[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7679-S7695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        FEDERAL WATER QUALITY PROTECTION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1140, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 153, S. 1140, a bill to 
     require the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency to propose a regulation 
     revising the definition of the term ``waters of the United 
     States,'' and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 
12:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Tribute to Senator Charles Grassley's 12,000th Vote

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving with 
several hundred Senators in this body over the years I have been here, 
and Senator Grassley has been a very special friend during that time. 
He has represented the voices of Iowans for nearly three and a half 
decades. I think we have been friends for that three and a half 
decades.
  When I think of Senator Grassley--12,000 votes, hundreds of hearings, 
countless tweets, and probably four dozen sweater vests later--he is 
the same down to earth Iowa farmer who visits every one of the State's 
99 counties every year. He is also the Iowa farmer who, when Vermont 
was hit with terrible flooding a few years back, was the first person 
to contact me to say, ``Vermont stood with Iowa when we were hit with a 
natural disaster. Iowa now stands with Vermont.''
  He and I have worked together, and we have had a productive 
relationship that spans those decades. On the Judiciary Committee, we 
take our leadership responsibilities seriously. We have both made sure 
that, both as chairman and ranking members, that every Senator has a 
chance to be heard. We have found ways to come together on meaningful 
legislation. We enjoy each other's company. We are able to kid each

[[Page S7680]]

other, as I did on his recent birthday. But more importantly, we do 
what I was told to do when I first came to the Senate, and I am sure 
what Senator Grassley was told when he did--we keep our word. We have 
always kept our word to each other.
  It also helps that we both married above ourselves. His wonderful 
wife, Barbara, and my wife, Marcelle, are very close friends. They 
sometimes say that they belong to that special club that nobody wants 
to join, that of cancer survivors.
  Senator Grassley's willingness to listen and hard work was most 
recently on display in the Judiciary Committee, as we hammered out an 
important compromise on sentencing reform which brought the left and 
the right together--both parties together. I think every single Senator 
complimented his leadership.
  And I must admit I was grateful for Senator Grassley's comments last 
week when I, too, crossed a voting milestone. He said we have been good 
friends and hoped we could cast many more votes together. I share that 
hope and congratulate my friend on this achievement.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my friend, 
colleague, and Iowa's outstanding senior Senator on casting his 
12,000th vote in the wee early hours of this last Friday morning. In 
fact, there are only 17 other Senators in history who have cast more 
votes than Senator Chuck Grassley. On top of that, he has the longest 
existing voting streak in Congress.
  This farmer from Iowa serves as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and is one of the highest ranking members in the Senate. But 
that has not gone to his head--not for Chuck Grassley. Back home in 
Iowa, he travels all 99 counties every single year, and he has done 
this every year for 35 wonderful years. Today his travels across the 
State to all 99 counties have a name. It is called ``the full 
Grassley.'' It is something that now our elected officials and even the 
Presidential candidates who visit Iowa try to complete as well. Senator 
Grassley has set a high bar, and I am very glad that he has.
  Over the years I have learned quite a bit about my friend Senator 
Chuck Grassley. He is extremely thrifty. Because of that, he is always 
looking out for our taxpayer dollars. He fights tirelessly for 
accountability and transparency in Washington. I can always count on 
Senator Grassley to stop by my office for doughnuts and coffee and to 
meet all of our wonderful Iowa constituents who happen to be visiting 
Washington, DC. He says he comes to visit the constituents. I actually 
think it is for the free doughnuts, but we are glad he stops by.
  Senator Grassley is the epitome of the Iowa way, and he has 
faithfully upheld these values in the Senate. He is a workhorse and has 
dedicated his entire career to serving Iowans. Iowa has no greater 
friend than Senator Chuck Grassley.
  Congratulations, Senator, on your 12,000th vote. Congratulations to 
Barbara, also. Get your Twitter ready because at noon we are going to 
celebrate.
  I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues, in particular 
my colleague from Iowa but also the people who are very senior leaders 
of this body: Senator McConnell, Senator Reid, and my friend on the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, whom I have served with for 35 
years. I thank them for their kind words and for what they said about 
my service to the people of Iowa as an elected representative.
  I have interacted with tens of thousands of Iowans as their Senator, 
so I have a feeling that I know each Iowan personally at this point. Of 
course, I don't. I know that is technically impossible, but one of the 
benefits of a State that is not especially big geographically is that I 
have enough planning that I can get to every county every year, as has 
been said several times by my colleagues.
  Every year, Iowans in each county host me at a question-and-answer 
session at their factories, schools, or their service clubs. Most of 
these are my own town meetings that I set up. At each stop, I might get 
a dozen or so questions on any topic under the Sun, and that is as it 
should be in representative government because that is a two-way 
street. The electorate's job is to ask the questions and my job is to 
answer them. If people are satisfied that I have answered their 
questions or that at least I have tried to answer them, then I hope I 
have demonstrated how much their participation means to the process of 
representative government and to casting my votes in Washington because 
I bring the benefits of every comment, question, and criticism heard 
from Iowans to that vote.

  With these 12,000 votes, I think of the many conversations and pieces 
of correspondence behind each vote. Whether I am meeting with Iowans in 
the Hart Building in Washington or at the University of Northern Iowa 
volleyball matches near my farm in New Hartford, the time that people 
take to visit with me is well spent for me, and I hope they consider it 
a time well spent for them.
  People ask me if I have any hobbies. I cannot say that I do, at least 
not in the way people usually think of hobbies. Spending time with the 
people of Iowa is part of my work. I get paid to listen and make sure 
that is what I do. It is my pleasure to spend time with Iowans. When 
someone stops me at the Village Inn in Cedar Falls, where I go for 
Sunday brunch after church, to talk about cyber security or sentencing 
reform, I am glad to do it.
  What is important to the people of Iowa is my vocation. I am grateful 
for the opportunity to cast 12,000 votes. Thanks to the people of Iowa, 
thanks to my wife Barbara and the rest of my family who share my regard 
for what is important, representing the people of Iowa.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the people of Iowa for sending 
us Chuck Grassley and want to say he does not just represent Iowa, he 
personifies it. I know of no Senator who better personifies his State 
than the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to say a 
few words about our departed colleague Fred Thompson and that following 
my remarks Senator Corker be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Fred Thompson

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it is my sad duty, as was mentioned by 
our leaders this morning, to report that Fred Dalton Thompson, who 
served in this body from 1995 to 2003, representing our State of 
Tennessee, died in Nashville on Sunday. My wife, Honey, and I and the 
members of our family--every one of whom valued our friendship with 
Fred--as well as Members of the Senate, express to Fred's family--his 
wife Jeri, their children, Hayden and Sammy, and his sons by his 
earlier marriage to Sarah, Tony and Dan, and his brother Ken--our pride 
in Fred's life and our sympathy for his death.
  Very few people can light up the room the way Fred Thompson did. The 
truth is, most public figures have always been a little jealous of Fred 
Thompson. His personality had a streak of magic that none of the rest 
of us have. That magic was on display when he was minority counsel to 
the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973, asking former White House aide 
Alexander Butterfield the famous question: ``Mr. Butterfield, are you 
aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office 
of the President?'' thereby publicly revealing the existence of tape-
recorded conversations within the White House. National Public Radio 
later called that session and the discovery of the Watergate tapes ``a 
turning point in the investigation.''
  The Thompson magic was evident again in 1985, when Fred was asked to 
play himself in the movie ``Marie.'' In real life, Fred had been the 
attorney for Marie Ragghianti, the truth-telling chairman of the 
Tennessee Pardon and Parole Board during a scandal in our State when 
pardons were sold for cash.
  After that, Fred was cast in a number of movie roles as CIA Director, 
the head of Dulles Airport, an admiral, the President of NASCAR, three 
Presidents of the United States, and District Attorney Arthur Branch in 
the television

[[Page S7681]]

series ``Law and Order''. That same magic served him well when he ran 
for the United States Senate in 1994 for the last 2 years of Vice 
President Gore's unexpired term. It was a good Republican year and 
Fred's red pickup truck attracted attention, but he defeated a strong 
opponent by more than 20 percentage points, mostly because when he 
appeared on television, Tennesseans liked him, trusted him, and voted 
for him. Fred took on some big assignments during his time in the 
Senate, but sometimes he would become impatient with some of the 
foolishness around here. A Washington reporter once asked him if he 
missed making movies: ``Yes,'' he said, ``Sometimes I miss the 
sincerity of Hollywood.''
  People ask me sometimes: How could an actor accomplish so much? In 
addition to those things I have already mentioned, during the 1980s 
Fred was invited twice to be special counsel to Senate investigative 
committees. When he retired from the Senate, he took over Paul Harvey's 
radio show. In 2008, he was a frontrunner for the Presidency of the 
United States. For the last several years, it has been hard to turn on 
the television without seeing Fred Thompson urging you to buy a reverse 
mortgage.
  I believe there are three reasons his career was so extraordinary and 
so diverse. First, he was authentic, genuine, and bona fide. So far as 
I know, he never had an acting lesson. As he did in ``Marie'' and as he 
did in most of his movie roles, he played himself. There was no 
pretense in Fred Thompson on or off the stage. Second, he was 
purposeful. In 1992, when I was Education Secretary, I invited Fred to 
lunch in the White House lunchroom. For years I had urged him to be a 
candidate for public office. I hoped he might run in 1994. What struck 
me during our entire luncheon conversation was that not once did he 
raise any political concerns. His only question was: If I were to be 
elected, what do you suppose I could accomplish?
  When he was elected, he was serious and principled. He was a strict 
Federalist, never a fan of Washington telling Americans what to do, 
even if he thought it was something Americans should be doing. He was 
not afraid to cast votes that were unpopular with his constituents if 
he was convinced he was right. The third reason for Fred Thompson's 
success was he worked hard. Saying that will come as something of a 
surprise to many.
  He was notoriously easygoing. He grew up in modest circumstances in 
Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. His father Fletch was a car salesman. He was a 
double major in philosophy and political science at the University of 
Memphis. He did well enough to earn scholarships to Tulane and 
Vanderbilt law schools. To pay for school he worked at a bicycle plant, 
a post office, and a motel.
  Before he was Watergate counsel, he was assistant U.S. attorney. The 
remainder of his busy life was filled with law practice, stage, and 
radio shows, counsel to Senate investigating committees, more than 20 
movies, television commercials, and 8 years as a Senator. I have 
attended a number of memorial services for prominent figures. As a 
result, I have added a rule to ``Lamar Alexander's Little Plaid Book.'' 
It is this: ``When invited to speak at a funeral, be sure to mention 
the deceased as often as yourself.''
  I mentioned this rule last year when I spoke at Howard Baker's 
funeral because there came a point in my remarks when I could not 
continue without mentioning my relationship with Senator Baker, and I 
therefore had to break my own rule. The same is true with Fred 
Thompson. We were friends for nearly 50 years.
  In the late 1960s, both of us fresh out of law school were inspired 
by Senator Howard Baker to help build a two-party political system in 
Tennessee. Fred's political debut was campaign manager for John 
Williams for Congress, against Ray Blanton in 1968. My first political 
foray was Howard Baker's successful Senate campaign in 1966.
  When Senator Baker ran for reelection in 1972, I recruited Fred to be 
the Senator's Middle Tennessee campaign manager. In 1973, Senator Baker 
asked me to be minority counsel to the Watergate Committee. I suggested 
he ask Fred instead because as a former U.S. attorney Fred was much 
better equipped for the job. When I lost the Governor's race in 1974, 
the Thompsons were one of two couples Honey and I invited to go to 
Florida to lick our wounds.
  When I was sworn in as Governor in 1979, even without asking him, I 
announced that Fred Thompson would fly back to Nashville from 
Washington, DC, to review more than 60 pardons and paroles that had 
allegedly been issued because someone had paid cash for them. I wanted 
the celebrated Watergate personality to help restore confidence in 
Tennessee's system of justice. In the spring of 2002, Fred telephoned 
to say he would not run for reelection. So I sought and won the Senate 
seat both he and Howard Baker had held. I have the same phone number 
today that both of them had when they were here.
  During my general election campaign in 2002, an opponent said: ``Why, 
Fred and Lamar are both in Howard Baker's stable.'' Fred replied: 
``Stable hell, we are in the same stall.''
  Several times I got a dose of Fred Thompson's magic during those 
humbling experiences when I asked him to campaign with me. Campaigning 
with Fred Thompson was a little like going to Dollywood with Dolly 
Parton. You can be sure no one is there to see you.
  We have a tradition of scratching our names in the drawers of the 
desks that we occupy on the floor of the Senate. When I arrived in 
2003, I searched high and low until I found what I wanted: a desk 
occupied by two predecessors, my friend Fred Thompson and our mentor 
Howard Baker. During one of those late-night Senate budget sessions a 
few years ago, I scratched my name after theirs. I am proud it will 
remain there as long as this desk does: Baker, Thompson, Alexander.
  Tennesseans and our country have been fortunate that public service 
attracted Fred Dalton Thompson. We will miss his common sense, his 
conservative principles, and his big booming voice. We have lost one of 
our most able and attractive public servants, and my wife Honey and I 
have lost a dear friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to share my voice with Lamar 
Alexander's at the loss of a great Tennessean and a great American. I 
appreciate so much Senator Alexander's chronologically going through 
much of the great Senator Thompson's life and talking about the 
personal experiences. Elizabeth and I, too, want to share our 
condolences with Jeri, Hayden, and Sammy, along with Tony and Dan, his 
sons by his first marriage with Sarah, and his brother Ken.
  I was able to talk to Tony last week as Fred was in hospice care. As 
you would expect, with Fred being the kind of person he was, never 
forgetting where he came from, they wanted to spend those last days 
together in quiet and didn't want a lot of phone calls or a lot 
happening to make people aware of what was happening. Fred had reached 
his end. No doubt, again, Tennessee has lost a great son as has our 
Nation.
  Fred was one of those people, as Lamar just mentioned, who had 
extraordinary talent. To me, what was so unique about him having that 
extraordinary talent is he also had the gift of knowing when and how to 
use it, from his extraordinary ability as a lawyer, as has been 
chronicled, to his ability when faced with a case that became something 
of national notoriety, to himself becoming an actor and playing a role 
that in this case he was in real life, and then to serving in the 
Senate in the way that he did.
  I, too, had the extraordinary privilege to also know Fred, as I have 
had in knowing someone like Lamar Alexander, who I think is one of the 
great public servants of our State, and Howard Baker, who has been a 
mentor to all of us and had such an impact on me, Lamar, and Fred. Back 
in 1994, as I was telling some Tennesseans earlier today, I was also 
running for the Senate in a race that no one remembers because of the 
results. As Lamar mentioned, everywhere you went, people wanted to see 
Fred.
  Fred had this extraordinary ability to capture people's imaginations. 
Fred was unabashedly proud of our Nation and never an apologist for 
what our Nation has done around the world to make the world a better 
place. I was

