A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by the Secretary of the Interior relating to stream protection.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I see my colleague from Texas. Did he want to make remarks in leader time?

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the action today in the Senate, which is to try to overrun the clean water rule as it relates to the mining industry.

The bottom line is, polluters should pay for the pollution, and that is what the rule says, and that is what is trying to be overrun today after a very short debate in the Senate.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to say it is about the coal industry and a war on coal. If they are so concerned about the coal industry, I would suggest to them

and coal workers that they take up the pension bill they promised to take up in the last Congress and have failed to take up.

Last December, thousands of coal miners came to Washington, DC, and asked the Senate to live up to their promise that was made and put their health on the line and make sure that they had a pension program. More than 20,000 retired coal miners are at risk of losing their health care if we do nothing by April, and they have a very small pension-- averaging about $530 a month--that is also at risk.

I know some of my colleagues would like to believe this is somehow entirely related to a war on coal, but that narrative ignores the facts. In 2008, right before the financial crisis, the United Mine Workers' pension plan was 93 percent funded--in 2008, 93 percent funded. Its actuaries projected it was on track to reach full funding in several years.

So this notion that somehow the discussion behind the scenes by the Interior Department or the EPA caused an implosion in the mining industry and thereby they didn't have resources is not the case. What is the case is that the financial crisis hit, and Wall Street speculators blew up our economy, costing it $14 trillion--according to the Dallas Fed--and many in this body bailed them out. But we did nothing to bail out the miner pension program. Those pensions were thrown into crisis. By 2009, the United Mine Workers' plan had dropped from the 93-percent funded level down to the low seventies--a 20- percent drop in a single year. So despite the fact that the plan was well managed, the investment returns continued to be problematic. Wall Street--not the Department of the Interior or EPA--is the reason mine workers have so much challenge today.

If they care so much about the mining industry and the workers, then bring that legislation forward on the floor of the Senate today instead of trying to overturn a rule that says polluters should pay.

These safe drinking water issues and fishing issues are so important to an outdoor economy that employs a million-plus workers and is a vital part of practically every State's economy. The notion that somehow this is a jobs issue--if they want to protect jobs in the outdoor industry, then please allow people to fish in rivers where they don't have to worry about selenium. This is a big issue, whether talking about Montana, Colorado, Washington, or the State of Alaska.

I will say that the Alaskan issues of salmon and habitat far outweigh the 113 jobs the Alaska coal industry produces. Both can be seen as valuable jobs, but if we want to know about an economic impact to the State, it is dwarfed by the issue of making sure salmon have clean rivers and streams to migrate through.

This legislation today is about trying to protect those waters. I would again say that the effects of mountaintop removal have been called out by the press for a long time. I wish to quote from a Washington Post editorial:

For decades, coal companies have been removing mountain

peaks to haul away coal lying just underneath. More recently,

scientists and regulators have been developing a clearer

understanding of the environmental consequences. They aren't

pretty.

In the 1990s, coal miners began using large equipment to

strip away mountaintops in states such as West Virginia. The

technique made it economical for them to extract more coal

from troublesome seams in the rock, which might be too small

for traditional mining or lodged in unstable formations.

Environmentalists were appalled, but the practice spread and

now accounts for more than 40 percent of West Virginia coal

production.

Burning coal has a host of drawbacks: It produces both

planet-warming carbon dioxide and deadly conventional air

pollutants. Removing layers of mountaintop in the extraction

process aggravates the damage. The displaced earth must go

somewhere, typically into adjoining valleys, affecting

streams that run through them. The dust that's blown into the

air on mountaintop removal sites, meanwhile, is suspected to

be unhealthy for mine workers and nearby communities.

Scientists have recently produced evidence backing up both

concerns. Over the summer, a U.S. Geological Survey study

compared streams near mountaintop removal operations to

streams farther away. In what should be ``a global hotspot

for fish biodiversity,'' according to Nathan Hitt, one of the

authors, the researchers found decimated fish populations,

with untold consequences for downstream river systems. The

scientists noted changes in stream chemistry: Salts from the

disturbed earth appear to have dissolved in the water, which

may well have disturbed the food chain.

Last week, the Charleston Gazette reported on a new study

finding that dust from mountaintop removal mining appears to

contribute to greater risk of lung cancer. West Virginia

University researchers took dust samples from several towns

near the mountaintop removal sites and tested them on lung

cells, which changed for the worse. The findings fit into a

larger, hazardous picture: People living near these sites

experience higher rates of cancer and birth defects.

Again, all this is from the Washington Post editorial.

With these sorts of problems in mind, the Environmental

Protection Agency is taking a more skeptical look at

mountaintop removal mining permits. The Clean Water Act gives

the government wide authority over industrial operations that

change rivers and streams.

The EPA has already used its efforts, in some cases where there was concern, to revoke a permit and has instructed its branches and offices to be more careful.

The coal industry and its allies--

And we have heard some of them here--

are howling. Skeptics of mountaintop removal, one industry

pamphlet insisted, ``promote an anti-coal, anti-business

agenda that uses environmental issues as a mere pawn to

redistribute wealth, grab power, and put forth liberal,

social ideology. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that

would strip the EPA of some of its permitting power. But just

this month--

Because that was a couple years ago--

the Obama administration once again prevailed in court,

beating back another industry challenge.

This editorial ends by saying:

The emerging scientific evidence should cut through the

rhetoric. The EPA is right to move more firmly to protect

health and the environment.

We are right to defend this rule and law and say that polluters should pay.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I know we are going back and forth. I wish to inquire if my colleague seeks to speak.

Go ahead because we are expecting someone on our side.

Madam President, I would like to continue the debate on the measure before the Senate, which is to basically overturn a provision that would require coal polluters to make sure they clean up the damage they do to the clean water streams of our Nation.

We are here today because the agency who is in charge of setting these rules has finalized a rule. They did so after more than 5 years of discussion. They set it because there was so much scientific information about the great degradation to our streams caused by mining, when rocks are blown up and selenium is introduced into the stream. I have pictures I showed last night of deformed fish, pictures of river streams that are polluted. I have pictures of obvious degradation of the environment around them.

The real issue is, the rule is now in place, and my colleagues want to exempt the coal industry from such regulation. Why would you want to exempt anybody from cleaning up their mess? Polluters should pay. I know my colleagues are starting to chorus on some refrain about the economy, which makes no sense. Natural gas has driven a very competitive market to consuming more natural gas than coal,

and Wall Street blew up the pension program of the miners, and now it is in jeopardy. If you want to help miners, then come address their health and safety and their pension program. If you want to make natural gas more expensive, maybe you could make coal competitive again, but I don't think that is what we really want in America.

My colleagues somehow ignore the fact that the people of the United States of America are going to demand clean water one way or another. You can protect the coal industry here with special interests and the amount of lobbying they do, or you can step up this process and have a regulation that works for the United States of America so the outdoor industry, sportsmen and fishermen--who have many more jobs--can continue to thrive. Why do I say that? Because my colleague from Texas brought up the EPA nominee, Mr. Pruitt, who is coming to us from Oklahoma. I found, with great pleasure, the same arguments that the other side of the aisle is trying to make, they tried to make in Oklahoma. ``Oh, my gosh. It is environmental regulation that is stopping us from producing a greater, more robust farming economy. We need to do something to stop those untoward regulations.''

What did they do? They had a big initiative for the ballot that basically said: Let's make it really hard for anybody to regulate in regard to farming, unless they show it is somehow in the greater State interest. Even in red-state Oklahoma, they got it. They knew it was a fast run on the Clean Water Act, and they defeated that basically 60 to 40.

