[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7695-S7697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY PROTECTION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:30
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate considers an
issue that is critically--critically--important to agriculture and to
rural America.
It is my hope the Senate will advance landmark legislation that I,
along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, have introduced in
response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's final rule that
redefines waters of the United States--commonly referred to in farm
country as WOTUS, among other acronyms--under the Clean Water Act. I am
proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 1140 and represent agriculture
and rural America's charge in pushing back against EPA's egregious
Federal overregulation.
EPA's final WOTUS rule would adversely impact a vast cross-section of
industries, including agriculture. As I have said before, I fear the
sheer number of regulations imposed by this administration is causing
the public to lose faith in our government. Too often I hear from my
constituents that they feel ``ruled'' and not ``governed.'' S. 1140 is
in response to exactly that sentiment.
As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
I have heard directly from farmers, ranchers, State agency officials,
and various industries in Kansas and all throughout our country that
ultimately would be subject to these new burdensome and costly Federal
requirements. The message is unanimous and clear. This is the wrong
approach and the wrong rule for agriculture, rural America, and our
small communities.
According to the Kansas Department of Agriculture, EPA's final rule
would expand the number of water bodies in Kansas classified as
``waters of the United States,'' subject to all--subject to all--Clean
Water Act programs and requirements by 460 percent, totaling 170,000
stream miles. This is just incredulous. The expanded scope will further
exacerbate the burden of duplicative pesticide permitting requirements
and the other overregulation by this administration. This simply is not
going to work and makes zero sense, especially in places such as arid
western Kansas. Furthermore, the final rule undercuts a State's
sovereign ability as
[[Page S7696]]
the primary regulator of water resources, which administers and carries
out Clean Water Act programs.
Even more troubling, in recent months it has become apparent through
the release of internal government documents between the EPA and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that there are serious concerns and
questions with regard to the legality of the EPA's role and actions
during the famous or infamous public comment period to garner support
for the final rule. The tactics employed by the EPA throughout this
rulemaking process completely undermines the integrity of the
interagency review process and the public's trust.
The EPA claims they have listened to farmers and ranchers about the
concerns they have raised. EPA not only stacked the deck against
farmers and ranchers, but EPA deliberately ignored them. This bill
requires the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the final
rule and craft a new rule in meaningful consultation with stakeholders,
State partners, and regulated entities, which are ready and waiting to
work with EPA--if we can.
All of us want to protect clean water. No one here--especially
agriculture--wants to threaten such a valuable and integral natural
resource that sustains our livelihood. It is our water. It is time the
administration listened and developed a rule that is effective for
farmers, ranchers, and rural America.
This WOTUS regulation is the No. 1 concern I hear about in farm
country--that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
hears about--and over 90 agriculture groups--90--have signed a letter
in support of this legislation. Additionally, the ongoing litigation,
which involves 31 States challenging the final rule, only adds further
confusion about the implementation and applicability of the final rule
across the rest of the country.
It is time for Congress to intervene. I thank my colleagues who have
joined me in this effort, especially the Senator from Wyoming, and I
urge all of my colleagues to support S. 1140 and vote yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to a real champion of
clean water in the United States, Senator Boxer.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank very much my colleague and
subcommittee ranking member, Senator Ben Cardin, for taking the lead
today on this opposition we are expressing to a very radical bill that
will essentially, in my view, in many ways repeal the heart of the
Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act came about because the Cuyahoga River in Ohio
went up in flames because there was so much pollution and there were so
many toxins in the water there, and people recognized--this was in the
1970s--that we were endangering our families and the health of our
families. So the Clean Water Act was written, and it basically said
that if a river or a stream or a body of water found its way into a
source of drinking water or a recreational body of water, the people
who were dumping this stuff into this natural environment had to get a
permit and had to show us that it was safe. It is as simple as that.
That is why we have overwhelming support. I had a chart, and now I
don't have it, reflecting 79 percent in support across this Nation for
moving ahead with the clean water rule. Then comes the Barrasso bill,
which has a beautiful name--protecting the waters of the United
States--and it reminds me of the book ``1984'': War is peace, love is
hate, and the rest. Big government is telling you what to think.
Really, this is not a bill that protects our water. It is not. It is
a bill that essentially protects polluters and endangers 117 million
people who want to drink clean water. This is a right in our country.
You don't want to be frightened when your child swims in a stream or
drinks water that might make him or her sick.
So what we do with this bill, what Senator Barrasso, my friend--and
he is my really good friend--does here is essentially to take the Clean
Water Act and stands it on its head. He says we are not going to worry
about all of these bodies of water that feed into the Nation's drinking
water supply for 117 million people, and we are going to say you are
free to dump into that water everything you want.