[[Page S7682]]

able to drive around and see hordes of people gather around Fred. 
People would pat Bill Frist, me, and the other folks running in the 
other primary on the head and say: Someday you, too, might be a 
Senator.
  Fred was somewhat criticized that year because of the way he was 
going about the race. Again, it reminds me of how much talent he had 
and his ability to know how to use it. He told people: Look, the first 
time I run a television ad, this race will be over.
  He did, and it was. As Lamar mentioned, he went on to win by 20 
points because of the way the people felt about him, not only around 
our State but around our country.
  Fred was very impatient with serving in the Senate, and I had 
multiple conversations with him about that. Actually, serving here, one 
can understand with someone like Fred, who constantly wanted to make 
something happen, how that was a frustration. But I know for a fact 
from watching his early days--coming in, heading the homeland security 
committee, and doing the many things he did--that he affected our State 
and country in a very positive way, which is something all of us would 
hope to emulate.
  We will miss him. He was a rare talent. He was one of those people 
who made you want to do better when you were around him.
  I thank him for his tremendous service to our country, I thank him 
for the tremendous and deep friendships he created all around our 
State, and I thank him for causing all of us to constantly remember 
where we came from.
  With that, I join Senator Alexander in again expressing our deep 
condolences to his family and all who were around him, especially when 
the end came.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Cardin manage our side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to make a statement about S. 
1140, which is before us.
  Senator Barrasso, may I make my statement, due to a hectic schedule? 
I won't go very long. Is that all right with you.
  Thank you, my friend.
  I thank Senator Barrasso.
  It is kind of commonplace here that it is another day and another 
attack on the environment. Today is no exception. Today it is an attack 
on the Clean Water Act. That is what I believe S. 1140 does.
  The name of this bill is the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. I 
tell you, if we could sue for false advertising, we would have a great 
case because this bill doesn't protect anything. It allows for 
pollution of many bodies of water that provide drinking water to 117 
million Americans, 1 in 3 Americans. Their drinking water will be at 
risk if my friend's bill passes. That is why I feel so strongly about 
it.
  We see it on this poster: 117 million Americans are served by public 
drinking water systems. That is 94 percent of public drinking water 
systems that rely on these headwater streams. It affects 1 in 3 
Americans in 48 States.
  We are talking about a bill that is called the Federal Water Quality 
Protection Act, but it is about pollution, not protection. In a way, 
when we name these bills the opposite of what they are--remember, this 
is called the Federal Water Quality Protection Act when in fact it is 
going to lead to contamination of waterways. It reminds me of the book 
``1984'' in which the government is making sure people believe 
different things, and they have slogans like ``war is peace,'' and you 
think about it, and finally you cannot tell the difference between war 
and peace.
  Pollution is not protection, and this bill will lead to pollution 
because S. 1140 blocks the final clean water rule that clearly protects 
these waters while exempting ditches and storm water collection and 
treatment systems, artificial ponds, water-filled depressions, puddles, 
and recycled water facilities.
  What you will hear from the other side is, oh, the Obama 
administration has written a rule that is protecting puddles. That is 
nonsense. The fact is, the clean water rule is going to bring certainty 
to the Clean Water Act, and it is going to protect the drinking water 
of 117 million Americans. Yet my Republican friends want to stop it. 
The exemptions that are in there would be gone, not only the exemption 
from ditches, storm water collection, artificial ponds, water-filled 
depressions, and recycled water facilities, but also the exemptions for 
agriculture and forestry. So we are going to have a situation where 
there is more chaos surrounding our water laws. It is going to lead to 
confusion for businesses and landowners, and it is going to take us 
back to square one to figure out a whole other rule. Following two 
Supreme Court decisions, we shouldn't pass legislation that would 
create even more uncertainty and invite years of new litigation.
  The other thing you hear from the other side is, oh, this clean water 
rule the Obama administration wrote--they didn't listen to the public. 
Well, more than 1 million comments were received during a comment 
period that lasted over 200 days, and over 400 outreach meetings with 
stakeholders and State and local governments were conducted. So this 
bill--by sending us back to square one--ignores this robust outreach, 
and it will wind up wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, forcing EPA 
to go right back to square one. How many more comments do these friends 
of mine on the other side of the aisle want? My God, there were 400 
outreach meetings over 200 days and more than 1 million comments. It 
makes no sense to me.
  Nothing is more important than protecting the lives of the American 
people, and when we weaken the Clean Water Act, that is what we do.
  I will show a photograph. This was the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, 
OH, decades ago. It caught on fire. It caught on fire because there was 
no regulation and there were all kinds of toxic substances on the 
waterway. Our lakes were dying. And this one--when the people saw it on 
fire, they said enough is enough. They demanded the Clean Water Act. We 
passed it--I wasn't here then; it was 1972--by an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan majority. We have made tremendous progress. Today our 
rivers, lakes, and streams are far cleaner than they were, and the 
Clean Water Act has been one of our most successful laws.
  Let's look at the support for the Clean Water Act. This is 
unbelievable, when you see this. This is overwhelming public support 
for the clean water rule that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, the Republicans, want to stop in its tracks.
  Seventy-nine percent of voters think Congress should allow the clean 
water rule to move forward, and 80 percent of small business owners 
support protections for upstream headwaters in the EPA's new clean 
water rule. So somebody has to explain to me--and I am sure my friends 
will try to, and I look forward to hearing their reasoning--why they 
are going against 79 percent of the voters and 80 percent of small 
businesses. It makes no sense.
  The bill takes us in the wrong direction. That is why over 80 
scientists with expertise in the importance of streams and wetlands, as 
well as the Society for Freshwater Science, oppose this bill. I have 
received opposition letters from so many groups, I am going to read 
them to you. And think about these groups. These are objective groups. 
These are nonpartisan groups.
  Under public health, there is the American Public Health Association, 
the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Trust for America's 
Health.
  Under scientists and legal experts, there are 82 scientists, 44 law 
professors, and the American Fisheries Society.
  Under business, there is the American Sustainable Business Council 
representing 200,000 businesses that oppose this bill, and there are 35 
U.S. breweries. That is kind of interesting. The breweries count on 
clean water. They are very upset about the Barrasso bill. They oppose 
it.
  Under sportsmen, there is the American Fly Fishing Trade Association. 
I thought my Republican friends support outdoor recreation. The 
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the Illinois Council of Trout 
Unlimited, the International Federation of Fly Fishers, the Izaak 
Walton League of America, the

[[Page S7683]]

Florida Wildlife Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, the 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited oppose 
this bill.
  Under environmental, there is the Alliance for the Great Lakes, 
American Canoe Association, American Rivers, and the BlueGreen 
Alliance.
  Mr. President, I am not going to go on that much longer. I am just 
going to finish reading this list because when I speak--OK, you know I 
am a strong environmentalist. I am wearing my green today on purpose. 
These groups are very concerned about the Barrasso bill, as are 79 
percent of voters.
  Here are the other groups that weighed in: BlueStream Communications, 
California River Watch, and Central Ohio Watershed Council. They know 
because they have algae blooms coming to their lakes. Continuing, there 
is Clean Water Action, Clean Up the River Environment, Coastal 
Environmental Rights Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, 
Endangered Habitats League, Environment America, Evangelical 
Environmental Network. Do you want to know why the Evangelical 
Environmental Network is here? Because they believe that with this bill 
we are harming God's creation. That is why they are involved. 
Continuing, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration Network, Kentucky Waterways 
Alliance, Lake Champlain International, League of Conservation Voters, 
Massachusetts River Alliance, National Parks Conservation Association, 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Coast Conservation, New 
Jersey Audubon Society, Northwest Environmental Advocates, Ohio 
Environmental Council, Ohio River Foundation, Prairie Rivers Network, 
River Network, Roots & Shoots, University of Tampa, Sierra Club, 
Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider Foundation.
  Under rural development, there is the Center for Rural Affairs.
  There are reasons all these groups--scientists and biologists--have 
come together. They want to protect the waterways of the United States 
of America. This bill will take us back to square one. This bill goes 
against the most incredible group of opponents. This bill ignores the 
will of the people. So I am very hopeful that we will have enough votes 
to stop the special interests that want to keep dumping toxic material 
and dangerous material into our waterways.
  I know Senator Barrasso and Senator Inhofe would like time.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the first Republican 
speaker is done, it goes back to a Democrat, then back to a Republican, 
if that is OK with everybody.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to do three things quickly. One is 
a request, one is an apology, and one is the truth. The privileges of 
the floor request will appear in another section of the Record.
  Secondly, I have an apology. I am very fortunate I have had the same 
staff for 21 years in the Senate. They have never made a mistake. My 
staff never made a mistake until last Friday. Last Friday I was 
informed by my staff that we had two votes starting at 1 o'clock in the 
morning--two votes, and yet there were three. So I am the guy who came 
down, thinking I had already voted. So I apologize to the leader, I 
apologize to the staff who was working, and more than anything else, I 
apologize to the young people on the front row, our pages, who had to 
stay up another 15 minutes at 4 o'clock in the morning because of me. I 
apologize.
  On the truth side, first, let me put in the Record--my good friend 
from California was talking about all of the groups. I have five times 
as many groups now on record, many of which are from the State of 
California. I have a long list. I wish to make those 44 groups from 
California a part of the Record. And then there are the 480 very 
thoughtful groups nationally that are opposed to this rule.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two lists 
of supporters.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                 California Entities Supporting S. 1140

       California Cattlemen's Association; California Chamber of 
     Commerce; California Cotton Ginners Association; California 
     Farm Bureau; Camarillo Chamber of Commerce; Central 
     California Golf Course Superintendents Association; Chambers 
     of Commerce Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara Counties; 
     Corona Chamber of Commerce; County of San Joaquin, 
     California; Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce; Fresno Chamber of 
     Commerce; Fullerton Chamber of Commerce; Goleta Valley 
     Chamber of Commerce.
       Golf Course Superintendents Association of Southern 
     California; Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce; Greater 
     Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce; Greater Grass Valley 
     Chamber of Commerce; Hi-Lo Desert Golf Course Superintendent 
     Association; Inland Empire Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Inland Empire Regional Chamber of Commerce; Long 
     Beach Area Chamber of Commerce; Los Angeles Area Chamber of 
     Commerce; Murrieta Chamber of Commerce; Oceanside Chamber of 
     Commerce; Orange County Business Council; Oxnard Chamber of 
     Commerce.
       Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce; Redondo Beach Chamber 
     of Commerce; Roseville Chamber of Commerce; Rural County 
     Representatives of California; Sacramento Metropolitan 
     Chamber of Commerce; San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce; 
     San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership; San Joaquin Valley 
     Quality Cotton Growers Association; Santa Clara Chamber of 
     Commerce and Convention-Visitors Bureau; Santa Clarita Valley 
     Chamber of Commerce; Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce; 
     South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce; South Orange 
     County Economic Coalition; Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce; 
     Trinity Expanded Shale & Clay; Tuolumne County Chamber of 
     Commerce; Western Agricultural Processors Association; 
     Willows Chamber of Commerce.