If we want to have a debate by debate, State by State, a discussion about clean water because people here will not defend the right for people to have clean streams, then we will have that debate. My colleagues sometimes try to say: Well, this is what attorneys general are concerned about. Some of them don't like the rule. You have ample opportunity to change the rule. You could come here and propose legislation. You could ask your colleagues now to do something and move forward on an alternative, but that is not what is happening. This egregious approach is not only getting rid of a rule that currently protects us, for safe streams, but because it is a Congressional Review Act overriding that rule, it will prohibit us from taking up, in the same fashion, an approach to make sure this is regulated in the future. That is right. Turning down the rule this way will stop an agency from doing the job it is supposed to do. Why not just leave it to the States? That is like saying: I am going to leave clean air, clean water, or nuclear waste cleanup to whatever a State decides. That is not what Federal law is about.

Here is an editorial from Kentucky where a ``proposed $660,000 settlement of the Clean Water Act violations between the State's environmental agencies, and two of its largest companies, underwent a 30-day review.'' What was that about? That was about the State of Kentucky failing to implement the old law. This was in 2010. The State of Kentucky's Attorney General--they were such laggards at this--people sued the companies in the State because the State wasn't doing its job. Eventually, they uncovered, as the article says, ``massive failures by the industry to file accurate water discharge monitoring reports. They filed an intent to sue, which triggered the investigation by the State's energy and environmental cabinet.'' The notion that States are on the job and doing their job in Kentucky--they weren't.

A State case was provoked by other people who were monitoring for clean water. It is our prerogative to set a standard for miners to clean up their mess. That is what we are talking about. Now the other side of the aisle wants to overturn that, saying that polluters don't have to pay.

How did we get to this situation? As mentioned, the past administration worked hard at coming up with a stream protection rule. Why did they come up with a new stream protection rule? Because it had been 33 years since we had a stream protection rule. The old rule did not prohibit mining through streams. Guess what? Neither does the new rule. The new rule says you are not prohibited from mining through a stream, but by gosh you ought to be required to mitigate the mess you create in the water system by mining through that stream.

We are talking about mitigation requirements, and we are talking about measurements. Why do we need that? Because since 1983, when the previous rule was put in place--we now know that things like selenium cause very bad things to happen in water, with rocks and the discharge. We know selenium can cause the deformation of fish and that eating those fish can make you sick. That is why we want to have a rule to understand the impacts and to mitigate for them. I think about this particular picture, and the deformation in the fish tail and in the fish lip--the front end of the fish--are extreme examples of what selenium is doing in our water supply. Why would you not want--as someone blowing up a mountaintop and creating this kind of stream damage, why would you not want them to mitigate that? Why would you want to protect them? Because you think you are protecting some coal industry jobs that basically have fallen off because natural gas has become a cheaper product? Your economic strategy is a race to the bottom. You think if you have the lowest environmental standards in the United States of America, that is somehow going to generate jobs? I think it is just the opposite. I have so many people in Washington State who say: I can't attract employees unless we have a clean environment here because people want to live in a clean environment, they want to fish, they want to hunt, they want to recreate, and they want an opportunity to do so. As a company, I can attract the best and the brightest because they know they are going to live in that kind of environment.

The notion that this kind of ``let us make sure the coal industry doesn't have to play by the rules, they get an exemption from clean water'' is some sort of economic strategy for the future of coal country, it is absolutely not.

Saying that AGs are going to do the job, we have many examples of where they haven't. There are also examples from Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the degradation is so bad it is nearly impossible to clean up.

Let us talk a little bit about the comparison of jobs from outdoor industry and the coal industry. It is not to demean the jobs of the coal industry and the individuals who have worked their whole lives in that sector or to say that one job is better than the other. There are over 6 million jobs directly in the outdoor industry. They generate $80 billion in tax revenue, but if you come to Montana and there is a mine on top of a stream and people don't want to go there to fish and recreate anymore, then you have caused damage. What are we talking about by State? Let's look at it. Montana, there are 64,000 jobs related to outdoor recreation. Why? Because Montana is beautiful. It has so many streams. I mentioned last night that wonderful movie called ``A River Runs Through It.'' It doesn't say, ``A River Runs Through It and a Mountaintop Mine Sits on Top of It.'' That is not what that movie was about. It was about the beauty of the great outdoors. There are 122,000 recreation jobs in Utah. There are 125,000 in Colorado, 50,000 in Wyoming. There are 28,000 in North Dakota. Are people down here defending those jobs? I am defending them because a clean stream is a great source of recreation for people. I don't want to fish or hike in a stream with selenium that could poison me or poison other people. What is wrong with polluters paying? I say nothing.

The economic cost of this legislation is very minimal. The industry would be responsible for less than .01 percent of the economic cost; that is, the pollution that would be required to clean up from this type of effort would be minimal to the industry. So what are they complaining about? What are they complaining about? They don't want to measure selenium in the water. They don't want to be responsible for mitigating it.

The economic challenges that the industry faces from natural gas have nothing to do with this issue. This issue is about whether polluters should pay and whether we as a body are going to not only overturn this rule that is about clean water and safety for our communities by having streams protected. It is also about whether we are

going to preclude another administrative approach to fixing this issue.

The Congressional Review Act is a very large cannon blowing a hole in the clean water requirements for the coal industry. Once you turn this down, you cannot easily reinstate something new. So our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they truly wanted to do something about this, could come to the floor today and say: I propose something different. President Trump, if he wanted to propose something different that both guaranteed clean water and moved us forward, he could propose something. Instead, they simply want to repeal this.

So this chart shows just what I have been referring to; that coal basically now in 2016 is getting beat by natural gas. It is getting beat by natural gas because it has become a cheaper source. We are not going to get into the details of how that happened, but we are going to say here today that the notion that you want to let them off the hook from meeting environmental rules and regulations as a way to be competitive is a dangerous, dangerous precedent for the United States to be setting.

We will not win, and our economy will not win from that situation. What we have to do instead is make sure that we are taking care of our environment and being competitive in all sorts of industry issues. For example, this story was about, in West Virginia, how mountaintop mining caused a fish species to disappear. ``We are seeing significant reductions of the species of abundant fish downstream from mining operations.''

To me, that would be an anathema in the Pacific Northwest. Fishing is everything. If somehow we were involved in a mining process that was killing fish, that would be the worst thing that could happen to our economy. There is no reason for us not to set rules and regulations to make sure the mining industry cleans up their mess.

I hope our colleagues will understand how detrimental this rule is. Do not give the mining companies an exemption from cleaning up messes in their streams. Let's say that we are going to do the public interest and not special interests.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I think my colleague from Massachusetts is here on the floor to speak. I will let him have some time.

I would say to my colleague from Alaska, the real bait-and-switch is the side of this aisle that allows the Finance Committee to pretend like it is going to do something on the pension program and votes a month before the election, and then after the election, fails to act on such an important issue. I hope people are not advocating pollution as an economic strategy because it will not work.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for being on the floor to speak. He is right. We are going to keep score. There are going to be attempts by the Trump administration and the other side of the aisle to level the score against clean water; that is to say, polluters don't have to pay. So if we pass this override of existing clean water rules--yes, this will be the start. Trump 1, clean water 0.

Unfortunately, it is probably not going to the end because what is happening now is, Republicans control everything in Congress. They want to use their ability to have very little debate and to then override rules that are on the books to protect streams in the United States of America.

I so appreciate my colleagues coming to the floor to explain this issue, as this is critical. It is critical because the impacts of mining destroy headwaters. Between 1992 and 2000, coal mines were authorized to destroy about 1,200 miles of headwater streams, and this resulted in the loss of 4 percent of our upper headwater streams in areas of Appalachia in a single decade.

The surface mining impact on water from fractured rocks above coal seams react chemically with the air and water and produce higher concentrations of minerals, irons and trace metals, and those headwaters in West Virginia typically measure with electricity conductivity on an order of magnitude of those downstream. What that is saying is, these chemicals react in the water to create problems. Understanding what has been going on with that level of conductivity is one of the big advances in science in the last 10 years. That is why we want to update the rule because we now know what goes on when selenium is in the water. The conductivity is highly correlated with the loss and the absence of various species that are very pollution sensitive.

