UF-250 form. I don't know what it is called in New
Orleans. They have been using stop and frisk so infrequently, I am not
sure they have one. But it requires the cop who does the stop and frisk
to sit down and say: Here is the suspect. I had reasonable suspicion,
and here, with specificity, is why. And let me say, collecting the data
and requiring the reporting after the fact is standard operating
procedure. This is nothing new. It is standard operating procedure in
every police department in America. It is also common sense.
There is a gentleman in New Orleans by the name of Mr. Ronald Serpas.
Mr. Serpas is a former superintendent. We call our chief of police at
NOPD a superintendent. He is a former NOPD superintendent. Mr. Serpas
is also a former chief of the Washington State Patrol, and he is now a
professor of, I think, criminology at Loyola University in New Orleans.
I don't speak for the superintendent, and I don't want--intend to.
But he has written a number of articles in support of stop and frisk in
New Orleans.
He has said that the NOPD today has been reduced to only responding
and reacting after a crime has been committed, when the damage has been
done. The former superintendent says: What we need in New Orleans is
more proactive policing to prevent crime, like stop and frisk.
Now, the former superintendent has analyzed the publicly available
data on the NOPD consent decree. We collect data on our consent decree.
It is publicly available. In fact, the city council has put up a
dashboard for the consent decree, and one of the provisions in the
dashboard has a stop-and-search feature. You can go on the stop-and-
search feature on the internet and see how many stops and frisks the
police department has done in the past 180 days. So you have a date,
and it looks back 180 days.
This is what the former superintendent found after he analyzed the
stop-and-search feature on the website. And I will give you an example;
I don't know if I was clear about the 180 days.
For example, January 2, 2015, on that day, if you went back 180 days,
the NOPD had conducted 32,913 stops in the prior 180 days.
Let me say that again: January 2, 2015--8 years ago--in 180 days
prior, the NOPD had conducted 33,000 stops.
As of January 18, 2023, 8 years later--really 7, because it is
January--NOPD had conducted 5,095--let's call it 5,000 stops over the
past 180 days. So 5,000, down from 33,000; and that 5,000 is spread
over 6 months. Do you see a trend here?
Now, during COVID, as you would expect, stops and frisks in New
Orleans were down. People were inside. Following COVID, the stops
increased--according to the superintendent who analyzed the data--
increased to 14,303 in the 180 days before August 17, 2021.
So think back to August of 2021, over the prior 6 months, the NOPD
did 14,303 stops. But after that day, there was an uninterrupted
decline in the number of stops, down to 5,095 today.
So the stops are up here. They came down. They went down further
because of COVID. They went up to 14,000 in August of 2021, and then
they kept going down. That doesn't exactly, but it closely tracks crime
rate in New Orleans, because stop and frisk is used to proactively
prevent crime.
Look, I want you to understand. The problem in New Orleans--I love my
city. I love my State. I love my city too. The problem in New Orleans
is--I don't want you to think that we have thousands of previously law-
abiding New Orleanians turning to crime. That is not what is going on.
We don't have a bunch of law-abiding people who have now turned to
crime in my city. That is not what is happening.
The problem we have is with career criminals. And they are running
rampant, and our cops are spread thin. And we have some public
officials--not all of them but there are some--that think cops are a
bigger problem than criminals. And they think that criminals really
shouldn't be prosecuted--they are not bad; they are just sick. This is
America. You can believe what you want, but that is what is going on in
my city. It is not a majority, but it is more than a handful.
We tried everything. We need to allow police officers to stop and
frisk. We need to allow our police officers to stop and frisk. It
should be carefully monitored. It should be done legally. But it should
be done. We have tried everything else, everything under the sun, to
stop the extreme recidivists.
[[Page S1028]]
Nothing has worked. And maybe this perfectly legal, very effective
police practice, stop and frisk, which is used every day across
America, will help.
I yield the floor to my colleague from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from New Hampshire.
____________________