[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14377]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       H.R. 5078 AND H. RES. 644

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DAVID N. CICILLINE

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, September 9, 2014

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 5078, the Waters 
of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, and 
had I been present would have voted against the legislation offered by 
Mr. Southerland.
  I am concerned that this legislation would prevent both the current 
and future Administrations from undergoing a rulemaking process to 
clarify enforcement of Clean Water Act protections of streams and 
tributaries around the country. This rulemaking process is necessary to 
clarify what is now an unclear and confusing set of guidelines as to 
which waterways fall under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
  The small streams, wetlands, headwaters, and tributaries that are 
affected by this ruling flow into the drinking water of over 117 
million Americans, support businesses and recreation, and are crucial 
habitats for wildlife, including in my home state of Rhode Island. The 
Administration has undergone an open and transparent process, including 
a lengthy public commentary period that is still underway, to come up 
with a rule that more clearly defines which waterways are under 
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, in order to protect our country's 
drinking water supply and waterways from pollution, actions that 
benefit every American. Preventing the Executive Branch from clarifying 
this issue jeopardizes the safety of waterways across the country.
  Additionally, I strongly oppose H. Res. 644, condemning the President 
for the prisoner exchange of five Guantanamo Bay prisoners for Sergeant 
Bowe Bergdahl, and had I been present I would have voted against it. As 
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, the President has a 
constitutional responsibility to protect the lives of U.S. 
servicemembers, as well as the lives of U.S. citizens abroad. While 
Members of Congress may not agree with the President's decision, a 
resolution calling his actions illegal is hardly helpful or useful at 
this time. And the fact remains, an American soldier is home safely 
because the President took seriously his constitutional 
responsibilities to protect American lives.
  The decision made by the President was made in close consultation 
with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff General Martin Dempsey. Sergeant Bergdahl had been held 
prisoner by Taliban forces since 2009. It was determined that there was 
a very narrow window of opportunity to ensure his safe return. General 
Dempsey has said that the opportunity to make a prisoner exchange for 
Sergeant Bergdahl represented the best and last chance to ensure his 
freedom. When confronted with the decision to either ensure Sergeant 
Bergdahl's safety, or allow him to die in enemy captivity, the 
President decided to act in order to save his life.
  When we send our brave men and women in the Armed Services onto the 
field of battle, we send them with the assurance that we will never 
forget their sacrifice, and that we will leave no man behind. The 
President has demonstrated true leadership by honoring this pledge. I 
do not believe it is appropriate for Congress to undermine that 
leadership, or that pledge.

                          ____________________