This level of stream degradation comes from the various fractured rock. When sulfate is present, you get acid mine drainage. That acid mine drainage then mobilizes metals toxic to fish--such as iron and aluminum and zinc--and that is where we start to have problems. A 2008 study found that 93 percent of streams downstream of surface mining operations in Appalachia were impaired, and our colleagues don't want to make sure that the mining companies monitor that and do stream restoration?

Another study found that adverse impacts of Appalachian mines extended on an average of 6 miles downstream; that is, this acid mine drainage is flowing 6 miles downstream. Why not have the mines measure this at the top of the stream, understanding what the selenium impact is, and doing something to minimize the impact on our streams that we are going to have to live with forever.

What is wrong with selenium? It causes very serious reproductive problems, physical deformities, and at high concentration it is toxic to humans. Basically, it is the similar effect to arsenic poisoning.

These coal mines are transforming our landscape, lowering our ridges, and raising our valley floors. One study in 2013, in Central Appalachia, found that mining lowered these ridgetops by an average of 112 feet. What we are trying to say is, you are impacting wildlife downstream; that the deforestation of these sites allows the flow of these rivers to increase flooding. The effects are worsened because the compacted soil on these sites also causes a problem. It is not much better than just plain old asphalt; that is, it means that plants and forests cannot grow back, it means that it impairs these various species, and it causes problems.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The discharge from the long-abandoned Boston Gas Mine in Pennsylvania turned a 4-mile stretch of the Monongahela River orange. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said the plume likely contained iron, aluminum, and manganese. A geologist at West Virginia University who studies abandoned mine discharges said the abandoned mine is a large mining complex that has approximately eight outcrop discharges and created this large plume.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an AP story dated January 28, 2017.

The article talked about Preston, WV, and a fire in an abandoned coal mine that smoldered for several years. This mine is one of ``thousands of problem decades-old coal sites in West Virginia awaiting cleanup.''

These abandoned sites include old mines that leak acidic water into streams and killing wildlife. Tunnels and caverns beneath homes threaten water sources where wells are polluted.

All of these are examples of the kind of damage that is being done by these mines.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record another article from the Columbus Dispatch.

The article states: ``The report found that the number of species was cut in half and the abundance of fish fell by a third, downstream from these mining operations.''

I wish to talk about a mine now owned by Murray Energy that in 2009 spewed pollution in Pennsylvania, killing 43,000 fish and 15,000 mussels. Seven years later, the fish and mussels are still missing and not returning. They have paid a fine, but we are still living with the damage.

As my colleagues can see, this issue is about overriding a rule that helps protect our streams and rivers and makes sure that the wildlife there has safe drinking water and to make sure that we enjoy these natural areas. As I have pointed out through this debate, there are many jobs in the outdoor industry, and that is why sportsmen such as Trout Unlimited and the wildlife federations that are coalitions of hunters and fishermen all support this rule and don't want it overturned.

I know that the coal industry has spent $160 million over the last dozen-plus years trying to defeat regulation of its industry. Actually, the 0.1 percent they would have to pay was a lot lower than what they were spending on their lobbying issues. Instead, they should help us all get to the bottom.

But why have we done this by trying to fight today? That is because the science has told us that since 1983, we have a lot more information about the toxic level in the streams because of these products. We simply want a rule that reflects that the mining industry must measure and mitigate that impact. What is wrong with allowing science to lead the way?

I know our colleagues like to say that States should be left to do this, but you do have to have a Federal standard. You do have to have a Federal standard that they adhered to. It would be as if today I said: Let's override what we have done in this Nation in setting a miles per gallon for automobiles and just leave it up to the States instead.

Well, we are saying we should have fuel efficiency but let's just leave it up to the States about how many miles per gallon we really should have in automobiles.

If we did that, how many regulations do you think we would have? Do you think we would have the same fuel efficiency we have today?

What is happening is these coal companies are going into States, going into their areas, and lobbying lawmakers there against regulation, and in a couple of cases I have discussed today they were successful in getting Kentucky to fall asleep at the switch so the citizens brought the lawsuits to clean up the mines. They were successful because they finally caught the attention of people who should have been doing their job.

This rule, as it has been put in place, does give States flexibility. Its key definition says States get discretion to establish an objective criteria for measuring standards and restoring the streams. It basically says the final rule has several options to demonstrate compliance on the area of fish-and-wildlife. States can use their judgment about the types, scope, and location of enhancements. It says on groundwater, States can choose their sampling, protocol, subsequent analysis, and baseline. On rain measurements, States can choose whether to require mines to prepare a hydrologic model about the mine, and States can choose to allow mining companies to change their drainage patterns as they look at rebuilding ephemeral streams.

There is a lot of flexibility for the States. A lot of them haven't been doing as good a job as we would like, but you have to have a Federal standard. Your Federal standard is decades old. Science is telling us we have a problem. Please, please, do not pass this override of an important clean water law. Instead, if we want to fix it, let's sit down and do that legislatively. Let's not allow the polluters to get away with having their way on so many streams across America.

Mr. President, my comments here reflect my understanding as ranking member of the Senate committee of jurisdiction over the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA.

I am strongly opposed to disapproving the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's stream protection rule because I both support the substance of the rule and I believe the Congressional Review Act is an inappropriate and extreme legislative tool.

While my opposition to H.J. Res. 38 and its Senate companion, S.J. Res. 10, is clear, in the event that either resolution is enacted, I would look forward to a timely reissuance of a new rule. Notwithstanding the delay resulting from enactment of either disapproval resolution, the authority SMCRA grants to OSMRE through the Secretary of the Interior will persist--so will the clear obligations in the statute.

The provision in the Congressional Review Act that prohibits reissuance of a future rule ``in substantially the same form'' as the rule being disapproved, unless specifically authorized by another future law, does not diminish my confidence. Under the ample authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior under SMCRA, a large variety of forms of implementing its obligations under SMCRA remain available to the Agency.

The resolution represents a major setback for many communities affected by coal mining that had participated in an extensive 8-year rulemaking process. But it does not limit OSMRE's ability or obligation to implement SMCRA's statutory requirements fully, including but not limited to regulations that define material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area; give effect to the SMCRA's prohibitions against material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area; prohibit harmful mining activity within a certain perimeter, including the stream buffer zone as under the 1983 regulations; require permitting decisions to be based on full and complete information; ensure protections

for fish and wildlife; and guarantee that adequate financial assurances are put into place to provide for full and complete reclamation.

I expect any Secretary of the Interior to follow the law and fully implement the ongoing obligations under SMCRA.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I listened carefully this morning to the statement made by the Republican majority leader, and I was a little bit curious as to what he was trying to say because he talked about a judicial nominee who rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, who received kudos from Republicans and Democrats alike, including Members of the Senate, who went

through the Senate without a hitch, and then he couldn't understand why there would be more questions asked now for another appointment.

I was puzzled. I thought he was talking about Merrick Garland. We remember him, don't we? Merrick Garland was, of course, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Senator McConnell this morning said repeatedly: So what has changed since the first time Judge Gorsuch came before the Senate? Senator McConnell, what has changed is you, what you did when Merrick Garland's name was sent up. For the first time ever in the history of the U.S. Senate, Senator McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to a Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court. It never happened before, not once in history. And if you think, well, maybe the Democrats didn't have a chance to show the same steel will, the same political determination, in the last year of his Presidency, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. He sent the nomination down to the Senate. I believe Senator Biden was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. There was a Democratic majority. In the last year of Reagan's Presidency, a so-called lameduck year by Senator McConnell's description, the Democratic majority in the Senate gave President Reagan the respect of honoring his constitutional responsibility to fill the vacancy and sent Anthony Kennedy to serve on the Supreme Court. So Senator McConnell has asked what has changed. He has changed. He has changed the Senate.

