WASHINGTON— Sen. Chuck Grassley made the following statement after the Senate voted on a pair of measures to address the misguided rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers known as the Waters of the United States (U.S.) rule.  

Despite receiving bipartisan support by a majority of the Senate, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act fell to a filibuster by a vote of 57-41.  Grassley is a cosponsor of the bipartisan bill, led by Sen. John Barrasso, that would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to start over with the rulemaking for the Waters of the United States rule.  

The second vote was on proceeding to debate on the Resolution of Disapproval of the Waters of the U.S. rule.  Grassley is a cosponsor of the resolution, which was introduced by Sen. Joni Ernst.  A resolution of disapproval is a legislative procedure used to try to overturn regulations and rules put forth by the executive branch.  A simple majority of the Senate is needed for passage.  If the Senate and House pass the resolution, the President must sign it to become law.  If the President vetoes the bill, Congress must overturn the veto for the resolution to take effect.  The Senate agreed to take up that resolution by a vote of 55-43.

Here is Grassley’s comment on today’s votes.

“Considering the flawed process that the EPA used in writing this rule, which is now recognized by two federal courts that have blocked the rule from moving forward, going back to the drawing board hardly seems like an unwarranted proposition.
“The bipartisan bill that was filibustered by a minority of the Senate would establish specific guidelines and require specific analyses that the EPA and the Corps must follow during the rulemaking process. It would also mandate collaboration with states and others affected by this rule to make sure it’s workable.

“It’s unfortunate that it’s come to this, but instead of attempting to address the legitimate concerns raised during the open comment period, the EPA and its allies pushed their own agenda, attempting to drive support for the rule, while belittling the concerns of the public.  As written, the rule could result in significant red tape and expense for Iowa farmers, home builders, golf course managers and construction companies as they make routine decisions about how best to use their land and run their businesses.  

“And, in true Washington, D.C., bureaucratic dysfunction, the rule could hamper projects to improve water quality.  Isn’t that ironic?

“Federal courts have already ruled that the rulemaking process was flawed.  Now, a bipartisan majority of the Senate has voiced its disapproval as well.  Unfortunately, a filibuster by a minority of the Senate and a veto threat by the President will ensure that the courts decide this instead of the representatives of the American people.”

 

-30-