         Supporters of the Federal Water Quality Protection Act

       U.S. Conference of Mayors; National Association of 
     Counties; National League of Cities; National Association of 
     Regional Councils; Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney 
     General; Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General; Tim Fox, 
     Montana Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota 
     Attorney General; Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General; 
     Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; Peter Michael, Wyoming 
     Attorney General; Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney 
     General; Luther Strange, Alabama Attorney General; Brad 
     Schimel, Wisconsin Attorney General; Mark Brnovich, Arizona 
     Attorney General; Terry Branstad, Iowa Governor; Leslie 
     Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General; Phil Bryant, Mississippi 
     Governor; Agricultural Council of Arkansas; Agricultural 
     Retailers Association; Agri-Mark, Inc.; Alabama Cattlemen's 
     Association; Alabama Chapter of Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Alaska; Alaska State Chamber of Commerce; 
     Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber of Commerce; American Agri-
     Women.
       American Exploration & Mining Association; American Farm 
     Bureau Federation; American Forest & Paper Association; 
     American Gas Association; American Horse Council; American 
     Petroleum Institute; American Public Power Association; 
     American Public Works Association; American Road & 
     Transportation Builders Association; American Society of Golf 
     Course Architects; American Soybean Association; American 
     Sugar Alliance; AmericanHort; Ames Chamber of Commerce; 
     Annapolis and Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce; Arctic 
     Slope Regional Corporation; Area Development Partnership--
     Greater Hattiesburg; Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association; 
     Arizona Cattle Growers' Association; Arizona Chamber of 
     Commerce and Industry; Arizona Farm Bureau Federation; 
     Arizona Mining Association; Arizona Rock Products 
     Association; Arkansas Cattlemen's Association; Arkansas Pork 
     Producers Association; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce; 
     Associated Builders & Contractors Associated Builders & 
     Contractors Delaware Chapter.
       Associated Builders & Contractors Empire State Chapter; 
     Associated Builders & Contractors Florida East Coast Chapter; 
     Associated Builders & Contractors Heart of America Chapter; 
     Associated Builders & Contractors Illinois Chapter; 
     Associated Builders & Contractors Mississippi Chapter; 
     Associated Builders & Contractors New Orleans/Bayou Chapter; 
     Associated Builders & Contractors Pelican Chapter; Associated 
     Builders & Contractors Rocky Mountain Chapter; Associated 
     Builders & Contractors Western Michigan Chapter; Associated 
     Builders and Contractors; Associated Industries of Arkansas, 
     Inc.; Association of American Railroads; Association of 
     American Railroads; Association of Equipment Manufacturers 
     (AEM); Association of Oil Pipe Lines; Association of Texas 
     Soil and Water; Baltimore Washington Corridor Chamber; 
     Billings Chamber of Commerce; Birmingham Business Alliance; 
     Bismarck-Mandan Chamber of Commerce; Buckeye Valley Chamber 
     of Commerce; Buffalo Niagara Partnership; Bullhead Area 
     Chamber of Commerce; Business Council of Alabama; Cactus & 
     Pine Golf Course Superintendents Association; California 
     Cattlemen's Association; California Chamber of Commerce.
       California Cotton Ginners Association; California Farm 
     Bureau; Calusa Golf Course Superintendents Association; 
     Camarillo Chamber of Commerce; Carson Valley Chamber of 
     Commerce; Central California Golf

[[Page S7684]]

     Course Superintendents Association; Central Delaware Chamber 
     of Commerce; Central Florida Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Central New York Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Chamber of Reno, Sparks, and Northern Nevada; 
     Chamber Southwest Louisiana; Chambers of Commerce Alliance of 
     Ventura & Santa Barbara Counties; Chicago Southland Chamber 
     of Commerce; Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber; City of Central 
     Chamber of Commerce; Cleveland-Bolivar County Chamber of 
     Commerce; Club Managers Association of America; Coeur d'Alene 
     Chamber of Commerce; Colorado Association of Commerce & 
     Industry; Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Colorado 
     Competitive Council; Colorado Livestock Association; Colorado 
     Nursery and Greenhouse Association; Colorado Pork Producers 
     Council.
       Columbia County Chamber of Commerce; Connecticut 
     Association of Golf Superintendents; Conservation Districts; 
     Corn Refiners Association; Corona Chamber of Commerce; County 
     of San Joaquin, California; CropLife America; Crowley Chamber 
     of Commerce; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Dairy Producers 
     of Utah; Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce; Darke 
     County Chamber of Commerce; Dauphin Island Chamber of 
     Commerce; Delaware State Chamber of Commerce; Delta Council; 
     Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce; Development Association; 
     Distribution Contractors Association; Dubuque Area Chamber of 
     Commerce; Durango Chamber of Commerce; Earthmoving 
     Contractors Association of Texas; Economic Progress (FEEP); 
     Edison Electric Institute; Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce; 
     Energy Piping Systems Division; Everglades Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association; Exotic Wildlife Association.
       Fall River Area Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Federal 
     Forest Resources Coalition; Florida Cattlemen's Association; 
     Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association; Florida Sugar Cane League; 
     Florida West Coast Golf Course Superintendents Association; 
     Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce; Foundation for 
     Environmental and; Fred Weber, Inc.; Fresno Chamber of 
     Commerce; Fullerton Chamber of Commerce; Georgia Agribusiness 
     Council; Georgia Cattlemen's Association; Georgia Chamber of 
     Commerce; Georgia Cotton Commission; Georgia Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association; Georgia Green Industry 
     Association; Georgia Pork Producers Association; Glendale 
     Chamber of Commerce; Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce; Golf 
     Course Builders Association of America; Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association of America.
       Golf Course Superintendents Association of Cape Cod; Golf 
     Course Superintendents Association of New Jersey; Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association of Southern California; Grand 
     Junction Area Chamber of Commerce; Grand Rapids Area Chamber 
     of Commerce; Grant County Chamber of Commerce & Tourism; 
     Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce; Greater Casa Grande 
     Chamber of Commerce; Greater Cedar Valley Alliance & Chamber; 
     Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce; Greater Elkhart 
     Chamber of Commerce; Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce; 
     Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce; Greater Grass Valley 
     Chamber of Commerce; Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce; 
     Greater Hernando County Chamber of Commerce; Greater Hyde 
     County Chamber of Commerce; Greater Louisville Inc.; Greater 
     North Dakota Chamber of Commerce; Greater Oak Brook Chamber 
     of Commerce and Economic Development Partnership; Greater 
     Oklahoma City Chamber.
       Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce; Greater Phoenix Chamber 
     of Commerce; Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce; Greater 
     Rome Chamber of Commerce; Green Valley Sahuarita Chamber of 
     Commerce & Visitor Center; GROWMARK, Inc. Gulf County Chamber 
     of Commerce; Hastings Area Chamber of Commerce; Hawaii 
     Cattlemen's Council; Heart of America Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association; Hi-Lo Desert Golf Course 
     Superintendent Association; Holmes County Development 
     Commission; Horseshoe Bend Area Chamber of Commerce; Houma-
     Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce; Idaho Association of Commerce 
     & Industry; Idaho Cattle Association; Idaho Dairymen's 
     Association; Idaho Golf Course Superintendents Association; 
     Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers; Illinois Beef 
     Association; Illinois Chamber of Commerce; Illinois Pork 
     Producers Association; Independent Cattlemen's Association of 
     Texas; Indiana Beef Cattle Association.
       Indiana Chamber of Commerce; Indiana Pork Producers 
     Association; Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce; Industrial 
     Minerals Association--North America; Inland Empire Golf 
     Course Superintendents Association; Inland Empire Regional 
     Chamber of Commerce; International Council of Shopping 
     Centers; International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC); 
     International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA); Interstate 
     Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); Iowa Association 
     of Business and Industry; Iowa Cattlemen's Association; Iowa 
     Cattlemen's Association; Iowa Chamber Alliance; Iowa Golf 
     Course Superintendent Association; Iowa Pork Producers 
     Association; Iowa Seed Association; Irrigation Association; 
     JAX Chamber; Jeff Davis Chamber of Commerce; Juneau Chamber 
     of Commerce; Kalispell Chamber of Commerce; Kansas 
     Agribusiness Retailers Association; Kansas Agribusiness 
     Retailers Association; Kansas Chamber of Commerce.
       Kansas Farm Bureau; Kansas Grain and Feed Association; 
     Kansas Livestock Association; Kansas Livestock Association; 
     Kansas Pork Association; Kentucky Cattlemen's Association; 
     Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; Kentucky Pork Producers 
     Association; Lafourche Chamber of Commerce; Lake Havasu Area 
     Chamber of Commerce; Leading Builders of America; Lima/Allen 
     County Chamber of Commerce; Lincoln Chamber of Commerce; 
     Litchfield Area Chamber of Commerce; Long Beach Area Chamber 
     of Commerce; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; Louisiana 
     Association of Business and Industry; Louisiana Cattlemen's 
     Association; Louisiana/Mississippi; Louisiana/Mississippi 
     Golf Course Superintendents Association; Maine Arborist 
     Association; Maine Landscape & Nursery Association; Marana 
     Chamber of Commerce; McLean County Chamber of Commerce.
       Mesa Chamber of Commerce; Metro Atlanta Chamber of 
     Commerce; Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation; 
     Michigan Cattlemen's Association; Michigan Cattlemen's 
     Association; Michigan Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Golf 
     Course Superintendents Association; Michigan Pork Producers 
     Association; Mid-Atlantic Association of Golf Course 
     Superintendents; MIDJersey Chamber of Commerce; Milk 
     Producers Council; Minden-South Webster Chamber of Commerce; 
     Minnesota AgriGrowth Council; Minnesota Agri-Women; Minnesota 
     Crop Production Retailers; Minnesota Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association; Minnesota Pork Producers 
     Association; Minnesota State Cattlemen's Association; 
     Minnesota State Cattlemen's Association; Mississippi 
     Cattlemen's Association; Missouri Agribusiness Association; 
     Missouri Cattlemen's Association; Missouri Cattlemen's 
     Association; Missouri Cattlemen's Association.
       Missouri Corn Growers Association; Missouri Dairy 
     Association; Missouri Pork Association; Missouri Soybean 
     Association; Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce; Molokai Chamber 
     of Commerce; Monroe County Chamber of Commerce; Montana 
     Chamber of Commerce; Montana Stockgrowers Association; Morris 
     County Chamber of Commerce; Moultrie-Colquitt County Chamber 
     of Commerce; Mulzer Crushed Stone, Inc.; Municipal and 
     Industrial Division; Murrieta Chamber of Commerce; NAIOP, the 
     Commercial Real Estate; Naperville Chamber of Commerce; 
     Natchitoches Area Chamber of Commerce; National All-Jersey; 
     National Association of Home Builders; National Association 
     of Manufacturers; National Association of 
     REALTORSR; National Association of State 
     Departments of Agriculture; National Association of Wheat 
     Growers; National Black Chamber of Commerce; National 
     Cattlemen's Beef Association.
       National Chicken Council; National Club Association; 
     National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton Council; 
     National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Federation 
     of Independent Business; National Golf Course Owners 
     Association of America; National Industrial Sand Association; 
     National Mining Association; National Multifamily Housing 
     Council; National Oilseed Processors Association; National 
     Pork Producers Council; National Rural Electric Cooperative 
     Association; National Sorghum Producers; National Stone, Sand 
     and Gravel Association (NSSGA); National Turkey Federation; 
     National Water Resources Association; Nebraska Cattlemen; 
     Nebraska Cattlemen Association; Nebraska Chamber of Commerce 
     and Industry; Nebraska Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Nebraska Pork Producers Association, Inc; Nevada 
     Cattlemen's Association; New Hampshire Business and Industry 
     Association; New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce.
       New Mexico Association of Commerce & Industry; New Mexico 
     Cattle Growers Association; New York Beef Producers' 
     Association; New York State Turfgrass Association; Norfolk 
     Area Chamber of Commerce; North Carolina Aggregates 
     Association; North Carolina Cattlemen's Association; North 
     Carolina Cattlemen's Association; North Carolina Chamber; 
     North Carolina Pork Council; North Country Chamber of 
     Commerce; North Dakota Stockmen's Association; North Dakota 
     Stockmen's Association; North Florida Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association; North Western Illinois Course 
     Superintendents Association; Northeast Dairy Farmers 
     Cooperatives; Northeastern Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance; Northern 
     Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; Northern Ohio Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association; Oceanside Chamber of Commerce; 
     Ohio Aggregates & Industrial Minerals Association; Ohio 
     AgriBusiness Association.
       Ohio Cattlemen's Association; Ohio Cattlemen's Association; 
     Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association; 
     Oklahoma Farm Bureau; Oklahoma Pork Council; Olive Branch 
     Chamber of Commerce; Opelika Chamber of Commerce; Orange 
     County Business Council; Oregon Cattlemen's Association; 
     Oregon Dairy Farmer's Association; Orlando Regional Chamber 
     of Commerce; Ottawa Area Chamber of Commerce; Oxnard Chamber 
     of Commerce; Palm Beach Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Peaks & Prairies Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Pennsylvania Cattlemen's Association; Pike 
     County Chamber of Commerce; Plastic Pipe Institute; 
     Pocatello-Chubbuck Chamber of

[[Page S7685]]