And here is the good news for him. We are not going to forswear our own demands that a Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court is deserving of a hearing and a vote. I said that over and over again when Merrick Garland was being stonewalled by Senator McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate. I will say it again. I do believe the President's nominee has a right to a hearing and a vote. That nominee also has a responsibility to show us that he is not only qualified to serve on an important appellate court but to serve with a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land.

On Tuesday night, President Trump announced he would nominate the Tenth Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It is important to put that nomination in context. This is not a run-of-the- mill nomination. It is an extraordinary time in America's history. President Trump's announcement was actually supposed to happen today. Why was it sped up? Why did they hurry it up? Well, because of the avalanche of criticism being heaped on the Trump administration for their Executive orders on refugees and immigration. They had to change the subject. After dozens of legal immigrants were detained at airports over the weekend solely because of their country of origin, including children, seniors, interpreters who helped our troops, Federal courts stepped in to block the President's Executive order.

We have done some research, and we are going to do some more. We think this is the first time in the history of the United States that a new President within the first 10 days had an Executive order stopped in the Federal courts. It shows how controversial that order was, that the Federal courts would step in with this brand new President and say: Stop. This has to be weighed as to whether it is legal or constitutional.

Then on Monday there was the unprecedented firing of an Attorney General who refused to defend President Trump's unlawful Executive order in court. President Trump moved up his Supreme Court announcement to try to change the headlines. In doing so, he made it even more clear how critical it is that we have an independent judicial system, not a rubberstamp for the President. It's especially vital at this moment in our history.

President Trump and his agenda are likely to come before the Supreme Court eventually. From his violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause to his unprecedented Executive actions, President Trump is likely to keep the High Court busy. We need Justices on the Supreme Court who are truly independent.

President Trump's announcement came 10 months and 15 days after a White House announcement about another Supreme Court nominee I mentioned earlier, Judge Merrick Garland, perhaps the most well- qualified, mainstream, independent nominee to come before the Senate. Merrick Garland is a son of Illinois, a good man, and an outstanding judge. Judge Gorsuch himself once described Judge Merrick Garland as ``among the finest lawyers of his generation.''

Merrick Garland was subjected to unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans and Senator McConnell. Republican Senators simply ignored their constitutional responsibility to consider this nomination, for political reasons. It was worse than a filibuster.

Do you remember the time when Senator McConnell and a number of others in the leadership said they would not even meet with the President's nominee--would not even give him the courtesy of a meeting? Merrick Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history to be denied any consideration by the Senate--no hearing, no vote--nothing. It was shameful.

I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution-- every Senator does--and to bear true faith and allegiance to it. I take it seriously. Even though my Republican colleagues chose to ignore their responsibilities when it came to filling that Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, I know we have a constitutional responsibility to give Judge Gorsuch a hearing and a vote. I will do my due diligence as a Senator and give his nomination fair consideration. That is what the advise and consent responsibility of article I, section 8 of the Constitution requires.

If my Republican colleagues complain about the process for Judge Gorsuch, just remember that no one ran a worse process on a Supreme Court nominee than my Republican colleagues themselves did for Merrick Garland. They really have no right to complain.

Now that President Trump has nominated Judge Gorsuch, Senators will embark on a thorough review of his record. He was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit in 2006, but the level of scrutiny is far higher for Supreme Court nominees and lifetime appointments to the High Court. He now has a lengthy judicial record which we will review carefully.

There are parts of his record that already raise questions and concerns. In recent years, we have watched the Supreme Court transform into a corporate Court, where all too often cases seem to break for the big corporations, regularly against the little guy. We need a Supreme Court that gives the American people a fair shot against corporate elites, corporate special interests. Judge Gorsuch's record as a judge and advocate raises concerns as to whether he would hasten that trend toward a corporate court.

I note that yesterday, Reuters published an article entitled ``As Private Lawyer, Trump High Court Pick Was Friend to Business.'' The article said that while Judge Gorsuch was in private practice, he ``often fought on behalf of business interests, including efforts to curb securities class action lawsuits, experience that could mould his thinking if he is confirmed as a [Supreme Court] justice.''

During his time on the bench, Judge Gorsuch appears to have a consistent pattern of favoring companies over workers in cases involving employment discrimination, worker safety, and other matters. That is why we need to carefully review his record.

Judge Gorsuch must also answer important questions about his views on issues of fundamental importance to American people, such as our right to privacy. Is there anything more important? Almost on a daily basis we are being asked if we are ready to give up a little more of our privacy. We know that corporate interests and business interests are collecting data on us. We can find it every time we log on to the Internet and there is this cascade of ads on the side of the page asking us if we want to buy something that we just happened to buy a couple months ago. We know as well that information is being catalogued carefully and being used by business interests to promote their products and to categorize us as Americans. We also believe--I think there are even some Republicans who

believe--that individuals have a right to privacy when it comes to the overreach of the Federal Government and when it comes to critical decisions so important to our personal lives. At that last heartbreaking moment when a family member has to decide about the medical care for someone who is nearing death, is that going to be subject to a court order or is that going to be a decision made privately by a family? At that moment when a family faces the pregnancy of a teenage girl in the household, is that a family decision or is that a decision where government has the last word? The Supreme Court decides this, and we need to ask Judge Gorsuch what he thinks and understand clearly what he says.

We also believe that when it comes to our security--not just our privacy but our security--the Supreme Court time and again will have the last word. When it comes to the issue of safety, health, and environmental protection, where will this new Supreme Court nominee be? Is he going to bend toward the corporate interests and look the other way as we face climate change, the pollution of streams, the contamination of our drinking water, and dangers to our public health? If he is going to rule consistently for the corporate interest no matter what, he certainly doesn't, as far as I am concerned, represent the values we need on the Supreme Court. He needs to answer questions as well on immigration, privacy, campaign finance, and voting rights.

Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch professes to be an originalist. Let me address that for a moment. I have been with the Judiciary Committee for quite a few years. Time and again, whether it is the nominee for Attorney General or nominees for the High Court, here is the cliche we are given: We are just going to apply the rule of law, whatever the law says. That is what we do. We are originalists. I call that the robotic view of justice; that if you just plug in the facts, a computer can tell you the answer because a computer compares it to the law. Yet we know better. We know judges make decisions based on a variety of concerns, and they weigh some facts more carefully and give some facts more strength than others. This rule of law by robotic justice is a fiction. We know that each nominee, whether from a Democrat or Republican, brings views to the Court that will decide how many cases will lean.

Judge Gorsuch has to answer the questions forthrightly. There is a cottage industry of teaching nominees to give thoughtful nonanswers to important questions. That will not cut it for me or many of my colleagues. The American people want honest, candid candidates for the bench.

We know Judge Gorsuch is the hand-picked nominee by President Trump and has been lauded by rightwing organizations all over the United States. They hope he will be a dependable vote in their favor, but he has to demonstrate--to me and to many other Senators--that he will be prepared to disappoint the rightwing if the Constitution and law require it.

Since the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, Supreme Court Justices have had to show they can pass the threshold of 60 votes to get confirmed. I expect nothing less from this nominee. Justice Elena Kagan, nominated by President Obama, received 63 votes; Justice Sonya Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama, received 68 votes; Justice Sam Alito had a cloture vote where he received 72 votes and subsequently received 58 votes for his actual confirmation; Justice Roberts, 78 votes; Justice Breyer, 87; Justice Ginsburg, 96.

Judge Gorsuch has a burden to bear. He has to demonstrate that he is a nominee who will uphold and defend the Constitution for the benefit of all of us, not just for the advantage of a privileged few.

I take my constitutional responsibility very seriously when it comes to the Supreme Court. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am reviewing the record and preparing questions to ask the nominee. It is going to take some time. It usually does, several months. But my Republican colleagues have kept this seat vacant since February of last year, so they don't have any basis for arguing and complaining that we just have to move on this really fast.

