[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11568-11570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  PROTECTING WATER AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I rise in support of Barrasso 
amendment No. 3453 to the underlying bill. This amendment actually has 
36 cosponsors--36 of my fellow colleagues have cosponsored legislation 
called the Protecting Water and Property Rights Act of 2014, and this 
legislation is identical to the amendment we have on the floor today.

[[Page 11569]]

  The amendment restricts the expansion of Federal authority by this 
administration's EPA to encompass all the wet areas on farms, ranches, 
and suburban homes all across America. More specifically, the amendment 
eliminates the administration's proposed rule--a rule to implement this 
expansion of Federal authority, an expansion which I don't think the 
Federal Government should have or does have. But we do have a recently 
proposed rule, and through this proposed rule, Federal agencies are 
attempting to expand the definition of waters of the United States. 
They want to expand the definition--it is a specific term, waters of 
the United States--to now include ditches and other dry areas where 
water does flow, but only flows during a short duration, basically 
after a rainfall. Federal regulations have never defined ditches and 
other upland drainage features as waters of the United States. So this 
is an expansion of the way we view waters of the United States.
  This proposed rule does and will have a huge impact on farmers, 
ranchers, and small businesses needing to put a shovel into the ground 
to make a living. The rule, in a sense, amounts to a user's fee for 
farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it rains. It forces 
suburban homeowners to pay the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to 
use their backyards after a storm.
  To me this is one of the worst things we could ever do to Americans, 
let alone during this poor economy. That is why the Protecting Water 
and Private Property Rights Act is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau 
and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It is endorsed by the 
National Federation of Independent Business and by the American Land 
Rights Association. They have endorsed this amendment because they know 
how devastating the rule is to farmers, ranchers, small business 
owners, and even to homeowners.
  This administration claims it is providing flexibility for farmers 
and ranchers in the proposed rule, but farmers and ranchers across the 
country who read this are not deceived.
  Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau, released a 
statement on June 11 of this year stating that ``the rule would micro-
manage farming via newly-mandated procedures for fencing, spraying, 
weeding and more. Permitting meanwhile, could delay time-sensitive 
tasks for months, potentially ruining crops in the process.''
  According to the June edition of the publication National Cattleman 
in an article entitled ``EPA's Ag Exemptions for WOTUS,'' waters of the 
United States, the article states: ``Although agriculture exemptions 
are briefly included, they don't come close to meeting the needs of 
cattlemen and women across the country.''
  The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Bob 
McCan, stated in an article:

       For example, wet spots or areas in a pasture that have 
     standing water, under this rule, could potentially be 
     affected. We'd now need permission to travel and move cattle 
     across these types of areas.

  The article lists some of the major areas of agriculture which are 
not exempted by the EPA's proposed rule. The article states:

       Activities not covered by the exemptions include 
     introduction of new cultivation techniques, planting 
     different crops, changing crops to pasture, changing pasture 
     to crops, changing cropland to orchard/vineyard and changing 
     cropland to nurseries.

  Those activities are not included.
  The rule also provides no flexibility for investments by small 
businesses across the country.
  According to the National Federation of Independent Business:

       Unfortunately, despite claims by the Agencies, the proposed 
     rule will only increase uncertainty.
       The proposed rule still requires the Agencies to determine 
     on a case-by-case basis whether many common land formations 
     fall under federal jurisdiction.
       Often, this determination does not occur until after 
     substantial investments and planning by a small business have 
     taken place--thus chilling investment and expansion. Small 
     businesses cannot be speculative with their resources and 
     capital.