     Commerce Illinois; Portland Cement Association; Power and 
     Communications Contractors Association; Public Lands Council; 
     Quad Cities Chamber of Commerce.
       Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce; Redondo Beach Chamber 
     of Commerce; Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce 
     Florida; Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE); 
     Richland Chamber of Commerce; Ridge Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association; Riverside & Landowners 
     Protection Coalition; Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce; 
     Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce; Rochester Business 
     Alliance; Rocky Mountain Golf Course Superintendents 
     Association; Rogers-Lowell Area Chamber of Commerce; 
     Roseville Chamber of Commerce; Sacramento Metropolitan 
     Chamber of Commerce; San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce; 
     San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership; San Joaquin Valley 
     Quality Cotton Growers Association; Santa Clara Chamber of 
     Commerce and Convention-Visitors Bureau; Santa Clarita Valley 
     Chamber of Commerce; Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce; 
     Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce; Scottsdale Area Chamber of 
     Commerce.
       Select Milk Producers, Inc.; Shoals Chamber of Commerce; 
     Silver City Grant County Chamber of Commerce; South Baldwin 
     Chamber of Commerce; South Bay Association of Chambers of 
     Commerce; South Carolina Cattlemen's Association; South 
     Dakota Cattlemen's Association; South Dakota Pork Producers 
     Council; South East Dairy Farmers Association; South Florida 
     Golf Course Superintendents Association; South Orange County 
     Economic Coalition; South Texans' Property Rights 
     Association; South Texas Cotton & Grain Association; 
     Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association; Southern 
     Cotton Growers, Inc.; Southern Crop Production Association; 
     Southwest Council of Agribusiness; Southwest Indiana Chamber; 
     Sports Turf Managers Association; Springer Chamber of 
     Commerce; Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce; St. Albans 
     Cooperative Creamery Inc.; St. Johns County Chamber of 
     Commerce.
       St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce; St. Joseph County Chamber 
     of Commerce; Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida; 
     Suncoast Golf Course Superintendents Association; Tempe 
     Chamber of Commerce; Tennessee Cattlemen's Association; Texas 
     & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association; Texas Cattle 
     Feeders Association; Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Texas 
     Forestry Association; Texas Pork Producers Association; Texas 
     Pork Producers Association; Texas Poultry Federation; Texas 
     Seed Trade Association; Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers 
     Association; Texas Wheat Producers Association; Texas 
     Wildlife Association; Texas Wine and Grape Growers; The 
     Associated General Contractors of America; The Business 
     Council of New York State; The Fertilizer Institute; The 
     Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA); Thompson 
     Contractors, Inc.; Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce.
       Treasure Coast Golf Course Superintendents Association; 
     Treated Wood Council; Trinity Expanded Shale & Clay; Tucson 
     Metro Chamber; Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce; Tuscola 
     Stone Co.; U.S. Cattlemen's Association; U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce; U.S. Poultry & Egg Association; United Egg 
     Producers; USA Rice Federation; Utah Cattlemen's Association; 
     Virginia Agribusiness Council; Virginia Cattlemen's 
     Association; Virginia Pork Council, Inc.; Virginia Poultry 
     Federation; Virginia State Dairymen's Association; Vocational 
     Agriculture Teachers Association; Wabash County Chamber of 
     Commerce; Washington Cattle Feeders Association; Washington 
     Cattlemen's Association; Washington State Dairy Federation; 
     Weldon Materials; West Virginia Cattlemen's Association; 
     Western Agricultural Processors Association; Western DuPage 
     Chamber of Commerce; Western Peanut Growers Association.
       Western United Dairymen; White Pine Chamber of Commerce; 
     Wickenburg Chamber of Commerce; Willoughby Western Lake 
     County Chamber of Commerce; Willows Chamber of Commerce; 
     Wilmington Chamber of Commerce; Wisconsin Cattlemen's 
     Association; Wisconsin Pork Association; Wyoming Ag-Business 
     Association; Wyoming Crop Improvement Association; Wyoming 
     Stock Growers Association; Wyoming Wheat Growers Association; 
     Yuma County Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. INHOFE. Now, the waters of the United States rule is not just 
another example of regulatory overreach. I chair the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works. We have jurisdiction over the EPA, yet 
they do not want to even come in and testify when requested, and that 
is something I don't think has ever happened before.
  This rule we are talking about now is illegal. It is not supported by 
the science, it is not supported by the technical experience of the 
Corps of Engineers, and it is a political power grab. Thirty-one 
States--here is the chart--filed lawsuits against the WOTUS rule. If we 
don't act to send this rule back, States, local governments, farmers, 
and landowners could face years of abuse by the EPA until the courts 
inevitably strike the rule down.
  Believe me, it is inevitable that the rule will be overturned. I 
think we know that. That is not just my opinion. This is the conclusion 
of the two courts that have looked at this rule so far.
  On August 27, Judge Erickson of the District of North Dakota issued 
an injunction that prevented the WOTUS rule from going into effect in 
13 States. Oklahoma, my State, was not one of the 13 States. According 
to Judge Erickson--and this is her court--``the rule allows EPA 
regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the `chemical, 
physical and biological integrity of any navigable-in-fact water.'''
  As a result, Judge Erickson concluded this rule is ``likely arbitrary 
and capricious.'' That means it violates the law. That is what the 
judge said.
  Now, on October 9, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the 
same conclusion and issued a nationwide stay on the WOTUS rule.
  My committee has conducted a lot of oversight. I believe we have had 
six hearings so far. We have memoranda from the Army Corps of Engineers 
that document the fact that EPA is claiming the authority to assert 
Federal control wherever they want no matter what the science says or 
what the technical or legal experts of the Corps say. So what we have 
is a rule that is not developed based on science or technical 
expertise. Instead, it is based on a political goal to call everything 
a water of the United States.
  If we look at the chart that is set up right now, it is imperative we 
have to act right away. This is what we have right now around the 
country.
  Let me make this comment. I am very much concerned about this. The 
ones who want this the most are the farmers and the ranchers, and a lot 
of other people too, but my State of Oklahoma is a farm State, and I 
can remember not too long a guy named Tom Buchanan. He was the chairman 
of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. He said that, historically, it has not 
been this way. But as it is right now, the major problem farmers and 
ranchers have in my State of Oklahoma is not anything that is found in 
the farm bill, it is the overregulation of the EPA. Of all of the 
regulations of the EPA that are overregulating and putting farmers out 
of business, the one that is the worst is the waters of the United 
States rule.
  Let me share this with you, Mr. President. Five years ago, the 
liberals--those who want all the power in Washington--made an effort to 
take the word innavigable out. Historically, this has always been in 
the jurisdiction of the States, except for navigable waters. I 
understand that, and everyone else does too. So Senator Feingold from 
the Senate and Congressman Oberstar from the House got together and 
introduced a bill to take the word navigable out and give all the power 
to the Federal Government. Not only did we defeat their legislation, 
but they were both defeated in the next election.
  So this is a huge issue. It is one of regulation. It is one we need 
to go ahead with, since the courts have decided what is going to happen 
eventually. We need to go ahead and pass this legislation or we are 
going to be working in a direction that is contrary to our court 
system.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me make it clear what this legislation 
would do. It is true it would stop the final rule on the waters of the 
United States that has been issued, but it would also change the 
underlying criteria in the Clean Water Act. So it not only blocks the 
rule from going forward, it weakens the Clean Water Act. So let me talk 
a little about both.
  The final rule on the waters of the United States that has been 
issued restores clarity to the enforcement of the Clean Water Act. It 
restores it to what was commonly understood before a series of Supreme 
Court cases that really raised questions as to which water bodies, in 
fact, can be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The worst possible 
outcome is the lack of clarity because you don't know. You don't know 
what the rules are.
  The final rule that has been proposed, and that now is final, would 
restore that clarity to what was generally understood to be waters of 
the United States. To say it in laymen's terms, it is waters that lead 
to, in effect, the water qualities of our streams and our waters and 
our lakes in America. It affects public health. It affects

[[Page S7686]]

public health directly by the health of our waters of the United 
States, as well as providing the source for safe drinking waters.
  So what is at risk? If this final rule is blocked and does not become 
law, over half of our Nation's stream miles are at risk of not being 
regulated under the Clean Water Act. Twenty million acres of wetlands 
are at risk of not being adequately regulated under the Clean Water 
Act. The drinking source for water for one out of three Americans would 
be at risk.
  So this legislation would not only block the implementation of the 
final rule, it would also weaken the Clean Water Act. It would 
drastically narrow the historic scope of the Clean Water Act, 
arbitrarily putting in nonscientific standards for how the rules would 
be developed.
  Mr. President, since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, every 
Congress has tried to strengthen the Clean Water Act, not weaken it. 
The Clean Water Act was a piece of bipartisan legislation passed in 
1972. As Senator Boxer pointed out, it was in response to rivers 
literally catching fire and dead zones being found in our lakes.
  In the Chesapeake Bay we had the first marine dead zone that we were 
trying to respond to. In San Francisco Bay we had PCBs at unacceptably 
high levels. That is why we passed the Clean Water Act. The legacy of 
every Congress should be to strengthen the Clean Water Act, to make 
sure we do have clean waters in the United States. If this legislation 
were to become law, the legacy of this Congress would be to weaken the 
Clean Water Act. I don't think we want to do that.
  As I pointed out, this legislation not only rescinds the final clean 
water rule, but it really changes the goal of the Clean Water Act. 
Currently, the goal is to ``restore and maintain the chemical, 
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' That is 
science based. Instead, it would be changed to protect traditional 
navigable waters from pollution, which is a far different standard than 
dealing with the health issues of the waters of the United States.
  The arbiter of this would be the Department of Agriculture on the 
hydrological science. They are not qualified to do that. It is not 
their field. As I will point out in detail, the regulatory structure 
for agriculture is not changed under this final Clean Water Act. And 
the bill would ignore hydrological science by requiring a continuous 
flow of water to be regulated, ignoring the fact that there are 
seasonal variations where you can have water flows that dry up for a 
period of time but which are still critically important to the supply 
of clean water in the United States. It ignores the nexus test, which 
has been referred to in Supreme Court cases, using adjacent water--next 
to navigable waters--without any definition of what ``next to'' means. 
It puts public health at risk.
  For all of those reasons, we don't want to jeopardize and move 
backwards on the Clean Water Act of 1972. We want to add to that. This 
piece of legislation would, in fact, move us in the wrong direction.
  I just want to, for one moment, talk about the Chesapeake Bay. The 
people of Maryland and the people of our region know how important it 
is for our economy--the watermen who make their living off it and the 
recreational use of the bay. Millions of people every year depend upon 
the bay for their recreation. It is a way of life for our State and for 
our region. It is a national treasure--the largest estuary in our 
hemisphere. And it depends upon receiving clean water supplies that 
come in from other States, not just Maryland. You can't regulate the 
clean water of the Chesapeake Bay without having a national commitment 
to it because it knows no State boundary. That is why we need a strong 
Clean Water Act.
  I have heard my colleagues talk about agricultural farmers being 
against this. Well, farmers will not be harmed by the EPA's final clean 
water rule. In fact, it actually is good for farmers because it 
provides certainty and clarity. In developing the rule, the EPA and the 
Army Corps of Engineers listened carefully to input from the 
agricultural community, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the 
State departments of agriculture. As Senator Boxer pointed out, there 
were over 400 meetings with stakeholders across the country.
  The act requires a permit if a protected water is going to be 
polluted or destroyed. However, agricultural activities such as 
planting, harvesting, and moving stock across streams have long been 
excluded from permitting, and that won't change under the rule. In 
other words, farmers and ranchers won't need a permit for normal 
agricultural activities to happen in or around those waters.
  The rule does preserve agricultural exemptions from permitting, 
including normal farming, silviculture and ranching practices. Those 
activities include plowing, seeding, cultivating minor drainage, and 
harvesting for production of food, fiber, and forest products. Soil and 
water conservation practices in dry land are preserved. As to 
agricultural storm water discharges, there are no changes. Return flows 
from irrigated agriculture, construction, and maintenance of farm and 
stock ponds or irrigation ditches on dry land are not regulated under 
this bill. Maintenance of drainage ditches is not regulated. 
Construction or maintenance of farm, forest, and temporary mining roads 
are not regulated. It ensures that fields flooded for rice are exempt 
and can be used for water storage and bird habitat.
  The rule also does preserve and expand commonsense exclusions from 
jurisdiction, including--this is excluded--prior converted croplands, 
waste treatment systems, artificially irrigated areas that are 
otherwise dry land, artificial lakes or ponds constructed in dry land, 
water-filled depressions created as a result of construction 
activities, and the list goes on and on.
  The rule does not--does not--protect any types of waters that have 
not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act. It does not 
add any new requirements for agriculture. It does not interfere with or 
change private property rights. It does not change policy on irrigation 
or water transfers. It does not address land use. It does not cover 
erosional features, such as gullies, rills, and nonwetland swells.
  In other words, we have maintained the historic exemptions for 
agriculture from the Clean Water Act. They are not expanded under this 
rule.
  So let me just cite a couple of quotes from people who are directly 
impacted by what is being done under the clean water rule and, of 
course, would be affected by the legislation before us.
  As to the small business community, I quote from David Levine, who is 
the CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council:

       The Clean Water Rule will give the business community more 
     confidence that streams and rivers will be protected. This is 
     good for the economy and vital for businesses that rely on 
     clean water for their success. . . . Business owners want a 
     consistent regulatory system based on sound science. That's 
     what this rule provides.

  Ben Rainbolt, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union:

       Water is critical to the livelihood of family farms and 
     ranches. The rule employs a commonsense rationale for both 
     clarifying what bodies of water and activities should fall 
     under the Clean Water Act, as well as maintaining the 
     existing exemptions for agriculture. This rule will result in 
     cleaner, safer water for agriculture, rural communities, and 
     all who count on healthy streams and rivers.

  Andrew Lemley, government affairs representative, New Belgium 
Brewing:

       Our brewery and our communities depend on clean water. Beer 
     is, after all, over 90 percent water and if something happens 
     to our source water the negative affect on our business is 
     almost unthinkable. . . . We all rely on responsible 
     regulations that limit pollution and protect water at its 
     source. Over the past 23 years we've learned that when smart 
     regulations and clean water exists for all, business thrives.

  I particularly like that one because we have all seen the ads on 
television about clean water. It affects small businesses. It affects 
all of our businesses.
  I will conclude with those who depend upon recreation, who strongly 
support the clean water rule and oppose the legislation that is before 
us.
  I will quote from Andy Kurkulis, owner of Chicago Fly Fishing 
Outfitters and DuPage Fly Fishing Company:

       Anyone who has ever swam in our beautiful Great Lakes, or 
     fished or boated on our abundant rivers and waters has 
     benefited immeasurably. Now is the time to raise our voices 
     in support of clean water--our economy, and future 
     generations of hunters and anglers, depend on it.