I am sorry we are not considering the nomination of Merrick Garland, an eminently qualified mainstream judge who deserved better treatment than he received from Senate Republicans and Senator McConnell. No one deserved the treatment Merrick Garland received.

With my oath to support and defend the Constitution in mind, I will consider Judge Gorsuch's nomination pursuant to the Senate's role of advise and consent. I will strive to be thorough, fair, and focused on the important principles I have discussed today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a provision in the law which allows the Congress to review regulations within 60 days after they are written and decide up or down. That is what we are doing here.

This is about the stream rule that has a direct impact on mining operations, particularly coal mining operations. This has been a battle that has been going on for decades--decades--trying to establish a fair environmental standard for those in mining operations. Efforts have been made, some with limited success. Courts have thrown out earlier versions. So the Obama administration decided they would tackle this. They spent 6 years rewriting 380 pages of rules. Over 150,000 public comments were solicited and received.

This is a pretty controversial matter, as you can tell. I have been amused by the critics of this rule who said: Well, Obama just did that as he was going out the door. No. They worked on it for years. There were, as I said, over 100,000 public comments. It is not easy. It is tricky and it is challenging, but they produced it. Now today the Republicans in the Senate and the House want us to wipe it away.

What difference would it make? If you don't live next to a coal mine, do you think, well, what difference does it make in my life?

I listened to Jeff Merkley, my friend from Oregon, talk about the streams and the rivers. Maybe I don't fish, and I don't care. I don't go out camping, either, and I haven't been hiking. Whether the fish are alive or dead or the streams are polluted or not, who cares? I guess some people feel that way. I don't, even though I don't use our natural resources as much as some. But there is a bigger issue here. This is not just about whether there will be fish alive in the stream or the lake.

Let me tell you what that issue is. The issue is the safety of our drinking water. Do you know what is going on when these mining operations dump all this debris into the streams? It rains. Water is flowing. The stream water goes downstream. Now follow the water from the dumping of the mining operations to the chemicals included in that dumping--arsenic, for example. As it goes downstream, it doesn't just kill the fish. In my State, 1 out of 10 people in Illinois depend on those internal river and stream sources for their drinking water. If you don't have honest, realistic, and safe standards when it comes to drinking water, you have decided to up the risk of the people who are drinking the water that comes out of the tap.

I think that is a problem. Have you had a conversation with your family at any point about what is going on? Why do we have so much cancer in this area? Why do we have so many problems in this area? Could it be the drinking water? We have asked that question ourselves in our own area of Central Illinois, and many other families have asked the same.

If we take the approach which we are being asked to today and wipe away the safety standards for the water that is ultimately flowing into the taps where we drink it, shame on us. Shame on us. Is it too much to ask the mining operations not to dump their trash into the streams? Is it too much to ask

them to restore vegetation after they have chopped off the top of a mountain in West Virginia? In Illinois, I can tell you the strip mining, which went on for years and decades left a lot of areas of beautiful farmland in Illinois forever blighted.

Whatever happened to the coal companies that stripped off that land, took the coal, and left the mess behind? Long gone. You couldn't find them if you wanted to.

What Senator Cantwell has said, and we ought to remember, we believe polluters should pay. We believe that the ultimate responsibility, when it comes to keeping our environment clean, our drinking water safe, is on the polluter. The Republicans disagree.

They say: Well, it is just Obama's War on Coal.

All right. If you want to bring it down to that level, then it is Trump's War on Clean Drinking Water. That is what this vote is all about. That is what it is all about. Shame on us if we decide to eliminate this protection for families and run the very real risk that the pollution in those streams could cause public health issues, as well as the death of wildlife and fish downstream. That is why I think this vote is so important.

This is a first. You heard what Republicans have said is the reason American business is not growing--overregulation. You get this picture of some mettlesome, busybody bureaucrat dreaming up some other way to make life more difficult for people who own businesses. I will tell you there is some of that, and I am not going to defend it, but there is also a conscientious effort by people who are scientists to try to make sure that those of us who are not scientists live in a world that is safe, safe for the air we breathe, safe for the water we drink. If we start sweeping that away, rejecting the science that proves overwhelmingly that we are going through global warming and climate change, rejecting the science that says the runoff in these streams and rivers could ultimately hurt not only wildlife but ultimately hurt the American people and the water they drink, shame on us.

Well, we will get rid of regulations, coal mining operations will make more money, and maybe they will continue on--I am sure they will in some respect--but will we be better off as a nation?

This is day 14 of the Trump Presidency. It seems like a lot longer to some of us. Republicans in the Senate and the House have decided to strike a blow for eliminating science-based regulation to protect the public health. It is a shame, but it is going to happen. They have the votes on the Senate floor. They are in control and now the American families are going to ask us: Were you there? Were you standing up for us when the safety of our drinking water was at stake?

I will be voting no on this effort to repeal this legislation.

Madam President, yesterday the Senate took up legislation to block the stream buffer rule, which is a job-killing regulation from the Obama administration--something the Obama administration will be long remembered for--a regulatory overreach that strangled the growth of our economy and the jobs that come along with it. This is a prime example of a misnomer, though. It is not really about protecting streams, as it claims, but about killing the coal industry and energy production in our country.

One of the things that have caused our economy to grow historically has been access to low-cost energy, but unfortunately this regulation has made that not possible in coal country, taking many jobs along with it and I think in part, at least, responsible for the vote President Trump got in many parts of the country that felt left behind by the economy and because of job-killing regulations like the stream buffer rule.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Madam President, yesterday I had the chance to meet with Judge Gorsuch personally, the man President Trump nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is plain to me now why President Trump selected him to be the nominee for the seat vacated by the death of Justice Scalia. Judge Gorsuch's experience, intellect, and background make him uniquely qualified and qualify him as a mainstream nominee. That seems to be the nomenclature that has been embraced by our colleagues across the aisle. They said they hope President Trump nominates a mainstream nominee. Well, he did. But I fully expect our colleagues across the aisle to try to paint him as some sort of extremist, which they can't do based upon his distinguished record on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for the last 10 years as a Federal judge or his previous life. They are going to have to make things up in order to cause people to believe this nominee is not a mainstream nominee.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to do our job of advice and consent and to see the nomination come to the floor, where I hope he will be confirmed. I trust he will be confirmed one way or the other.

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats--particularly their leader, the Senator from New York--have already announced that they will fight tooth and

nail against any nominee put forward by President Trump. Predictably, the minority leader has made clear that he will try to filibuster the President's choice. It has been ironic to watch him come here and extol the virtues of the 60-vote cloture requirement for confirming a Supreme Court Justice when he and the rest of his colleagues invoked the so- called nuclear option to change the Senate rules by breaking those rules and reducing the cloture requirement for lower Federal court judges and Cabinet members to 51.

We see what happened as a result of that action. Now they find themselves on the receiving end of that 51-vote requirement caused by the nuclear option. So much for immediate gratification and not so much for taking the long view in terms of how the Senate ought to operate.

This sort of resistance mentality that has grown up among our colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignores the fact that we had an election on November 8. The American people made their choice, and it is plain that our Democratic colleagues are simply not happy about the choice they made and are going to undermine and resist this President no matter what, particularly when it comes to staffing his Cabinet with the people he has chosen to serve the Nation as part of his administration.

The American people also indicated they wanted us to move forward, away from the bickering, away from the gridlock, away from this mentality that we were here to serve someone else other than the American people. They want results, not politics as usual. I think that is the lesson we all should have learned from this last election. The sad reality is that it is increasingly clear to me that my Democratic colleagues didn't learn the right lesson last November and are trying to bring the Chamber to a standstill.

