[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 CLEAN WATER AUTHORITY RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, for the last 33 years, the American 
people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the 
health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make 
rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, 
swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply, 
and available for wildlife and fish habitat--has become accepted by the 
public not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental 
expectation of government providing for its citizens. It is our 
responsibility to provide adequate protection to ensure that our 
freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to 
the economy, and help the environment.
  Despite being one of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, the 
Clean Water Act faces new and unprecedented challenges.
  The Supreme Court recently heard two Clean Water Act cases, the 
outcome of which will have significant implications for Federal efforts 
to protect the Nation's waters from pollution and destruction. 
Fortunately, an unprecedented array of local, State, regional, and 
national officials, professional organizations, and public interest 
groups from across the country and the political spectrum have joined 
in the defense of the Clean Water Act. The unparalleled collection of 
interested parties includes the attorneys general of 33 States plus the 
District of Columbia; four former Administrators of the Environmental 
Protection Agency--Russell Train, Douglas Costle, William Reilly, and 
Carol Browner; nine current and former members of the U.S. Senate and 
U.S. House of Representatives who were directly involved in the passage 
of the 1972 Act and its reaffirmation in 1977; the Association of State 
Wetlands Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the 
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies; numerous hunting, fishing, wildlife and outdoor recreation 
organizations and businesses, including Ducks Unlimited, the National 
Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the American Sportsfishing 
Association, Bass Pro Shops, the Orvis Company, and the Wildlife 
Management Institute, among others; and a number of local, regional, 
and national environmental groups. All of these interests filed briefs 
expressing strong support of the Clean Water Act's core safeguard: the 
requirement to obtain a permit before discharging pollutants into 
waters of the United States.
  With such strong support for the Clean Water Act, which is grounded 
in the language, history, and purpose of the law itself, I hope that 
the Supreme Court will follow its own precedent and reaffirm Federal 
protections for streams, headwaters, tributaries, and wetlands that 
have long been covered by the Act.
  Whatever the outcome of these critical cases, Congress must reaffirm 
the historical scope of the Clean Water Act. The best way to do this is 
through passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act, S. 912. 
This bill simply confirms that the Act has always covered all of these 
waters, consistent with Congress's clear intent, by codifying the 
regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' that has been 
in use since 1973.
  The bill addresses protections for certain so-called isolated streams 
and wetlands in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Solid 
Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers and 
will help to ward off any future legal challenges to the scope of the 
act.
  Our Nation's streams, ponds, isolated wetlands, and other bodies of 
water are too important to not take action to protect them. We owe 
future generations nothing less than healthy waters.

                          ____________________