[[Page S7687]]


  I think the verdict is clear. The rule which has been proposed will 
add to the protections the public deserves for public health and their 
drinking water. It is a sensible regulation. It is clearly under the 
authority of the Clean Water Act.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and certainly the 
cloture motion so that we don't reject the rule and weaken the Clean 
Water Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity today to 
move this legislation. It is bipartisan, and it protects our 
environment and helps small businesses all across the country.
  S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, is legislation I 
introduced, along with a number of Democratic Senators--Senators 
Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchin--and many other Senators.
  The Senator from California previously spoke. I would point out that 
the California Chamber of Commerce supports my legislation and the 
California Farm Bureau supports my legislation because this legislation 
will protect our Nation's navigable waters and the streams and wetlands 
that help our navigable waters stay clean. This bill is a testament to 
the hard work both sides of the aisle have done in achieving an 
agreement on an environmental protection bill.
  Our rivers, our lakes, our wetlands, and all other waterways are 
among America's most treasured resources. In my home State of Wyoming, 
we have some of the most beautiful rivers in the world--the Snake 
River, the Wind River, and dozens of others. People from around the 
world come to Wyoming to visit because we have an environmental 
landscape that is second to none. Anyone who has come to my State and 
experienced Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton, and the Big Horn 
Mountains comes away with a sense that Wyoming is a pristine and 
beautiful place. It is what Wyoming sells, and it is what makes Wyoming 
so unique.
  The people of Wyoming are devoted to keeping our waterways safe. We 
want to preserve the water for our children and grandchildren. We 
understand there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.
  It is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our 
waterways while respecting the difference between State waters and 
Federal waters. This is the environmental legacy that my constituents 
want, and it is a legacy they have earned for their decades of sound 
management. It is the people of Wyoming who have kept Wyoming's 
waterways pristine and beautiful.
  The EPA has now released new rules. The new rule is called the waters 
of the United States rule, WOTUS. This rule doesn't work for the people 
of Wyoming. It most likely doesn't work for any of your constituents, 
either--certainly not for those who have to put a shovel in the ground 
to make a living.
  The courts have begun to weigh in with their concerns about this 
WOTUS rule, and they have actually given Congress and stakeholders a 
necessary pause. That is why we are here today.
  In August of this year, Judge Erickson of the District of North 
Dakota issued an injunction that blocked the waters of the United 
States rule in 13 States. He did it because the rulemaking record was, 
in the judge's words, ``inexplicable, arbitrary, and devoid of a 
reasoned process.'' With regard to the rationale behind the EPA's 
threshold for what is and is not Federal water, he stated: ``On the 
record before the court, it appears that the standard is the right 
standard only because the Agencies say it is.''
  The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals then put a nationwide stay on 
the rule on October 9 of this year. In granting the stay, the court 
said, ``The sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the Rule's 
definitional changes counsel strongly in favor of maintaining the 
status quo for the time being.'' So keep it as it is for the time 
being. The court added that ``a stay temporarily silences the whirlwind 
of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of 
the new Rule and whether they will survive legal testing.''
  So what the courts have basically done is said: Let Congress have 
time to act.
  We don't have to sit on the sidelines and watch this rule slowly 
crumble under legal scrutiny. Contrary to some activist groups' 
rhetoric, we are not facing an immediate environmental water pollution 
crisis. In fact, in granting the stay, the Sixth Court stated that 
``neither is there any indication that the integrity of the nation's 
water will suffer imminent injury if the new scheme is not immediately 
implemented and enforced.'' They even called it a ``scheme.''
  We now have the opportunity to do better, and to do better, we must 
act now. That is why we must take this opportunity to pass the 
legislation before us that will have EPA do a new rule under a specific 
set of principles outlined by Congress. These are principles that 
protect navigable waters and adjacent wetlands, as well as farmers, 
ranchers, and other landowners.
  I know some Senators gave the administration the benefit of the doubt 
with this rule despite concerns they heard from their constituents, and 
those Senators waited for the final result before making a judgment to 
see if those concerns would be addressed. I am here to say that 
whatever concessions the EPA says they made to address some of these 
serious problems raised by their proposed rule, the EPA added new 
provisions in the final rule that greatly expand their authority. This 
is disappointing because I believe the great majority of Senators 
voiced concerns in the process, and those concerns fell on deaf ears. 
The EPA has produced a final rule worse than the one originally 
proposed.
  Here is an example. Instead of clarifying the difference between a 
stream and an erosion on the land, the rule defines ``tributaries'' to 
include anyplace where EPA thinks--where EPA thinks--it sees an 
``ordinary high-water mark.'' What looks like, not what is; what looks 
like, what they think is this ordinary high-water mark. Even worse, EPA 
proposes to make those decisions from sitting at their desks using 
aerial photographs, laser-generated images, claiming that a visit to 
the location is not necessary.
  Under the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency also has the 
power to regulate something as ``waters of the United States'' if it 
falls within a 100-year floodplain or if it is within 4,000 feet of a 
navigable water or a tributary and the EPA claims there is a 
``significant nexus.'' What is a significant nexus? Under this rule, a 
``significant nexus'' can mean a water feature that provides ``life 
cycle dependent aquatic habitat'' for a species. So if you are drawing 
4,000-foot circles around anything the EPA defines or identifies as a 
tributary--remember, 4,000 feet, so we are talking over 13 football 
fields long, and everywhere there is a potential aquatic habitat. So 
essentially almost the entire United States, according to this, would 
be underwater. Actually, 100 percent of the State of Virginia is under 
this jurisdiction and 99.7 percent of the State of Missouri falls 
within this area--underwater, if you will, according to the EPA 
guidelines.
  I would like to take a moment to talk about puddles because one of 
the previous speakers on the other side of the aisle talked about 
puddles. People know what they think about when they think about a 
puddle--like when it rains. The final rule does exempt puddles defined 
as ``very small, shallow, and highly transitory pools of water that 
forms on pavement or uplands during or immediately after a rainstorm or 
similar precipitation event.'' I guess that would mean like when the 
snow melts. The rule specifically does take control over other pools of 
water created by rain, like those we have all around Wyoming--prairie 
potholes, vernal pools--even if the land where these pools of water 
form is far away from any navigable water or even a tributary. Under 
this new regulation, nearly all of these pools of water created by rain 
will now be considered ``waters of the United States,'' giving the 
Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate what you do on 
that land. These provisions are sweeping and will create uncertainty in 
communities all across the country.
  There is plenty that I have already outlined in the waters of the 
United States rule that is bad for agriculture, with the many methods 
it provides for federalizing previously State-controlled water. The 
States have made these decisions in the past. Now we are

[[Page S7688]]

adding another level of government bureaucracy.
  This rule is bad for agriculture, for those people who produce our 
food. Farmers, ranchers, and others are used to working with their 
States to protect their land and water under their own stewardship.
  We heard from the Senator from California about groups opposing this, 
but 480 different groups support this bill, and they are major national 
groups: the American Farm Bureau, the Agricultural Retailers 
Association, the American Soybean Association, the American Sugar 
Alliance, the Milk Producers Council, the National Association of Wheat 
Growers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National 
Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the National 
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Pork Producers Council, 
the National Turkey Federation, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, 
the United Egg Producers, the USA Rice Federation. I could go on and 
on. These are the food producers of America. They support the 
legislation in front of the Senate today.
  The point is, not one State, not a single State in this country is 
out there that doesn't have a strong agriculture presence. We all do. 
So I urge all Senators to make sure, as they prepare to vote on this 
motion to proceed, that they check with their folks at home.
  I would also note that many industries outside of agriculture are 
concerned with the rule as well. These include manufacturers, 
homebuilders, small businesses--you name it. They are all very 
concerned with this rule, and they want Congress to act now.
  Action could mean Congress can pass a Congressional Review Act 
resolution, which will be considered possibly later in the process, but 
that would eliminate the WOTUS rule and prevent a substantially similar 
rule from being proposed. That would allow for a new rule as long as it 
was not substantially similar to the existing rule. We need to vote on 
this resolution.
  I believe S. 1140 is a better route, the one we have here today. This 
is a bipartisan compromise. This is the bill that has a number of 
Senators from the Democratic side of the aisle cosponsoring the 
legislation. Most importantly, this piece of legislation on the floor 
today allows for Congress to establish the principles--Congress to 
establish the principles--of what the new EPA would look like.
  I know a number of Democrats have ideas to improve the legislation 
that is on the floor today specific for their own States. If my 
colleagues vote to proceed to the motion to proceed at 2:30 this 
afternoon, we will have an open amendment process that would allow 
Members to improve S. 1140 in a bipartisan way. We are willing to work 
with anyone who wants to improve this rule in a bipartisan way. But 
let's not sit on the sidelines anymore.
  Rather than support an EPA final rule that actually makes it worse 
and was worse than the proposed rule--a rule that will likely not 
survive legal scrutiny based on what we saw from the courts, a rule 
that doesn't represent the interests of our farmers, ranchers, 
families, small businesses, and communities--let's move forward with 
the bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act to ensure the 
public that we hear and we understand their concerns.
  At the same time, let's give EPA and the Army Corps the certainty 
they need to confidently move forward with a new rule--a rule that 
truly reflects the needs of the constituents we represent. Let's 
protect our Nation's waterways for the long term.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Mr. President, the famous Republican Senator from 
Rhode Island John Chafee, who was one of the authors of the Clean Water 
Act, would be sorry to see what has become of his party today and what 
is being done to the Clean Water Act that so many Republicans worked so 
hard on for over so many years. The pretense is that some evil 
bureaucratic force at the EPA has leapt out to take over American 
farmers and ranchers. That is not what has happened.
  The Supreme Court made decisions about what the Clean Water Act says, 
defining the navigable waters of the United States, and the EPA had to 
follow the Supreme Court's guidance, which they did. I believe they 
have been faithful to that Supreme Court guidance. They went through 
more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications. They did 400 
public meetings. They had over 1 million comments on the proposed rule. 
Guess what. The vast majority of those comments were in support of the 
rule.
  What we have here is not some DC bureaucratic evil presence against 
ranchers and farmers across the country. What we have here is a fight 
between upstream and downstream.
  As Senator Barrasso very plainly said a moment ago, the big players 
in this are the big special interests in agriculture, the big pork 
producers with their ginormous manure lagoons, and the big commercial 
AG conglomerates. If you want to be with them fine, but let's not 
pretend this is about protecting little ranchers and farmers.
  This is about upstream versus downstream. I come from Rhode Island. I 
am from a downstream State. I have to say that if I were in big 
agriculture and I saw this rule, instead of coming in here and whining 
and complaining and yanking people's chains in order to get changes 
made, I would grab this rule and run like a bank robber because this 
bill does so much for upstream agriculture at the expense of downstream 
fishermen, downstream aquaculture, and the downstream health of our 
rivers and bays. All agricultural exemptions and exclusions from Clean 
Water Act requirements that have existed for nearly 40 years have been 
retained. We have learned a little bit since then about what goes on.
  One place I recently went to was Ohio. I spent the weekend in Ohio 
doing one of my climate tours of the difficult States of the Union. In 
Ohio, I went to Port Clinton on Lake Erie. I was taken by the folks 
from Stone Laboratory and from some of the leading charter captains in 
this area off to the Bass Islands just offshore. They told me about the 
algal bloom that took place in the Toledo area. Technically, this was 
not an algal bloom. Technically, it was cyanotic bacteria; it was a 
bacterial bloom. It was so thick that the fishing captains described 
how their boats slowed down in the muck. It was like running a 
powerboat through pudding.
  Toledo had to stop providing freshwater to its citizens and spent 
millions of dollars having to import freshwater and provide bottled 
water. Lake Erie is 2 percent of the water of all the Great Lakes with 
50 percent of the fish. Two percent of the water and 50 percent of the 
fish in the Great Lakes are in Lake Erie. It has a robust fishing 
economy for walleyes and perch. The folks who go out and make this 
their livelihood don't think it is very funny because this whole 
watershed feeds down into Lake Erie.
  Because of climate change, phosphorous has driven rain bursts. The 
rains have powered up in this area. So the phosphorous is washing off 
the farmers' fields and is coming down, and that is what is creating 
the cyanotic bacterial bloom in Lake Erie.
  This upstream stuff makes a big difference to people who are 
downstream. Wyoming doesn't have a lot of downstream. Wyoming is a 
landlocked State, so I appreciate why the Senator is so enthusiastic 
about this. But for those of us who are downstream, this is a rule 
that, frankly, is too weak. The fact that we have to stand here and 
fight it from getting even weaker--from putting our rivers and our bays 
at even more risk--is very unfortunate. It is not just phosphorous. 
Phosphorous is what happens to drive the bacteria growth in Lake Erie. 
It is insecticides, it is nitrogen, and they are doing immense damage 
in our waterways.
  I will conclude where I began. If you are Big Agriculture and this is 
your special interest bill, you ought to run for it. Don't waste your 
time on this. Grab this existing Clean Water Act bill, and go for it 
like a bank robber with his money because you got away with being able 
to continue to do immense damage to downstream resources without any 
regulation at all. To now be here complaining--it is really amazing to 
those of us who are representing downstream States, downstream 
interests, downstream fisheries, downstream bays, and all the catchment 
areas such as Lake Erie that get clobbered as a result of pollutants 
that flow into our waters.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S7689]]

  