Thanks to the nuclear option that then-Majority Leader Senator Reid championed and which all of our Democratic friends voted for, they are not going to be able to stop President Trump's nominees to the Cabinet because all it requires is 51 votes. Yes, they can slow it down, but they can't stop it. My question is, What purpose is to be served from keeping the President fully staffed with the Cabinet that he has chosen, knowing that you are ultimately going to lose the fight?

Unfortunately, this is not about the Senate alone. This is about the American people. For 2 days in a row, Senate Democrats on the Finance Committee, which has been one of the most bipartisan committees in the U.S. Senate--our Democratic colleagues, each and every one of them, boycotted the meetings to consider President Trump's nominees.

I sit on the Finance Committee. As I said, it has historically been a bipartisan committee, but our Democratic colleagues chose to relinquish their responsibility and ignore their duties to their constituents. Unfortunately, this type of behavior has become par for the course throughout the first days of President Trump's administration. We have seen other examples of slow-walking nominations, invoking every procedural rule that there is to deny unanimous consent--the sort of normal courtesies that go along with working in the Senate on technical or procedural matters.

We have seen countless examples of their slowing down the nomination process intentionally, even for highly qualified candidates.

On the Judiciary Committee, on which I also sit, there is another example with respect to the nomination for Attorney General of Senator Jeff Sessions, a well-respected colleague in this Chamber. I am glad we were finally able to move his nomination out of the committee yesterday. But the truth is that even though many Democrats on the committee had worked side by side with Senator Sessions and had cosponsored legislation with him, they themselves said what a good man he was. They voted against him after slowing down this obvious choice to lead the Justice Department.

President Trump talks about draining the swamp in Washington, DC. The biggest swamp in Washington, DC, has been a Justice Department headed by Eric Holder and, sadly, by his successor Loretta Lynch. They have refused to enforce the rule of law and instead turned that into a political outpost for the Obama administration. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is going to change that. He is going to enforce the law, and he will respect the law no matter who wins and who loses because his duty is to the Constitution and laws of the United States and to enforce those laws as Attorney General and, yes, to defend those laws.

Some of our Senate colleagues were shocked when Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates--although the Office of Legal Counsel said that the Executive order issued by the President was legal and proper in its form--wrote a letter saying she was instructing the line lawyers in the Justice Department not to defend it in court. President Trump fired her, and he should have. That is political grandstanding by somebody who should know better, considering her distinguished career at the Department of Justice for the last 30 years.

I don't know who gave her the bad advice, but I am glad that President Trump decided to fire someone who basically defied their duties to the Department of Justice and to the U.S. Government and preferred to take the side of politics and misinformation.

We know that the Senate is continuing with other nominations as well. I see this morning that the Environment and Public Works Committee finally voted out the nomination of the attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, for Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues' bad habits on the Finance Committee have spilled over to the Environment and Public Works Committee, and they chose to boycott that hearing as well. Notwithstanding that boycott, the majority of the committee did vote out the nomination, and we will take that up soon.

This lack of cooperation is unprecedented. It really is unprecedented. At this point in 2009, President Obama had 11 of his Cabinet members confirmed by the Senate--11. Today we have only five confirmed, and many of those who have been confirmed were slow-walked by our Democratic colleagues for one lame excuse or another. This is not because President Trump's nominees aren't qualified; it is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are determined to undermine this new President and his administration, no matter what cost is paid by the country.

After the election, President Obama, to his credit, talked about the importance of a peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next. Some of our colleagues who are now obstructing this President's Cabinet members have also paid lipservice to a peaceful transition of power. What we are seeing is a hostile transition of power--mindless obstruction, foot dragging, and delay for delay's sake.

Let me remind them once again that the American people voted on November 8 and chose a President who has the authority to nominate the people he sees fit to serve on his Cabinet. We can't afford to let this administration operate with one hand tied behind its back for the foreseeable future. We need to do our job and provide the President and the country with the experts and advisers that the administration needs to keep our country safe and to keep government functioning for the people.

I hope soon--I am not optimistic, but I hope that soon our Senate Democrats will start working with us and not against us and, more importantly, against the interests of the American people who sent them here.

Tribute to Linda Bazaco

Madam President, I want to spend a few minutes recognizing an extraordinary public servant on my staff who served in a unique capacity that many may not know exists.

One of the most important things we get to do as Members of Congress is to act as the intermediary or intercessor between our constituents and a Federal Government that sometimes is not responsive, particularly in dealing with Federal agencies. For instance, when somebody isn't receiving their proper check from the Social Security Administration or is having trouble getting an appointment at a Veterans Administration clinic or is in need of assistance with foreign adoptions, where do they turn? They turn to people like Linda Bazaco, who heads my casework program in Dallas, TX, and is going to be retiring soon.

I am proud to say that we do our very best to make sure that the 28 million people I have the privilege of representing get the very best help possible to help navigate the very real and very personal issues that involve the Federal bureaucracy. That way, my office--specifically my constituent services or what we call my casework team--can help ensure that no Texan who reaches out to us slips between the cracks.

In some circles, apparently, we have a reputation for bragging in Texas, but I have to say my staff are some of the absolutely best in the field when it comes to getting responses for Texans from Federal agencies. I like to say that if it can be done, it will be done. In that way, we play an important role in holding the bureaucracy accountable and reminding the Federal Government who their customer really is. It is the taxpayers to whom they ought to be responsive. They shouldn't need to call their Senator or their Congressman or Congresswoman in order to get responses from the Federal Government, but, in fact, sometimes they do, and sometimes--well, it is our privilege to help.

As I indicated, the person who has led this effort in my office for the last many years is Linda Bazaco, someone whom I came to know after she worked for my predecessor, Senator Phil Gramm. Linda fervently believes in the concept of government accountability and has developed a way to get the answers that Texans need and deserve.

As I indicated, she started under my predecessor, Senator Phil Gramm, about 27 years ago. Today, Linda's system has become the gold standard for other elected officials to get results on behalf of their constituents and, in doing so, has impacted constituents' lives in profound ways: benefits, checks, expedited passports, medical care, or even the most basic--simply a return phone call from an agency. All the while, Linda has done this with enthusiasm and with an eye toward quality and getting results for the people of Texas.

Linda, along with the team she has built, has pushed the government to be more accountable and responsive to the tens of thousands of Texans who have reached out to my office and, in most cases, will never know she was their secret weapon.

Soon Linda will be taking on another challenge. After serving the 28 million people of Texas for nearly 27 years now, she will take up an even more important role; that is, a full-time grandmother extraordinaire. I couldn't be prouder of having someone of her caliber as a leader on my team, and I wish her and her husband Val and her three children and her five beautiful grandchildren the absolute best in the next chapter of their lives.

On behalf of all the generations of Texans you have helped over the decades, the staff members you have led along the way, and at least two U.S. Senators, Linda, thank you for your service.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington State for her tremendous leadership on all of these environmental issues, which are now on the table in our

country for the first time in a generation.

Tribute to Bill Bonnavillian

Before I turn to the resolution the Senate is debating, I want to take a minute to recognize the contributions of Bill Bonnavillian to advancing America's science and technology policy. Last month, Bill stepped down as the head of the Washington office of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after 11 years.

Bill's leadership of the office continued MIT's historic role of providing a vision for advancing science policy and ensuring that knowledge generated at MIT was relevant and available for policymakers in Washington, DC. His leadership will be missed at the MIT Washington office, but I am glad to know he will be staying engaged with the MIT community. I hope he will continue to provide guidance to this body since now, more than ever, we need science to inform the decisions we are making on the Senate floor.

Today, Madam President, congressional Republicans are beginning the process of going one by one to overturn commonsense rules that have long been opposed by the oil and gas, coal, and other industries in the United States of America. The majority is trying to undo these rules by deploying a rarely used procedural tool known as the Congressional Review Act.

In fact, the majority is talking about using the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, so often that it could actually get hard to keep track of which industry is benefitting from week to week to week from the Republicans' use of the CRA. I brought down a helpful tool so the viewers at home can keep track of which industries are benefitting each week from Republicans using the CRA to roll back protections for public health, for clean air, for clean water, for clean soil, for the health of the families in our country.

