[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Page 12453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CLEAN WATER ACT CHALLENGES

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Supreme Court's decision earlier 
this week in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and 
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers should be a source of great concern 
in this body and this Nation. The plurality opinion, while it did not 
win the support of a majority of the court, is completely at odds with 
the text and purpose of the Clean Water Act, would put much of the 
Nation's waters in jeopardy, and as many have noted, will likely lead 
to increased litigation.
  To prevent further legal wrangling about what Congress meant when it 
passed what has come to be one of the country's fundamental public 
health and environmental statutes, Congress must pass the Clean Water 
Authority Restoration Act. This legislation, S. 912, which I most 
recently introduced in April 2005, reestablishes protection for all 
waters historically covered by the Clean Water Act. It also makes clear 
that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the Nation's 
waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of 
waterways, and it reinforces that original intent.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues--the 85 who are not 
cosponsors of the bill--will now join me, in light of this week's 
Supreme Court ruling, to clarify that all of the Nation's waters are 
important for the health and vitality of our country by supporting 
passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act.

                          ____________________