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in support 
of the clean water rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency 
and the Army Corps of Engineers and in opposition to efforts to derail 
this critical rule.
  Clean water is the lifeblood of our society and the basic foundation 
of good public health. Our rivers, streams, and wetlands connect 
communities near and far through a common resource. For decades, the 
Clean Water Act has protected our waters from pollution so that 
Americans can rely on safe drinking water, can enjoy outdoor 
recreation, and can live in an environment that supports wildlife and a 
healthy ecosystem.
  However, for the last 15 years uncertainty has muddied the Clean 
Water Act. The lack of clarity for which bodies of water are federally 
regulated has led the Army Corps of Engineers to a backlog of 18,000 
requests from landowners seeking help in complying with the Clean Water 
Act. The new clean water rule resolves this uncertainty for our local 
governments, our businesses, and our farmers by clarifying which waters 
should be protected so that all Americans can rely on clean water. The 
rule restores historic coverage of the Clean Water Act for streams and 
wetlands that provide drinking water for one-third of Americans.
  As one who has experienced the many benefits of the Chesapeake Bay my 
whole life, I know just how important it is to preserve and protect the 
world around us for future generations. The clean water rule would 
restore protections for more than half of Maryland's streams and many 
of its wetlands. Clean water means healthy families, healthy marine 
life to support Maryland watermen, and a healthy environment. The clean 
water rule is crucial to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and to 
countless other bodies of water in the United States. Let's stand up 
for our Nation's clean water and reject these attempts to derail the 
clean water rule.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join many of my colleagues in 
opposing S. 1140 and S.J. Res. 22.
  These measures would block or nullify the clean water rule, which 
seeks to safeguard our water and restore protections to drinking water 
sources for one in three Americans, according to the EPA, under the 
authority of the Clean Water Act.
  The clean water rule helps to clarify ambiguities stemming from the 
2001 and 2006 Supreme Court decisions that made the scope of the Clean 
Water Act uncertain.
  This lack of protection has taken its toll, especially for wetlands 
and intermittent and headwater streams, slowing permitting decisions 
for responsible development, and reducing protections for drinking 
water supplies and critical habitat.
  According to the National Parks Conservation Association, over 117 
million Americans, including many visitors to national parks, get their 
drinking water from surface waters.
  This includes many Rhode Islanders who get their drinking water from 
sources that rely on small streams that are protected by the clean 
water rule.
  If Congress blocks the clean water rule, Rhode Island's streams and 
millions of acres of wetlands nationwide will again be at risk from 
pollution and degradation or destruction from development, oil and gas 
production, and other industrial activities.
  Blocking this rule would potentially imperil drinking water sources, 
as well as the small businesses and communities that rely on clean 
water.
  Thousands of acres of wetlands that provide flood protection, 
recharge groundwater supplies, filter pollution, and provide essential 
wildlife habitat are safeguarded under the clean water rule, including 
many of Rhode Island's streams, wetlands, waterways, and the bay.
  Additionally, the clean water rule seeks to protect small streams and 
wetlands that support fish, wildlife, and recreational areas.
  We depend on clean water to drink, and our economy depends on clean 
water from manufacturing to farming to tourism to recreation to energy 
production and more to function and flourish.
  We must make clean water a priority throughout the nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the clean water rule and vote ``no'' 
on both S. 1140 and S.J. Res. 22.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of bipartisan 
legislation to fix intrusive regulation that will hurt job growth and 
that threatens to place a large share of our Nation's farmers, 
ranchers, and small businesses in the regulatory grip of the EPA. This 
burdensome regulation is the EPA and Army Corps' final rule on the 
waters of the United States. The bill to fix it is called the Federal 
Water Quality Protection Act. That is the bill we are seeking to 
proceed to today so that we can debate it, amend it, and pass it to 
deal with this onerous regulation.
  The burdensome regulation we are talking about, of course, is the EPA 
and Army Corps' final rule on waters of the United States. The Federal 
Water Quality Protection Act is legislation to address it. It was 
authored by my good friend from Wyoming Senator Barrasso, and I 
cosponsored this legislation, along with many others on our side of the 
aisle. This is also a bipartisan bill with our colleagues from across 
the aisle as well. This is bipartisan legislation. It has had 
bipartisan input, and I encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to 
proceed to this legislation. Let's have this very important debate on 
behalf of our farmers, ranchers, and so many other job creators across 
this country. As I say, let's offer amendments and have our votes, but 
we need to deal with this very important legislation for the benefit of 
the American people.
  This waters of the United States final rule greatly expands the scope 
of the Clean Water Act regulation over America's streams and wetlands. 
It is a real power grab by the EPA, and it exceeds the statutory 
authority of the EPA. The Supreme Court has found that Federal 
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends the ``navigable 
waters.'' I don't think anyone is arguing about the EPA's ability to 
regulate navigable bodies of water like the Missouri River, in my 
State, but the Supreme Court has also made clear that not all bodies of 
water are under the EPA's jurisdiction. Yet, under the administration's 
final rule, all water located within 4,000 feet of any other water, or 
within the 100-year flood plain, is considered a water of the United 
States as long as the EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers decides it has 
a ``significant nexus'' to that navigable water in the opinion of 
either the Corps or the EPA.
  These agencies define significant nexus so that almost any body of 
water qualifies. For instance, if an area can hold rainwater or has 
water that can seep into ground water, which is almost any water 
anywhere, then there is significant nexus, according the EPA or the 
Army Corps of Engineers, not to mention the fact that areas like the 
Prairie Pothole region in my State of North Dakota are specifically 
targeted as waters of the United States. The result is that the vast 
majority of the Nation's water features are located within 4,000 feet 
of a covered body of water.
  If this expansive rule sounds out of bounds to you, you are not 
alone. In fact, the waters of the United States rule is such an 
overreach by the EPA and the Corps that 31 States are suing to overturn 
it, including my State of North Dakota, which has led a lawsuit brought 
by 13 of those 31 States.
  When granting a preliminary injunction against this rule, the North 
Dakota Federal District Court stated that ``the rule allows EPA 
regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the `chemical, 
physical and biological integrity' of any navigable-in-fact water.'' It 
went further to state that ``the rule asserts jurisdiction over waters 
that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to 
how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to navigable-
in-fact water.''
  Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit Court in Cincinnati, OH, issued a 
nationwide stay of the rule, citing that the EPA and the Corps did not 
identify ``specific scientific support substantiating the 
reasonableness of the bright-line standards they ultimately chose.''
  This waters of the United States rule is clearly flawed from a legal 
perspective, but I think it is even more important to take a look at 
how this rule, if allowed to be implemented, will affect

[[Page S7690]]

hard-working Americans with excessive regulation.
  For those of you who haven't had the opportunity to visit with a 
farmer from my State of North Dakota, know that dealing with excess 
water is a common issue, a daily issue, to say the least. Those farmers 
can tell you that if there is water in a ditch or a field one week, it 
doesn't mean there will be water there the next week. It certainly 
doesn't make that water worthy of being treated the same as a river.
  A field with a low spot that has standing water during a rainy week 
and happens to be located near a ditch does not warrant Clean Water Act 
regulation from a legal or, more importantly, from a simple commonsense 
standpoint.
  The Corps and EPA have responded to these concerns by saying they are 
exempting dozens of conservation practices, but these exemptions cover 
farmers and ranchers only for changes made before 1977 or for changes 
that don't disturb any water or land now considered to be a water of 
the United States. In other words, if you need a new Clean Water Act 
permit, you are not going to qualify for the EPA's exemption under this 
rule. Moreover, the exemption does not cover all Clean Water Act 
permits.
  Because of this rule, the farmer with the low spot in the field next 
to a ditch, described above, may now be sued under the Clean Water 
Act's Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This 
farmer now faces the risk of litigation costs for the United States of 
everyday weed control and fertilizer applicants, among other essential 
farming activities.
  Farmers and ranchers are far from the only job creators who will 
suffer under this rule. In fact, the Small Business Administration 
Office of Advocacy has expressed concern about the impact it will have 
on other small businesses as well.
  I am so concerned about this rule that I have led the effort on our 
Appropriations Committee to stop the rule in its tracks. We were 
successful in including language in the committee-passed Interior-EPA 
Appropriations bill to do just that. The Federal Water Quality 
Protection Act, however, offers a long-term solution by vacating the 
waters of the United States rule and sending the EPA and the Corps back 
to the drawing board to develop a new rule with instructions to consult 
with States, local governments, and small businesses.
  America's farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs go to work every day 
to build a stronger nation. Thanks to these hard-working men and women, 
we live in a country where there is affordable food at the grocery 
store and where a dynamic private sector offers Americans the 
opportunity to achieve a brighter future. The Federal Government should 
be doing all it can to empower those who grow our food and create jobs. 
Yet, instead, regulators are stifling growth with burdensome 
regulations that generate cost and uncertainty. The final rule on the 
waters of the United States produced by the EPA and the Corps to 
regulate virtually every body of water--pretty much water anywhere in 
the United States--is not the way to go. Let's stop this regulation. 
Please join me in voting to proceed to the Federal Water Quality 
Protection Act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to talk about the 
waters of the United States rule and the legislation pending before us, 
S. 1140. I hope we can proceed to the bill. This is an important issue. 
Obviously, the definition of the waters of the United States sets the 
rules of the game of who is covered under the Clean Water Act. As has 
been stated, several Supreme Court decisions over the past decade and a 
half have created a lot of uncertainty for landowners and those who 
work the land who aren't sure whether they will be regulated. Regulated 
entities need a rule that is consistent and that has some 
predictability. That is not what we are getting with this rule.
  The rule issued on June 29 defines jurisdiction very broadly, as we 
heard, especially when it comes to streams that don't flow year round, 
intermittent, ephemeral streams, of which Arizona has many. Several 
scientists who have been involved in the rulemaking process have told 
my staff that there is a disagreement between what the science says and 
what this rule says. Science says that some streams are strongly 
connected and others are not. There is a so-called spectrum of 
connectivity, but this rule assumes they are all strongly connected.
  Let me show a picture of a stream. This is Dan Bell, a rancher in 
southern Arizona, near the border of Santa Cruz County, standing on a 
streambed or a dry wash or arroyo that will likely be covered under 
this rule. Like Dan, I grew up on a ranch in northern Arizona. My whole 
life I have ridden through a 7-mile draw, a 9-mile wash. The topography 
of the land was named for some of these dry washes, but they only had 
water after a good rain which lasted a few minutes and that was it. 
Those will likely, under the definition of this new rule, be defined as 
waters of the United States.
  If you can imagine what ranchers and other agricultural users are 
feeling right now, thinking that the Federal Government, in regulating 
what goes on with these streambeds or these dry washes, is going to 
step in on other State regulations that already exist.
  On August 27, a Federal district court judge blocked the 
implementation in 13 States, including Arizona, saying that ``it 
appears likely that the EPA has violated its congressional grant of 
authority in its promulgation of the rule at issue.'' As we know, on 
October 9 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the rule 
nationwide. There is not consensus, obviously, on what this rule does 
or does not do.
  In internal memos, the Army Corps of Engineers assistant chief 
counsel of environmental and regulatory programs highlighted a number 
of ``serious areas of concern'' with the rule, including the 
``assertion of jurisdiction over every stream bed,'' which would have 
``the effect of asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over many 
thousands of miles of dry washes and arroyos in the desert southwest.''
  When you hear people stand and say that it will not affect dry 
washes, that is not what the rule says. We need clarification. We need 
to pass this legislation. We need to actually invoke cloture so we can 
debate it and ultimately pass it. This is a bipartisan measure that 
will address this issue and will ultimately provide a new rule that has 
the consistency and uniformity that those who work the land really 
need. Arizona will benefit from it, and the entire country will benefit 
from it.
  With that, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Americans have had a tough time during the 
Obama administration with a sluggish economic recovery that is barely 
worthy of the name, stagnant wages for middle-class families, a health 
care law that ripped away millions of Americans' preferred health care 
plans, and burdensome regulations that have made it more challenging 
for businesses, large and small, to grow and create jobs.
  One Agency has done more than its fair share to make things difficult 
for Americans, and that is the Obama EPA. During the course of the 
Obama administration, this Agency has implemented one damaging rule 
after another--from a massive national backdoor energy tax that 
threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs to unrealistic new ozone 
standards that have the potential to devastate State economies. Reputed 
rebukes from various Federal courts have done little to check the EPA's 
enthusiasm for crippling, job-destroying regulations.
  This week, the Senate is taking up legislation introduced by my 
colleague from Wyoming Senator Barrasso to address one of the EPA's 
biggest overreaches--the so-called waters of the United States 
regulation. The EPA has long had authority under the Clean Water Act to 
regulate ``navigable waters,'' such as rivers, lakes, and major 
waterways. The inclusion of the term ``navigable'' in the Clean Water 
Act was deliberate. It was deliberate. The reason it was put there is 
because Congress intended to put limits--real limits--on the Federal 
Government's authority to regulate water and to leave the regulation of 
smaller bodies of water to the States. Defining the waters to be 
regulated as navigable

[[Page S7691]]

waters ensured that the Federal Government's authority would be limited 
to bodies of water of substantial size and would not infringe on minor 
bodies of water on private land, but over the last few years it became 
clear the EPA was eager to expand its reach.
  The waters of the United States regulation, which the EPA finalized 
this year, expands the EPA's regulatory authority to waters such as 
small wetlands, creeks, stock ponds, and ditches--bodies of water that 
certainly don't fit the definition of ``navigable.'' It specifically 
targets the prairie pothole region, which covers five States, including 
nearly all of eastern South Dakota.
  If we look at this chart, this is something that is a very normal 
landscape in South Dakota. It is a field that one would see in South 
Dakota, and of course when it gets some rain, some of the low-lying 
areas get a little water in them, but this is basically a puddle. If we 
look at what the regulation would do to the way in which farmers and 
ranchers manage and are able to use their lands for production 
agriculture, it has some profound impacts.
  We are not talking about lakes and rivers. We are talking about 
small, isolated ponds that ranchers use to water their cattle or 
prairie potholes that are dry for most of the year but do collect some 
water after heavy rains and snows along the lines of what we see in 
this photo. Under this regulation, even dry creekbeds could be subject 
to the EPA's regulatory authority. That is how far-reaching this 
regulation is.
  Let me talk about that authority for just a minute. When we talk 
about a body of water coming under the EPA's regulatory authority, we 
are not talking about having to follow a couple of basic rules and 
regulations. Waters that come under the EPA's jurisdiction under the 
Clean Water Act are subject to a complex array of expensive and 
burdensome regulatory requirements, including permitting and reporting 
requirements, enforcement, mitigation, and citizen suits. Fines for 
failing to comply with any of these requirements and regulations, such 
as the one that is now being filed by the EPA, can accumulate at the 
rate of $37,500 per day.
  Under the EPA's new waters of the United States rule, creeks and 
ditches would be subject to this complex array of regulations. The 
irrigation ditches in a farmer's cornfield, for example--ditches where 
the water level rarely exceeds a couple of inches--would be subject to 
extensive regulatory requirements, including costly permits and time-
consuming reports. Needless to say, these kinds of requirements will 
hit farmers and ranchers hard. Agriculture is a time-sensitive 
business, and these types of requirements would strain a farmer's 
ability to fertilize, plant, and irrigate their crops when the seasons 
and weather conditions dictate.
  Farmers can't afford to wait for a Federal permit before carrying out 
basic land and resource management decisions. I have received numerous 
letters from South Dakota farmers and ranchers, as well as local 
governments, expressing their concern with the EPA's new rule. One 
constituent writes:

       We live in Deuel County, South Dakota, where we raise 
     cattle and plant wheat, alfalfa, corn, and soybeans. . . . 
     Our land consists of rolling hills and many shallow low 
     spots. . . . According to the new rules, our entire farm 
     would be under the jurisdiction of the EPA. . . .

