[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 92 (Monday, July 17, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S7076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Mr. Craig, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
        Gramm, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S.J. Res. 50. A joint resolution to disapprove a final rule 
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency concerning water 
pollution; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


 disapproving a final rule promulgated by the environmental protection 
                   agency concerning water pollution

 Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint 
resolution, co-sponsored by Senators Bob Smith, Hutchinson, Craig, 
Shelby, Coverdell, Enzi, Gramm, and Inhofe, revoking the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) rule on Total Maximum Daily Loads under the 
Clean Water Act.
  I strongly support the EPA's goal of cleaning up our nation's water 
bodies but disagree with its approach. We must accelerate cleanup of 
our rivers, lakes, and streams; unfortunately, the EPA's rule will not 
accomplish that goal. In fact, the EPA's hastily completed rule will 
divert billions of dollars from programs that are working to an 
unreasonable, prohibitively-expensive, and technically-unworkable 
program.
  Since the EPA's draft TMDL rule was first published in August 1999, 
many stakeholders including states, industry, environmental 
organizations, the public, and Congress have all raised serious 
concerns. The EPA received over 34,000 public comments, most 
overwhelmingly in opposition to the rule. Twenty public forums were 
conducted; again, sentiments ran overwhelmingly in opposition to the 
EPA's rule. Twelve congressional hearings were held, revealing that the 
proposal is unreasonable and unworkable. The National Governors' 
Association denounced the rule as an inflexible, unfunded mandate that 
will eliminate opportunities to reduce overall pollution. In a May 19 
letter, six environmental groups urged the EPA to ``withdraw the 
current version of the proposed rule, which is so fundamentally flawed 
that it would weaken the existing TMDL program.''
  When it became clear that the EPA was ignoring concerns and 
proceeding to fast-track its rule, even in the fact of such serious 
opposition, Congress, rightly, exercised its oversight responsibility 
by including specific language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Military 
Construction Supplemental Appropriations bill to prevent finalization 
of the rule. Similar language was also passed by the House in the FY 
2001 VA-HUM-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. In clear defiance 
of Congress, the EPA promulgated the rule on July 11, 2000.
  The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808 provides for expedited 
congressional review of agency rulemaking; specially, Section 802 
provides a legislative procedure by which Congress can disapprove an 
agency's rule. This congressional review statute was approved in the 
104th Congress for situations just such as this to reserve to Congress 
a mechanism for exercising its agency oversight responsibility.
  It is important that we work to develop a program that will enhance, 
not hinder, our cleanup efforts. Repeatedly, the EPA was urged to 
repropose a rule that will accomplish our goal of more clean water more 
quickly; revoking the hurriedly completed rule will allow the EPA to 
focus its efforts on a program that will actually achieve the goals of 
the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the 
EPA's efforts to circumvent Congress and encouraging it to develop an 
effective proposal in collaboration with the public.

                          ____________________