So let's consult our wheel to see who is the big winner of the GOP giveaway this week.

Up first are the mining and the coal industries. They are the first big winners of the GOP Congressional Review Act wheel of giveaways. That is right. First up for repeal by the Republican Congress are public health protections against the toxic practice of mountaintop removal coal mining.

These protections were put in place by the Obama administration because a Bush-era rule was thrown out by the courts. These commonsense rules to monitor and ultimately restore streams impacted by coal mining are despised by the coal industry. Those that created the problem despise any rules that would require remedying the problem, as it affected public health--no surprise.

Mountaintop removal mining is one of the most environmentally destructive practices on Earth. Mountains are turned into barren plateaus. Streams in the bottoms of nearby valleys are filled with debris and buried. Heavy metals destroy water quality for nearby residents and ruin ecosystems.

The rule that the Republicans are attempting to repeal today protects the public health and drinking water of millions of American citizens in Appalachia and elsewhere across our country.

The rule requires that lead, arsenic, selenium, and other toxic pollutants are monitored. It requires that streams that are damaged or destroyed must be restored.

Now, the majority likes to say that there is a war on coal, but the only war that coal is losing is in the free market to natural gas, to wind, to solar. These are the sources of electricity that the utilities of our country, that the citizens of our country have been moving to over the last 10 to 15 years. There is a war going on in the marketplace.

Adam Smith is spinning in his grave as he listens to the Republicans trying to protect an industry from market forces. Adam Smith is actually spinning so fast in his grave that he could qualify as a new energy source for our country. That is how shocked he would be about this attempt to undermine the public health and safety in our country on behalf of an industry that is losing a battle in the marketplace.

It is the free market that ultimately is causing these changes, and the coal industry is saying: Please protect us from having to protect the public health and safety--clean air, clean water. Please protect us from having to protect families affected by our industries.

A few years ago, we generated roughly 50 percent of our electricity from coal. Now it is down to 30 percent of all electricity generated in our country from coal--50 percent to 30 percent of all electricity in a handful of years.

Coal has been replaced in the free market by natural gas, which has grown from a little over 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation a decade ago to 35 percent today. That is coal's big problem--natural gas, another fossil fuel, but one that emits one-half of the greenhouse gas pollutants as does coal.

Coal has also been replaced by clean energy, by wind, especially, which has grown by 5 to 6 percent of our generation, and by solar, which is now 1 percent of our generation.

In other words, if you go back to 2005 and you look at our country, natural gas was a relatively small percentage of electrical generation, and so were wind and solar. As we debate this issue here today, wind and solar are now up to 7 percent of all electricity generated in our country, up from 1 percent just a little bit more than 10 years ago. It is growing so fast as a preference for American industry, American utilities, and American homes, that it poses a marketplace threat.

So what we need to do now, finally, is to have the big debate out here as to what are the implications for public health and safety and what do we have to do in order to maintain the high standards that we have created for the protection of families over the last generation.

Last year, electricity generation from natural gas surpassed that from coal for the first time since 1949, when data collection began. Why? To quote the Department of Energy:

The recent decline in the generation share of coal, and the

rise in the share of natural gas, was a market-driven

response to lower natural gas prices that have made natural

gas generation more economically attractive.

Between 2000 and 2008, coal was significantly less

expensive than natural gas. However, beginning in 2009, large

amounts of natural gas produced from shale formations changed

the balance.

While the cost of coal has risen by 10 percent since 2008, the cost of natural gas has fallen by more than 60 percent. For a power producer considering new generation capacity, the lifetime cost of electricity from a new coal-fired powerplant is 67 percent higher than from a new natural gas powerplant and 17 percent than from a newly constructed wind farm, according to the National Academy of Sciences.

The reason no one is building coal-fired powerplants is very clear: It is the free market. Coal cannot compete in the free market. In 2016, we added more than 14,000 new megawatts of solar. We are going to add 7 to 8,000 new megawatts of wind. We are going to add nearly 9,000 new megawatts of natural gas, and we added virtually no new megawatts of coal-fired generation in our country. We are projected to add no new coal generation this year as well. It will be more natural gas, more wind, and more solar.

The marketplace is rejecting coal as a source of electricity. The marketplace is doing that. This isn't a conspiracy. It is competition in the free market.

Lest my colleagues think that this is just happening in the United States, it is not. More than half of all electrical generating capacity added in the world last year was renewable.

Let me say that again. More than half of all new electrical generating capacity added in the world last year was from renewable energy--wind and solar--across the planet.

China recently announced that it intends to invest $360 billion on renewable energy by 2020. They intend to create 13 million Chinese jobs in renewable energy in that time.

This isn't a conspiracy. It is competition, and the competition for those clean energy jobs is global.

When we started carrying iPhones, it wasn't a war on black rotary dial phones; it was a technological revolution. When we started using Macs and PCs, it wasn't a war on typewriters; it was a technological revolution. The horseless carriage wasn't a war on horses; it was a technological revolution that moved us to automobiles.

The move away from coal and oil toward clean energy and natural gas isn't

a war; it is a revolution--an American-made free market revolution.

We now have more than 400,000 Americans employed in the solar and wind industries. By 2020, there are projected to be 600,000 Americans working in these clean energy industries. It is not a war. It is a revolution.

Now, next there is going to be another industry to win in the CRA, the Congressional Review Act giveaway game. That is right. The next winner will be the oil and gas industries.

Republicans intend to move to overturn a bipartisan requirement under the Dodd-Frank bill that publicly traded oil, gas, and mining companies disclose to their investors when they make payments to foreign countries, but that requirement is vigorously opposed by ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the oil and gas industry.

Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was a bipartisan provision authored by Senators Cardin and Lugar. It requires oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose payments to foreign governments, and that is now in jeopardy.

The Dodd-Frank disclosure rule goes to the core of the Securities and Exchange Commission's mission of investor protection. Secret payments can easily be expropriated by corrupt governments. They can also be a signal that a company is involved in risky business overseas--risks that investors need to know about when making investments.

By eliminating this disclosure requirement, using the Congressional Review Act, we are potentially allowing for oil companies to make secret, undisclosed payments to foreign governments. Those could include payments intended to gain an advantage over other companies or even bribes to foreign officials.

Eliminating this disclosure requirement could allow for oil companies to make secret payments to foreign nations that could have serious implications for these nations and for investors.

I urge my fellow Senators to reject these resolutions and keep in place the commonsense protections for public health, clean water, and financial disclosure.

Earlier today, the Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee reported out the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt.

Democrats on the committee have grave concerns about his ability to uphold the EPA's mission to ``protect human health and the environment.''

So what we are talking about here is the totality of a picture. The use of the CRA to--one by one by one--go after these environmental protections that have been put in place to increase the health of Americans, to reduce their exposure to arsenic, to lead, and to other dangerous chemicals. This first one that we are debating goes right to the heart of that issue. What the coal industry is doing is using the justification of their need to be competitive with the natural gas, wind, and solar industries, a battle they are losing in the financial marketplace, as a justification for undermining the public health of our country so they can be more competitive.

In other words, the price to be paid to make the coal industry more competitive with other industries to which they are losing market share in the electrical generation market is that the public health has to be compromised and we have to turn a blind eye to the impact on the children and the families in our country who are being exposed to these dangerous chemicals.

That is the price we have to pay as a nation? It is unacceptably high.

So Adam Smith looks on, and Adam Smith judges us here today.

This marketplace defeat of coal by natural gas, wind, and solar is one that is being used to hurt children and hurt families in our country. I do not think it is an acceptable position for our Nation to take. I urge a rejection of that motion.

I yield back to the leader of this effort on the Senate floor, the great Senator from Washington.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I come to the floor this morning to speak on the resolution of disapproval that is before us, but I want to make just a few comments following my colleague, the minority whip.