In closing, I have often said that when I go home, people come right
up to me and say: Barbara, you need to do this; and, Barbara, you have
to fight for that. Never, in all my years in elected life--40 years
since I started, which is hard to believe--has anyone come up to me and
said: The water is too pure. The water is too clean. My drinking water
is perfect, don't make it safer. My air is pristine; don't pass any
more laws. It is the opposite.
So what this would do today is take us back, back, back--back to the
days when rivers caught on fire, back to the days when you worried a
lot about drinking water. And as a person who wrote the law on
protecting the quality of drinking water for children, this is a step
backward. It is all about the farm bureau. And I get it, but I don't
think they really understand the rule that is coming out, where
millions of people actually commented on the rule, where they had
hundreds of meetings. This is an EPA that wants to work with the
people.
So I hope we will reject this and that we can move on and let this
clean water rule work its way through the courts and become the law of
the land.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, with this vote on the motion to proceed
to S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, the Senate really
has a unique opportunity today to pass a strong bipartisan bill--a bill
that will direct the EPA to write a reasonable rule to protect our
navigable waterways.
As I mentioned before, I introduced this legislation with my
Democratic colleagues Senators Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchin, as well
as many of my Republican colleagues. I appreciate all my colleagues who
spoke out in favor of this legislation.
Let me just conclude this discussion with these thoughts. Our
beautiful rivers and lakes deserve protection, and this bill does
nothing to block legitimate efforts to safeguard the waters of the
United States. By striking the right balance, we will restore
Washington's attention to the country's traditional waterways,
protecting these cherished natural resources. At the same time, we will
give certainty to farmers, ranchers, and small business owners that
they can use their property reasonably without fear of constant
Washington intervention.
The existing rule on waters of the United States is the poster child
of EPA overreach. The courts have already begun to weigh in with their
concerns and have stayed the rule nationally. There is a great legal
uncertainty about whether this waters of the United States rule will
survive these legal challenges. These challenges could take years.
Meanwhile, a long-term viable solution to protecting our waterways will
not be in place.
Now, many of my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican--and
particularly those from rural States--have talked about their concern
with this rule, so I urge them to join with us today by showing their
constituents they are ready to do something about it. I urge them to
vote for this motion to proceed to S. 1140 and to work with me through
an open amendment process to create an even better bill--a better
bipartisan bill and a bill that gives the EPA the certainty they need
to craft a rule to protect our Nation's waterways for the long term.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1140.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this legislation does two things. First,
it stops the final rule on the waters of the United States, and second,
it weakens the underlying Clean Water Act, something I would hope none
of us would want to do. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to
proceed.
Let me tell you what is at risk here. What is at risk is about one-
half of our Nation's stream miles from being protected under the Clean
Water Act. Their water supply would not be protected. What is at stake
here? Twenty million acres of wetlands could go unprotected because of
being denied protection under the Clean Water Act. What is at risk
here? The water supply
[[Page S7697]]
for 117 million Americans--1 out of every 3 Americans. The source of
their water could very well come from unregulated supplies being exempt
from the Clean Water Act. I don't think we want to do that.
I agree with my colleagues that we want to have certainty. That is
why we want the rule to move forward. But it does more than that--the
underlying bill. It also changes the standard that would be judged in
deciding what is to be regulated waters. The current law says it is to
``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters.''
In other words, it is science-based. If we need to regulate in order
to protect our water supply, we can regulate. That is what we are
trying to achieve--regulating waters that end up in our streams, waters
that end up in our water supply. If, on the other hand, we take what is
being done under this legislation to protect traditional navigable
waters from pollution, we are exempting so many of the waters that are
critically important. I mentioned a little earlier that it has to have
a continuous flow. Well, there are seasonal variations of what enters
into our water supply in this country. That would be exempt.
I want to dispel two things. First, this bill would remove certainty,
not give certainty. The Supreme Court cases caused us to lose our
traditional definitions of what was covered under the Clean Water Act.
We need that. It returns certainty, which I think is in everyone's
interest. The last point is--and I have said it many times, and the
Department has confirmed this--this final rule on waters of the United
States does not change the regulatory structure for permitting for
agriculture. There are no additional requirements. They are exempt. The
exemptions that exist today will continue to be exempt. The agency
responded to the concerns of the agricultural community as they should.
The bottom line is that clean water and agriculture go together, and
we all need to work together in that regard. So I urge my colleagues to
allow this rule to go forward. I urge my colleagues not to have a
legacy of weakening our protections for clean water in America, and
that is what this bill would do.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the 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.
Mitch McConnell, Dean Heller, Jeff Flake, Steve Daines,
Johnny Isakson, Mike Rounds, Ben Sasse, Roy Blunt,
Daniel Coats, John Cornyn, John Boozman, Richard Burr,
Cory Gardner, Shelley Moore Capito, Richard C. Shelby,
David Perdue, John Barrasso.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to 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, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--41
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Brown
Hatch
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are
41.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to S.
1140.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
____________________