The Senate passed a pair of "clean water" amendments to the Republican budget Wednesday.  

Ninety-nine senators voted to include an amendment from Sen. Debbie StabenowDeborah (Debbie) Ann StabenowUSDA eases relocation timeline as researchers flee agency USDA office move may have broken law, watchdog says Senate Democrats see Warren, Sanders proposals as unfeasible MORE (D-Mich.) that would establish a deficit neutral reserve fund, essentially a budgetary placeholder, on "keeping the Federal Water Pollution Control Act focused on protection of water quality." It also outlines what falls within federal jurisdiction and "create clear and unambiguous exemptions" for the Environmental Protection Agency.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
Sens. Claire McCaskillClaire Conner McCaskillEx-CIA chief worries campaigns falling short on cybersecurity Ocasio-Cortez blasts NYT editor for suggesting Tlaib, Omar aren't representative of Midwest Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand MORE (D-Mo.), Joe ManchinJoseph (Joe) ManchinSunday shows - Recession fears dominate Manchin: Trump has 'golden opportunity' on gun reforms Trump vows to 'always uphold the Second Amendment' amid ongoing talks on gun laws MORE (D-W.Va.), Heidi HeitkampMary (Heidi) Kathryn HeitkampPence to push new NAFTA deal in visit to Iowa Al Franken says he 'absolutely' regrets resigning Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand MORE (D-N.D.) and Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharPoll: Nearly 4 in 5 say they will consider candidates' stances on cybersecurity The Hill's Campaign Report: Battle for Senate begins to take shape Native American advocates question 2020 Democrats' commitment MORE (D-Minn.) broke with Democrats and voted with Republicans for Barrasso's measure. Sen. Angus KingAngus Stanley KingNew intel chief inherits host of challenges Senators ask for committee vote on 'red flag' bills after shootings Top Democrat: 'Disqualifying' if Trump intel pick padded his résumé MORE (I-Maine) also voted with Republicans. 
 
The Wyoming Republican suggested that his amendment, unlike Stabenow's, included concerns from urban officials. 
 
"My amendment ...addresses concerns raised by the U.S. conference of mayors... who want certainty on the EPA's power grab," he said before the vote. "If you believe the Waters of the U.S. rule doesn't go far enough. That the federal government should be in the business of regulating puddles in your constituents' backyards, then vote against my amendment." 
 
But, Stabenow suggested that senators didn't need to pass both amendments. 
 
"I think my amendment is stronger and much more specific. ...We don't need two different amendments," she said. "The Barrasso amendment is very general, very broad. ...It would keep the confusion that's out there."