I am pleased to hear him say that he does look forward to the opportunity for a hearing on Judge Gorsuch and the opportunity for a vote. I think we recognize that we have in front of us an individual who has truly a stellar legal reputation, who has committed himself to the law in a remarkable way. When he was before this Senate for confirmation leading up to the Tenth Circuit, he enjoyed very strong support. I would like to think that on yet further review of this very strong individual, our colleagues will do the due diligence that is necessary as we perform our constitutional role of advise and consent.

There is so much that I will respond to at a later time when I go into more detail about my support for Judge Gorsuch and why I think he is exactly the type of individual we want to see named to the Supreme Court, but the comment has been made, not only by my colleague from Illinois but from others, that somehow or other Judge Gorsuch is for Big Business and not the little guy. It seems that the criticism is based on this viewpoint that courts should not defer to Federal agency interpretations of their own rules, and certainly Big Business is a frequent challenger of government overreach. But, as the Presiding Officer and I both know, so are ordinary Americans--people like John Sturgeon, an Alaskan who took on the Federal Government, took on the agencies, and took on the Park Service because he was told he could not use a hovercraft in an area where he had operated one for decades. John Sturgeon, with the help of a few friends, who did everything from garage sales to fund his litigation, and with just the generosity out of their own pockets, took all the way to the Supreme Court the question of whether or not the Park Service's regulation had exceeded their legal authority.

I happen to believe very strongly that Judge Gorsuch is clearly on the right track here when he questions the deference that courts give to our government agencies. I think most Alaskans would probably agree with us on this point--that when we are talking about the scales of justice, they should not be tipped in favor of our Federal agencies.

Again, I am pleased to hear that the minority whip agrees that a filibuster is not appropriate, is not the way to proceed with this fine nominee. I look forward to learning more about Judge Gorsuch but also to be able to share more of my observations at a later point in time.

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in support of H.J. Res. 38 to disapprove and nullify the Department of Interior's so-called stream protection rule. I wish to begin my comments by thanking Majority Leader McConnell and Senator Capito of West Virginia for sponsoring the Senate version of this resolution. I also wish to note that I am proud to be listed with the Presiding Officer as a cosponsor on this bipartisan measure with 28 colleagues in support.

Now, by name alone, the stream protection rule may sound pretty innocent, pretty well intentioned, but as we have heard and as we will hear throughout this debate, the reality is really different. This regulation will have severe economic impacts. It will cost us jobs. It will cost us revenues as well as affordable energy all across our country.

By way of background, the rule revises longstanding regulations for coal

mining under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, something around here we simply call SMCRA. Now this rule was finalized in December of 2016, and it took effect 2 weeks ago, making more than 400 changes to existing regulations.

Now, 400 is just a number that shows the scope of the changes that the Obama administration has made, but it hardly does justice to the sweeping substance of the changes or the deliberately opaque process that the Obama administration followed to make them.

SMCRA is supposed to be an example of cooperative federalism, and many States have approved programs that allow them to regulate coal mining within their own borders. But beyond that, the law explicitly directs the Federal Government to work with States to engage with them whenever any changes are made. So it requires a high level of cooperation and collaboration.

Contrary to the collaborative mood intended by SMCRA, the Obama administration chose to draft the stream protection rule behind closed doors. It ignored the input and recommendations that were provided by States and other stakeholders. It subverted the law, basically, to meet its own policy objectives, which was to keep the coal in the ground. Ultimately, that is what they wanted to do, and it finalized a rule that will shut down coal mining in several regions in our country, including possibly in Alaska, if it is allowed to stand.

Now, the Obama administration claimed that this rule would cost only $81 million a year and that it did not qualify as what is considered ``economically significant'' as a rule, as a result of that. We will likely hear that number touted by some of the opponents of this resolution and probably some who will claim that we are exaggerating the impact. But I don't think we should forget how the Obama administration determined that the rule was insignificant in the first place.

In January of 2011, the Associated Press obtained documents showing that this rule was projected to eliminate 7,000 direct jobs across the country. So instead of going back and fixing the rule to avoid these potential job losses, what happened? The Department of Interior fired the independent contractor that had made the projection. So, effectively, we have a situation where the Department essentially cooks the books instead of fixing the rule. It then took steps to rebrand the rule, changing the name from the ``stream buffer zone rule'' to the ``stream protection rule'' making the rule sound rather innocuous.

So what the American people should know is that there is a real discrepancy between the economic impacts the Obama administration estimated and what other sources project will happen if the rule is left in place. The projection is that up to 30 percent of the direct jobs in coal mining will be lost, and domestic coal production will fall 29 to 65 percent, with anywhere from $15 billion to $29 billion in lost annual coal resource value and $3.3 billion to $6.5 billion in lost State and Federal revenue.

So with estimates like this, it is no wonder that this rule has drawn such strong bipartisan opposition from Alaska all the way to Appalachia. If you are doubting the statistics--if you are saying, well, I am hearing certain things on one side and others on another-- you need to talk to people out there. We did that. Instead of just taking what the Obama administration said, we went out and we asked people.

Last March, I held a field hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we held the field hearing up in Fairbanks, AK. Among our witnesses was a woman by the name of Lorali Simon. The occupant of the Chair knows her well. She works for Usibelli Coal Mine, an initially family-owned and operated coal mine--which has been very successful--and provides coal and power to the residents of the Interior, and has been for a long time. Ms. Simon spoke about how coal resources contribute significantly to our State by providing jobs and a reliable energy source.

She explained that coal is the cheapest source of energy in Interior Alaska for everything from the local community to our military bases there and how usability has helped to create business for others like our Alaska railroad. She also highlighted the broader picture about how coal strengthens our national and energy security. So those are all good things, in my book.

But Lorali also testified about the stream protection rule. She said that, if the rule was finalized as it was proposed--which it has been-- it will likely kill all coal development in Alaska. She also noted that Congress passed SMCRA, but during the Obama administration, she said: ``We were seeing unelected federal employees violate legislative intent, which will kill America's coal industry.''

Now, Lorali Simon is not alone in her criticisms or her opposition to this rule. Our Governor in Alaska, an Independent by the name of Governor Bill Walker, recently noted that it was one of the worst of many different actions the Obama administration took to limit resource development in our State of Alaska.

The attorneys general of 14 different States wrote:

The rule would have a disastrous effect on coal miners,

their families, workers in affected industries, and their

communities. It would also impose very significant costs on

American consumers of electricity, while undermining our

Nation's energy supply.

That is pretty tough--not only a disastrous effect on the coal miners but the cost on American consumers of electricity, undermining our Nation's energy supply.

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission described this rule as a ``burdensome and unlawful rule that usurps states' authority as primary regulators of coal mining as intended by Congress under SMCRA'' while also seeking to impose ``an unwarranted top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that does not take into account important regional and ecological differences.''

Then, finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted that the rule ``exceeds the Department's authority, will cause significant economic harm and job losses, and interferes with longstanding and successful state efforts to protect water quality.''

It is very clear to me that this rule simply cannot stand. We have an opportunity here to make sure that is the case. So if you are concerned about families paying more for their heating and their electricity bills, you should support this resolution. If you are worried about job losses due to access restrictions and rising energy costs, you should support this resolution. And, if you care about States' rights, which so many of us do, or overregulation by the Federal Government, which we clearly do, you should support this resolution.

I have noted to a couple of people today that this is a pretty good day to be debating a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act. It is Groundhog Day, and it is exactly what the last 8 years have felt like for anyone who has paid attention to the regulations that were just churned out by the Obama administration. The SPR rule is a perfect place to start as we sort through the major burdens that the last administration imposed through its relentless regulatory actions.

So, again, I wish to thank Leader McConnell and Senator Capito for sponsoring and leading this legislation, and know that I intend to vote for it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.