[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16993-16995]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 16994]]

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 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).

[[Page 16995]]

  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.

                          ____________________