  That same constituent goes on to say:

       Mandatory laws by the EPA are just wrong and are often 
     written and enforced by someone who has never lived or worked 
     on a farm and doesn't understand how the forces of nature 
     cannot be dictated. The weather is often extreme, and we must 
     work with it. . . . Under this rule, it will be more 
     difficult to farm and ranch, or make changes to the land even 
     if those changes would benefit the environment.

  That is from a constituent from my State of South Dakota.
  Another constituent, also from my home State, said:

       [O]ur business is going to be put into acute peril if the 
     EPA is not stopped. . . . By removing the word ``navigable'' 
     from the Clean Water Act, they will be in control of EVERY 
     drop of water in the United States, which is disastrous for 
     those of us engaged in farming and ranching.

  This is from the Pennington County Board of Commissioners in South 
Dakota. Pennington County is the second largest county and home to our 
second largest city, Rapid City. They wrote:

       In addition to tourism, agriculture is a critical piece of 
     our local economy. . . . This proposal would cause 
     significant hardships to local farmers and ranchers by taking 
     away local control of the land uses. The costs to the local 
     agricultural community would be enormous. This would lead to 
     food and cattle prices increasing significantly.

  The board also warned:

       If stormwater costs significantly increased due to this 
     proposed rule, not only will it impact our ability to focus 
     our available resources on real, priority water quality 
     issues, but it may also require funds to be diverted from 
     other government services that we are required to provide 
     such as law enforcement, fire protection services, etc.

  I have received letter after letter like these from farmers, 
ranchers, business owners, and local governments across my State, and 
they are not alone. Concern is high across all of the United States. 
That is why 31 States have filed lawsuits against the EPA's 
regulations, as have a number of industry groups. The courts have 
already granted them some temporary relief. Last month, the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals expanded an earlier injunction and blocked 
implementation of the EPA's rule in all 50 States, but a final decision 
of the courts could be years away.
  To protect Americans affected by this rule from years of litigation 
and uncertainty, this week the Senate is taking up the Federal Water 
Quality Protection Act, introduced by Senator Barrasso, which would 
require the EPA to return to the drawing board and write a new waters 
of the United States rule in consultation with States, local 
governments, agricultural producers, and small businesses. It seems 
only fitting that you actually ought to consult with the people who are 
impacted by this. If that had happened, maybe there wouldn't be 31 
States that have already filed lawsuits against the Federal Government, 
and maybe we wouldn't have all of these local governments, agricultural 
producers, small businesses, homeowners, and developers that are 
mortified about the impact this will have on them.
  In my time in Washington, I have never seen an issue that has so 
galvanized opposition all across the country. Sometimes there might be 
an issue that might affect a specific area or industry sector in our 
economy, such as agriculture. We talk a lot about those issues in my 
State because this is our No. 1 industry, but there is rarely an issue 
which generates opposition from so many sectors of our economy. That is 
how far-reaching this regulation is. Arguably, this is the largest 
Federal land grab in our Nation's history.
  What the legislation also does is explicitly prohibits the EPA from 
counting things like ditches, isolated ponds, and storm water as 
navigable waters that it can regulate under the Clean Water Act. It 
takes away these things we are talking about--the stock ponds, ditches, 
and frankly the puddles--from areas that the EPA can assert its 
jurisdiction in and regulate.
  Everybody agrees on the importance of clean water. Farmers in my 
State depend on it, and the legislation we are considering today will 
ensure that the EPA retains the authority to make sure our lakes and 
rivers are clean and pollutant-free. Members of both parties should be 
able to agree that allowing the EPA to regulate what frequently amounts 
to seasonal puddles is taking things a step too far. The cost of this 
rule will be steep, and its burdens will be significant, impacting 
those who have an inherent interest in properly managing their water to 
protect their livelihoods and health.

  Back in March, a bipartisan group of 59 Senators voted to limit the 
EPA's waters of the United States power grab, and 3 Democratic Senators 
are cosponsors of the legislation before us today. It is my hope that 
more will join us to protect farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and 
homeowners from the consequences of the EPA's dangerous new rule.
  Americans have suffered enough under the Obama EPA. It is time to 
start reining in this out-of-control bureaucracy. I hope we will have a 
big bipartisan vote today in support of the legislation before the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, whether you are a farmer or a small

[[Page S7692]]

business owner, a Republican, a Democrat or someone who works at the 
EPA, we all want clean water. If we are going to ensure that our clean 
water protections are effective, we need to work together and we need 
to use the feedback from the people who work with the land every single 
day. Unfortunately, the EPA's waters of the United States rule was 
written without sufficient collaboration with some of the people who 
care about this rule the most--our farmers, our small business owners, 
our cities and States. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit has blocked the implementation of the waters of the 
United States rule, known as WOTUS, nationwide.
  This ruling was in line with the concerns we have raised all along. 
When you write a rule without significant input from all of those 
impacted, including our farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and 
local governments, legal challenges are inevitable. Instead of further 
lengthy and costly court battles, Congress should act to clarify the 
coverage of the Clean Water Act or the courts will do that job instead 
of us. It is time to roll up our sleeves and provide to our ag 
producers, conservationists, and county and local governments the 
regulatory certainty they need to continue efforts to improve water 
quality.
  That is why I was proud to help author and introduce the Federal 
Water Quality Protection Act with a bipartisan group of Senators, 
including Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, Senator 
Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from North Dakota, and Senate Majority 
Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky.
  Most Hoosiers believe we can get more accomplished when we work 
together, and I have worked across the aisle on what I believe is a 
very responsible solution. I hope today we will continue this debate. 
It will be difficult, but we have the ability to get this right. If 
Congress fails to act, our ag community will be faced with continued 
confusion and uncertainty, and we will not have strengthened our 
efforts to protect the waters of this country.
  The WOTUS rule is a perfect example of the disconnect between 
Washington and the Hoosier ag community, farmers and ranchers around 
our country, small businesses, and our families. No one wants cleaner 
water or healthier land more than the families who live on those farms 
and who work on our farms every single day right next to those waters--
the same waters their children play and swim in and with which they 
work every day. That is why countless Hoosier farmers are frustrated 
that Washington bureaucrats are calling the shots rather than working 
together with our ag community and our families to develop sensible 
environmental protection. This can be done if it is done the right way.
  In Indiana we are already leading in many agricultural conservation 
and environmental protection efforts. We have more farmers than ever 
before doing things such as planting cover crops and using no-till 
farming techniques that keep soil in the fields and keep the inputs in 
the fields. We are leading the Nation in cover crop efforts. It is 
voluntary, and it is part of a program to make sure our waters--our 
rivers and streams--are cleaner. This is being done by people, not by 
bureaucrats.
  Let's have some faith and confidence in the people of this country 
and in the wisdom of our ag community in Indiana and in every other 
State. If we work with our friends and our neighbors, we can do even 
more to improve water quality.
  Listen to farmers such as Mike Shuter and Mark Legan. Mike is an 
Indiana Corn Growers Association member from Frankton, IN, who won the 
National Corn Growers Association Good Steward Award this year for 
sustainable corn farming practices. Mike said:

       I want clean drinking water for my wife, kids, and 
     grandkids. We work hard to reduce the amount of pesticides, 
     insecticides, and fertilizer on our farm. The EPA is going 
     too far by attempting to unilaterally claim jurisdiction over 
     my farmland.

  Mark Legan is a farmer who received the American Soybean 
Association's Conservation Legacy Award in 2013. Here is what he had to 
say:

       Farmers have been good stewards of the land for 
     generations. We have found ways to produce more while using 
     less pesticides and fertilizers. Waters of the U.S. gives the 
     EPA one-sided jurisdiction over our ditches and fields, makes 
     it more difficult to grow crops, and makes it harder to feed 
     the world.

  After hearing these frustrations from Hoosier ag producers and from 
local and county governments about this rule, and because I am the 
hired help not only for Indiana but for our country, we wrote the 
Federal Water Quality Protection Act. The intention is to strike a 
reasonable, bipartisan compromise--what a unique concept. It is the 
concept that our country has been built on. The legislation is simple: 
Focus on common science principles to shape a final rule and to require 
straightforward procedures that the EPA skipped the first time. These 
are steps the EPA should have done in the first place, such as 
reviewing economic and small business impacts.
  The bill is not designed to destroy or delay the rule. In fact, our 
bill asks the EPA to complete its rule by December 31 of next year. 
There is no long hide-the-ball game being played here. We want to have 
this done by the end of next year.
  The legislation includes explicit protections for waters that almost 
everyone agrees should be covered. If a body of water impacts the 
quality of the Wabash or Kankakee Rivers, the Great Lakes or anything 
similar, our bill protects those waters. It protects commonsense 
exemptions for isolated ponds and agricultural or roadside ditches--
most of which the EPA has indicated they never intended to cover.
  We require consultation with stakeholders such as States and the ag 
community, including soil and water conservation districts. Giving the 
EPA principles, procedure, and a clear deadline this bipartisan effort 
is meant to be constructive.
  I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to allow us to 
consider the bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act. It is our 
obligation to debate this important issue. I am confident a bipartisan 
majority of my Senate colleagues will support this commonsense 
bipartisan bill.
  This much I promise: I will continue to push Congress to pass a 
permanent solution. We will never stop advocating on behalf of 
Indiana's farmers and families, ranchers and small businesses, and 
those of the entire country.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all I want to thank my 
colleague, who has been working so hard on this. It affects Indiana, 
West Virginia, and every State in the Union. I hope people realize what 
is going on. This isn't a partisan issue. This is definitely a 
bipartisan issue, and it affects everybody in our State.
  I want to thank Senator Markey for allowing me to speak for a few 
minutes. I have a funeral in Arlington to attend for one of our dear 
soldiers.
  I have spoken on the Senate floor many times before about the burdens 
the EPA has continued to impose on hard-working families and hard-
working people in West Virginia. Today, however, I am not speaking 
about the mining jobs I have spoken about so much. I am speaking about 
everyday West Virginians. If you have any property whatsoever, if you 
have a small business or a large business, if you come from any walk of 
life, if you are in agriculture or are a small farmer or are in large 
agriculture, this affects you. This allows the overreach of the 
government, as we have talked about so many times.
  If you are a government agency, if you are a city, a small town, if 
you are a county, any decisions you make will be affected or could be 
affected. If imposed, the agency's waters of the United States rule, 
known as WOTUS, would have a harmful impact all over this great 
country. Again, the WOTUS rule will not just impact certain industries; 
it impacts everybody. The EPA wrote these rules without consulting some 
of the people who care about clean water the most--everyday West 
Virginians and Americans all across this great country. The WOTUS rule 
would impose heavy financial penalties on all of us, including our 
small business owners, farmers, manufacturers, and property owners.
  If you have ever seen the terrain of West Virginia, we are the most 
mountainous State east of the Mississippi.

[[Page S7693]]

There is very little flat land whatsoever. So anything can be affected 
and everybody will be affected. Whether you build a home, have a small 
business or are a little city or community, you are going to be 
affected. If they can show on an aerial map that there used to be a 
river or stream of any kind, that comes under their jurisdiction. If 
anyone thinks differently--that it is not going to happen--this is 
exactly what is going to happen. That is why all of these small towns 
and the counties in rural America are totally opposed to this.
  There is nobody I know of who doesn't want clean drinking water. With 
that, we are not saying that the Federal Government shouldn't have 
oversight on all of our waters that are for drinking, are navigable 
and/or recreational. In fact, I live on the water, so I know what it is 
to have the clean waters in our streams and rivers. This is not what we 
are talking about.
  As my good friend from Indiana and my good friend from North Dakota 
are going to be talking about, this affects everybody. It affects every 
puddle, ditch, and every runoff--you name it; it affects it--and that 
means it affects all of our lives. They are going to say: Don't worry. 
We are not going to do all that. We are going to exempt it.
  We have heard that one before--until it is something they don't like, 
until basically it gives them a chance to shut down something. I have 
farmers who are concerned about basically the crops they grow, the 
wildlife, the poultry and the livestock they have to care for. All of 
this could be affected. We fought this before.
  The Supreme Court instruction is to clarify the Clean Water Act 
jurisdiction over bodies of water in use. This proposal goes too far. 
In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled that not all bodies of 
water fall under the Clean Water Act regulations. So why are they 
expanding it? If they have already ruled on it, why are they expanding 
these rules? Why do they believe they can grab this?
  They claim they were not required to consult with local governments 
under the federalism Executive order, arguing the rule did not impact 
them. The EPA claims that even though it did not comply with the 
Executive order, it still reached out to local governments. That is not 
true. That is not true in West Virginia. I can tell you that.
  The EPA claims it addressed the concerns of local governments by 
providing exemptions for public safety ditches and storm water control 
systems. That is not true either. So that being said, I can only tell 
you what my citizens, my communities, business owners, and local 
governments are being affected by and why they are concerned.
  The bottom line is it is completely unreasonable that our country's 
ditches, puddles, and otherwise unnavigable waters be subjected to the 
same regulations of our greatest lakes and rivers. On that we all 
agree.
  The WOTUS rule exempts ditches only if the local government can prove 
that no part of the entire length of a ditch is located in an area 
where there used to be a stream. The WOTUS rule exempts storm water 
management systems only if they were built on dry land. The WOTUS rule 
says EPA can rely on historical maps and historical aerial photographs 
to determine where the streams used to be--not where they are now.
  These provisions of the WOTUS rules should strike terror in the heart 
of every mayor, county commissioner, and manager of a city that was 
founded before the last century. This is how asinine this is. It is 
unbelievable that with a sweep of the pen, the EPA is trying to take us 
back to the days of Lewis and Clark. According to a memo written in 
April, not even the Corps of Engineers knows how it will determine 
which ditches are exempt and which are former streams. This is our own 
government.
  Morgantown, WV, was founded in 1785. Wheeling, WV, was established in 
1795. To go back in time to determine where streams used to be would be 
near impossible. I don't want West Virginia cities to have to worry 
about the status of their municipal infrastructure.
  There is no question that with the additional permitting and 
regulatory requirements, the implementation of this rule will place a 
significant burden on West Virginia's economy, which is already hurting 
very badly. That includes businesses, manufacturing, housing, and 
energy production. Many in my home State are already struggling to make 
ends meet. We are one of the highest unemployment States, have been hit 
harder than any other State. We are fighting like the dickens. We will 
continue to fight and persevere.
  The new financial and regulatory burdens will set people up for 
failure in an already unstable economic climate which in large part is 
caused by harmful regulations the EPA and the administration have 
established. We all want to drink clean water and breathe clean air, 
but we can achieve this without regulating hard-working Americans out 
of business.
  This rule represents broad overreach that has the force of law 
without congressional approval. I would say you cannot regulate what 
has not been legislated. Why are we here? Why are we elected to 
represent the people when we cannot even do it, when we have to fight 
our own government to do the job we have been charged with doing?
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to proceed to S. 1140.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, Boston's sports teams have had their share 
of great moments. After a win, you can hear the crowd celebrating by 
singing a song by the Standells that goes like this:

     Yeah, down by the river,
     Down by the banks of the river Charles.
     Well I love that dirty water,
     Oh, Boston, you're my home.