  Private property owners would also face no flexibility. My own 
constituent, Mr. Andy Johnson, Uinta County, WY, has been threatened by 
the EPA with penalties calculated to reach an estimated $187,000 a day 
for building what he believes is a stock pond on his property. In a 
month's time, he could be liable for more than $5 million in penalties.
  What are homeowners to do when faced with this kind of threat? They 
could choose to fight city hall with limited resources or give in to 
strong-arming by the Federal Government. Given the Agency's plans to 
expand the jurisdictional limits of the Clean Water Act, the EPA could 
easily use the proposed rule to bankrupt small landowners for something 
as simple as building a pond or a ditch anywhere near a wetland or 
stream.
  Congress never intended for the Clean Water Act to be used this way. 
To me it defies logic to think this proposed rule will benefit anybody 
but bureaucrats in Washington who are far removed from the communities 
between the coasts.
  I think it is time for the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to keep 
out of the lives of our constituents' backyards, and it is time to do 
it by opposing the proposed rule.
  I wish to end with a broader point about how the Senate operates 
these days.
  Today the Washington Post had an editorial specifically about the 
legislation, and it is entitled ``Clear rules for clean water,'' which 
is the proposal I have here today. The editorial board of the 
Washington Post writes: ``If lawmakers don't like the call the EPA is 
making''--and I don't like the call the EPA is making--``they should 
clarify the terminology themselves.''
  In an ideal world, I agree with them. If we don't like something, we 
should be able to propose a better idea and then we should be allowed 
to vote on it in the Senate. The reality is the majority leader, 
Senator Reid, has essentially shut down the Senate and refuses to allow 
us to vote on new ideas that would actually solve challenges such as 
this one.
  In fact, Republicans and Democrats have proposed hundreds and 
hundreds of amendments, and we have only been able to vote on a very 
small number of those--and very select ones at that. The truth is the 
majority leader, Harry Reid, refuses to allow any votes on almost any 
amendment and is enforcing a gag order on real debate, discussion and, 
most importantly, on votes. He has imposed a gag order on important 
issues that impact the lives of all Americans.
  To prove my point, I put together a chart. I wish to take a moment to 
review the voting record over the past full year in this body. This 
calendar has the headline ``Reid Blocks Votes.'' The Republican votes 
are in red. We have the last full year of calendar months, and July is 
down here as the 13th month because we started last year on July 1.
  The red Xs are days when there were votes on Republican amendments, 
and votes on Democratic amendments are in blue. Over the past 12 
months--from July of 2013 to July of 2014--Majority Leader Reid has 
allowed Republicans to vote on their amendments a total of 8 days--8 
days out of the entire 12 months there have been votes on Republican 
amendments. There have been a total of 11 amendments which Republicans 
have had a chance to offer and have votes on even though we have 
introduced hundreds of amendments.
  It is interesting. Harry Reid has actually been tougher on his own 
party. The Democrats have been more restricted and more limited. If you 
look at this calendar, you will see the days in blue. Harry Reid has 
only allowed Democrats to vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 days over this past year 
that Democrats have had votes on their own amendments on the floor of 
the Senate. Over that time Democrats have proposed hundreds and 
hundreds--over 500--of amendments, and there have only been 7 
Democratic amendments over the course of 5 days that have had a vote. 
Democrats have not had a vote on an amendment proposed by a Democratic 
Senator since March 27. It has been 103 days and counting since the 
Democrats have had an amendment that one of them has

[[Page 11570]]

proposed and offered here in the Senate for a vote.
  It is so interesting because as I look at the Presiding Officer--of 
the Democrats newly elected to the Senate in 2012, Members of the 
Presiding Officer's entire class have not had a single rollcall vote on 
one of their own amendments on the floor of the Senate--ever. It is an 
astonishing display of what the majority leader has done to muzzle an 
entire legislative body of both parties.
  I will tell the Presiding Officer I think it is an embarrassing 
record. It is an embarrassing record for the majority leader, and I 
think it is an embarrassing record for the Democrats--who control the 
Senate--to tolerate.
  I think it is important for Americans to pay close attention to not 
just what Senators say when they go home, but actually what happens and 
what they do and what they stand for and what they vote on. So I would 
say the next time Democrats go home and tell their constituents they 
are introducing legislation to solve a problem, the constituents ought 
to ask, when? When is the vote? That is what I want to know. When is 
the vote? When is the vote, Mr. President? When is the vote, Senate 
Democrats? When is the vote, Majority Leader Reid? When is the vote?
  As usual, when the question is asked, silence. That is all we get in 
return.
  So I actually believe we have a majority of Senators, Republicans and 
Democrats, who would actually vote to pass my amendment. This amendment 
I have to this bill on the floor--a majority of Senators, Republicans 
and Democrats, bipartisan, would vote to pass this amendment to stop 
the EPA's extreme takeover of waters across America. But under Senator 
Reid's command-and-control style of leadership, I don't think we will 
ever know. I don't think we will have that vote, and I think Senator 
Reid will block it.
  So I would say that if my colleagues agree with the editorial board 
of the Washington Post, ``Clear rules for clean water''--today's 
Washington Post editorial--then they should be able to stand and be 
counted. Democrats should demand it. In the recent history of the 
United States, if that history is any indication, as we can see by this 
embarrassing vote calendar, I am not at all confident that this body 
will ever be given the opportunity to stand and be counted, and the 
reason is because Majority Leader Reid won't allow Republicans or 
Democrats to vote on my amendment or hardly anyone else's amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________