Democrats divided: The blue senators who went against Biden on key vote
Ryan King
Video Embed
Five Senate Democrats bucked President Joe Biden on Wednesday, joining Republicans in a vote to scrap the administration’s Waters of the United States rule, queuing up his second expected veto.
The rule defined the types of water bodies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, which has been subject to shifting definitions and heated court battles for years. Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) all voted to rescind the rule. They cited the concerns of farmers and other constituencies.
SENATE MOVES TO ROLL BACK CLEAN WATER RULE, SETTING UP SECOND BIDEN VETO
All four hail from competitive states, and two of them, Manchin and Tester, are up for reelection in the 2024 cycle in deep red states. Tester has already announced his campaign, but Manchin has not revealed his plans. They were also joined by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), who caucuses with the Democrats and flipped her party affiliation last year. She is also up for reelection.
The bill tapped into power from the Congressional Review Act to nix the Biden administration policy that lays out the parameters for which bodies of water necessitate permits for certain activities such as construction and mining. It cleared the House 227-198 on March 9 and now heads to Biden’s desk after passing in the Senate 53-43 Wednesday.
“After listening to Montana farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders, it’s clear this rule isn’t right for Montana,” Tester said in a statement after his vote. “The Biden administration needs to go back to the drawing board to deliver a rule that better supports Montana’s agriculture economy and protects our environment.”
Democrats were affected by the absence of Sens. John Fetterman (D-PA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). There have been decades of litigation over what bodies of water are covered by the Clean Waters Act, which regulates “waters of the United States, including territorial seas.”
Defecting Democrats cited ambiguity in the language of Biden’s new rule, which was announced last December, fearing that it could trample upon state rights to regulate land and water or have deleterious ramifications for farmers and builders. Many of them affirmed their support for ensuring clean water but decried the measure as overbearing.
“The Administration’s WOTUS rule is yet another example of dangerous federal overreach. The proposed changes would inject further regulatory confusion, place unnecessary burdens on small businesses, manufacturers, farmers and local communities, and cause serious economic damage,” Manchin said in a statement.
“Nevada’s unique water needs are unlike any other state, and this administration’s rule forces our local governments, farmers, ranchers, and businesses to jump through unnecessary red tape,” Cortez Masto said prior to the vote.
“Instead of rule making that creates uncertainty and allows the federal government to overreach into Arizona land owners’, ranchers’, farmers’, and producers’ water and land, we should remain focused on commonsense solutions that keep Arizona water clean, safe, and healthy for generations to come,” Sinema said in a statement about her vote.
Former President Barack Obama expanded the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act in 2015, but his successor, Donald Trump, clawed back that policy in 2020. However, a federal court vacated Trump administration’s rule, keeping the pre-2015 framework in place until the Biden administration’s policy went into place.
A federal judge then froze the Biden administration ruling for Iowa and Texas. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the contentious matter later this year.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has threatened to veto the rollback of the rule. Biden issued the first veto of his presidency last week over a resolution to scrap a Labor Department policy enabling retirement plan managers to weigh environmental and social issues in investment decisions. Congress was unsuccessful in overriding that veto.
“This Administration is making unprecedented progress in protecting America’s energy security and reducing energy costs for Americans — in their homes and at the pump. H.R. 1 would do just the opposite, replacing pro-consumer policies with a thinly veiled license to pollute,” the Office of Management and Budget said Monday. “If presented to the President in its current form, he would veto it.”