  While dirty water signals a win for a Boston team when that is sung, 
the real victory has been beating the pollution in the Charles River 
and Boston Harbor since the passage of the Clean Water Act. That 
victory is thanks to the implementation of that law, which protects 
sources of our drinking water from pollution and restores dirty waters 
back to health.
  We need to keep the Clean Water Act's winning streak alive. 
Unfortunately, the bill the Senate may consider today could end the 
record of wins for the Clean Water Act. Its history of success has made 
the Clean Water Act one of the greatest American success stories. 
Before the Clean Water Act, there was no Federal authority to limit 
dumping, set national water quality standards, or enforce pollution 
rules. City and household waste flowed untreated into rivers and 
harmful chemicals were poured into wetlands and streams from factories 
and powerplants. Back then, we were all on the honor system. Water 
supplies were managed by a patchwork of State laws and an appeal to the 
common good. The result: mass pollution on a historic scale, oozing 
rivers so toxic that they could ignite into flames, fish dead by the 
thousands. America's riversides became a theater of public hazards and 
chemical death.
  In short, before the Clean Water Act and the Federal involvement that 
was necessary, America's waterways were its sewers. Then, in 1969, a 
public firestorm was touched off by a Time magazine photo of the 
Cuyahoga River on fire in Ohio. With full-throated support from the 
public, Congress mobilized and produced the Clean Water Act, one of the 
most important pieces of environmental law in the history of the United 
States. The ultimate goal of the Clean Water Act--making waterways safe 
for the public and wildlife--was so popular that in 1972 a bipartisan 
Congress overrode a veto by Richard Nixon.
  The successes and the benefits yielded by the pursuit of the goal of 
clean waterways would prove tremendous in the years ahead.
  The Clean Water Act guards the Nation's natural sources of drinking 
water by guiding how we use them. It protects the wetlands, the 
streams, and other surface waters that ultimately provide us with 
drinking water.
  The Clean Water Act has slowed the loss of wetlands, known as the 
``kidneys of the landscape'' because of their ability to remove 
pollution from the water. They do this for free, making wetlands the 
most fiscally responsible water system in the world. The only 
alternative to this free service is to put our waters on dialysis by 
constructing filtration plants for billions of dollars in long-term 
maintenance and building costs. Our wetlands support the $6.6

[[Page S7694]]

trillion coastal economy of the United States, which comprises about 
half of the Nation's entire gross domestic production and includes our 
nearly $7 billion annual fishery industry and $2.3 billion recreational 
industry.
  The Clean Water Act has doubled the number of swimmable and fishable 
rivers in the United States. It has saved billions of tons of fertile 
soil from being washed off of our farms. It has fostered State and 
Federal collaboration, giving States a key role in managing poisonous 
runoffs from cities and farms. It established a permitting system to 
control what gets dumped into America's waterways. It developed fair 
and objective technology-based pollution control standards to help 
industries plan their compliance investments in advance. It sets 
science-based water quality standards and requires well-thought-out 
plans to meet them. Its environmental monitoring requirements prevent 
rehabilitated waterways from backsliding into unusable condition. It 
provides $2 billion annually in critical funding to States for water 
quality and infrastructure improvements. Among its most important 
contributions, it empowers citizens to enforce its provisions and 
actively guard the health of their families.
  For all of its benefits and successes, however, the Clean Water Act 
has still not reached it goal. One-third of our rivers still have too 
much pollution. When these drain into coastal waters, they add to the 
problems being caused by ocean acidification and warming. The pollution 
can cause dead zones off of our coasts and in the Great Lakes, putting 
drinking water supplies at risk and threatening sea life. While the act 
has slowed their loss, wetlands continue to disappear, and gone with 
them are millions of wetland-dependent creatures, such as ducks and 
turtles and most of the species of fish we find on our plates.
  Clearly, clean water must be preserved for the health of the public, 
the environment, and the economy. That is why the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Army Corps have spent so much time developing 
the recently finalized clean water rule. The clean water rule clears up 
confusion caused by two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the reach of 
Federal water pollution laws and restores protections that were 
eliminated for thousands of wetlands by President George W. Bush in his 
administration.
  Specifically, the rule revises the definition of ``waters of the 
United States,'' a term that identifies which waters and wetlands are 
protected under the Clean Water Act. The rule was written in response 
to requests for increased predictability and consistency of Clean Water 
Act permitting programs made by stakeholders such as the National 
Association of Home Builders and the National Stone, Sand & Gravel 
Association.
  The clean water rule restores clear protections to 60 percent of the 
Nation's streams and millions of acres of wetlands that were stripped 
away under the previous Republican administration. The EPA estimates 
that returning the clean water protections will provide roughly half a 
billion dollars in annual public benefits, including reducing flooding 
damage, filtering pollution, supporting over 6 million jobs in the over 
half-a-trillion-dollar outdoor recreation industry.
  The rule protects public health by closing pollution loopholes that 
threaten drinking water supplies to one-third of Americans. In 
Massachusetts, the drinking water of nearly 3 in 4 people will now be 
protected.
  The rule enjoys broad support from local governments, small 
businesses, scientists, and the general public, who submitted over 
800,000 favorable public comments. Eighty percent of Americans support 
the clean water rule, and when asked if Congress should allow it to go 
forward, they responded with a resounding yes.
  Despite public support for clean water and this commonsense rule, the 
Republicans want to bring a bill to the floor that would undermine the 
national goals and policy written by the Clean Water Act. If enacted, 
this water-polluting bill would undermine the legal framework that 
protects our water. It would once again leave one-third of the Nation's 
drinking water vulnerable to dangerous contamination. It would set up a 
fight over technical details that would prevent us from protecting the 
public health by preventing the dumping of toxic chemicals into natural 
public drinking water sources.
  The critics falsely claim that the clean water rule overreaches 
because it enables broader Federal jurisdiction than is consistent with 
law and science.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, I support the work the EPA and the Army 
Corps have done in putting together the clean water rule. It will 
continue the string of victories our Nation has enjoyed under the Clean 
Water Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose any legislative efforts to 
overturn the clean water rule. We need to keep the Clean Water Act 
working for all of America.
  I want to make sure that the only place in Massachusetts people are 
talking about dirty water is after one of our great Boston sports teams 
have chalked up another victory. That is the only time we should be 
singing about dirty water because otherwise the health and well-being 
not just of people in Massachusetts but all across our country will be 
harmed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, listening to this, you would think that 
people who want some commonsense regulation don't believe in clean 
water. You would think that if we do this, somehow the Charles River or 
the Cuyahoga River, having been navigable the whole while here under 
the Clean Water Act jurisdiction, would suddenly not be navigable. That 
is not the case. That is not the case. I think it is really important 
that we ratchet down the emotion and we start looking at the facts.
  Let's start with where we are right now with this idea of what are, 
in fact, jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act. This has been 
a debate for 40 years. It has been in and out of the courts for 40 
years. In 1985 the Court made a ruling. In 2001 the Court made a 
ruling. In 2006 the Court decided a case called Rapanos. What Rapanos 
said is--four Justices said EPA is right, four Justices said EPA is 
wrong, and one Justice said EPA may be right. As a result, we have 
created a system that has caused great uncertainty in America today as 
it relates to how we use land. Acting on that uncertainty, EPA 
promulgated a rule. That rule is inconsistent, in my opinion, with the 
direction they were given by the Court. That rule has created an 
incredible amount of uncertainty.
  To suggest that all the major ag groups, all the groups that are out 
there, including the Association of Counties, including many of the 
Governors, are all wrong and they all love dirty water is absolutely 
insulting as we kind of move forward on this discussion.
  I am going to show you why North Dakota is concerned about this 
regulation. This is an aerial picture of my State. You may not think 
there is a lot of water in North Dakota. This is a picture of my State 
and Devils Lake in the Devils Lake area. You might say: Oh she picked a 
picture that looks like this.
  I ask and invite any of you to come to North Dakota and I will fly 
you anywhere in North Dakota. This is what North Dakota looks like. You 
see all this water here and you see all this water here and you see 
this. Do you see that? That is a pothole, what we call a prairie 
pothole. It used to be and seasonally is full of water. Sometimes it is 
farm, sometimes it is not. Is this waters of the United States? It is 
not connected to any navigable stream. It is not adjacent to any kind 
of navigable water, moving water. None of this is connected with any 
kind of cross-land connection.
  I will tell you under the rule that we have and under the 
interpretations of the Corps of Engineers--which we always forget when 
we are talking about this--the Corps of Engineers and EPA, what they 
would say is: We don't know. We would have to send biologists to take a 
look at this. We would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, 
of taxpayer dollars, to determine whether in fact there is substantial 
nexus.
  We asked for a simple rule. First, just as a point of view, when the 
statute says navigable water, that water ought to be moving someplace 
other than into the ground. All water in the

[[Page S7695]]

world is interconnected. We know that. That is a matter of hydrology. 
That is a matter of science. Scientists would say there is no such 
thing as a discrete separation.
  But you know what. Legally there is. It did not say every drop of 
water is controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency under the 
Clean Water Act, it said navigable water, and we have been in this 
fight for a lot of years, including 2006.
  Mr. President, I know we are in excess of the time. I ask unanimous 
consent for just a little more time to conclude my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. I want to make this point because it really is a 
question. The Senators who have come to the floor and talked about this 
rule talk about: Look, we are making progress. What they haven't told 
you is that rule has absolutely no legal effect anywhere in this 
country today. Do you know why? Because the courts of the United States 
have stayed it. It is not in effect while we litigate yet another case.
  So when we looked at this problem and we looked at trying to give 
certainty to farmers who own this land--by the way, this land is not 
owned by the people of this country. This land is owned by farmers who 
need certainty, who need to know. So we looked at this and we said: It 
is time for Congress to do what Congress ought to do, which is to 
legislate, which is to actually make a decision--to not just get on 
either side of a regulatory agency and yell about whether they are 
right or wrong but actually engage in a dialogue.
  That is why Senator Donnelly, Senator Barrasso, Senator Inhofe, and I 
sat down and said: Look, this will continue in perpetuity. We will 
spend millions of dollars litigating this and never get an answer 
because chances are we are back to 441, and that is not an answer.
  So we put together a piece of legislation looking at how can we as 
legislators, as Congress provide some parameters on what this means. 
People who will vote no on a motion to proceed will tell you we want 
EPA to decide. I am telling you that people in this country expect 
Congress to decide. They expect Congress to make this decision, to step 
up, and resolve this controversy because 40 years and millions and 
millions of dollars spent in litigation is not a path forward.
  As we look at this legislation simply on a motion to proceed on one 
of the most controversial issues in America today--which is waters of 
the United States--not voting to debate this issue, not voting to 
proceed on this issue is the wrong path forward.
  I urge my colleagues to open the debate and let's talk about this 
map--not the Charles River and not the Cuyahoga River because I will 
concede that they are navigable water. I want to know in what world is 
this navigable water of the United States, what world should EPA have 
jurisdiction over this pond, and in what world--when you are the farmer 
who owns it--do you think you have any certainty as we move forward?
  We are trying to give certainty to the American taxpayer. We are 
trying to give certainty to people who build roads and bridges. We are 
trying to actually have a debate on an important issue of our time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed so we can 
have an open debate--it could be fun--as we talk about this issue.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President we will have a chance at 2:15 p.m., I 
believe, for 15 minutes to close the debate, and at 2:30 p.m. we are 
going to have a vote on a cloture motion. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the cloture motion.
  I agree with my friend Senator Heitkamp that we need certainty. We 
have been debating this issue for a long time since the court cases. If 
this bill were to become law, you are not going to have certainty. It 
is going to be litigated. Whatever is done, it is going to be 
litigated. We know that. We have seen the litigious nature of what has 
happened over the course of the issues.
  Yes, I want Congress to speak on this. Congress has spoken on this. 
Congress has said very clearly that we want the test of the Clean Water 
Act to be to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 
biological integrity of our Nation's waters.
  I don't want Congress to say: No, we don't want that. We now want a 
pragmatic test that could very well jeopardize the Clean Water Act. The 
bottom line is each Congress should want to strengthen the Clean Water 
Act, not weaken it. This bill would weaken the Clean Water Act and 
prevent a rule that has been debated for a long time from becoming law.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the motion for cloture, and we will 
have a little bit more to say about this at 2:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call under rule XXII be waived with respect to the 
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1140.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________