[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Page 17320]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          EPA CLEAN WATER RULE

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was pleased to vote today in support of 
S.J. Res. 22, which would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's 
recently finalized clean water rule. Just yesterday, I voted in support 
of a bipartisan bill, S. 1140, authored by my colleague, Senator John 
Barrasso, which would have forced EPA to pull the rule. Unfortunately, 
that bill did not receive the 60 votes necessary under Senate rules 
that are needed to pass.
  The resolution passed by the Senate today is supported by hundreds of 
national and local organizations, including the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Homebuilders 
Association, to name a few. While I understand that the White House has 
threatened to veto this resolution if it reaches the President's desk, 
it is still important that a majority of Congress voice their 
opposition to the EPA rule as Federal courts continue to weigh its 
legality.
  Americans around the Nation are lining up against the EPA clean water 
rule because of its economic cost, the regulatory impact, and the 
uncertainty it engenders among State and local governments, businesses, 
and consumer alike. The rule itself bypassed Congress by redefining the 
types of water bodies under the Clean Water Act that EPA has the 
authority to regulate. EPA pushed forward without regard for State and 
local environmental protection laws, which is partly why about a dozen 
State attorneys general, including from my home State of Arizona, have 
won injunctions in Federal court against the EPA rule.
  The EPA claims that the rule only allows the Agency to halt 
activities that disturb small, environmentally sensitive streams and 
wetlands. But when you dive into the rule's lengthy publication, you 
will find that EPA is proposing to expand its jurisdiction over roughly 
60 percent of all waters of the United States and can also capture 
certain irrigation ditches, stock ponds, and even dry desert washes. 
Farmers, housing, construction jobs, and other activities will all 
suddenly find themselves under the thumb of EPA bureaucrats. The EPA 
will claim it has written waivers into the rule for these industries, 
but there is growing consensus that the waivers are so unclear and 
conflicting that nobody believes they hold any water. The EPA's 
rulemaking process itself was so closed off from outside input and 
peer-reviewed science that it is clear to any reasonable observer that 
EPA had misjudged the economic damage their rule will inflict on small 
business, farms, and local governments around the country.
  The EPA rule is especially bad news for Arizona agriculture and 
homebuilding sectors which, combined, account for most of all economic 
activity in my State. If a farmer wants to build or repair a canal, the 
EPA rule could block it. A community that wants to build a school or a 
church near a dry wash will have to beg EPA for a permit. Under the 
rule, the EPA can even fine a private property owners tens of thousands 
of dollars if the Agency thinks water historically flowed across their 
land even when there is no visible evidence.
  Regardless whether or not the President vetoes this resolution, I 
will continue to oppose the EPA clean water rule. I am a proud 
cosponsor of Senator Jeff Flake's similar bill, S. 1179, the Defending 
Rivers from Overreaching Policies Act, DROP Act, which would direct the 
EPA to pull its rule over its poor, nonscientific definition of 
``navigable'' water bodies. We will continue to push forward with this 
and other legislative initiatives and will watch closely to see how the 
courts handle the EPA rule.

                          ____________________