republican side, that would be a complete nonstarter. you can't do what he's done on guns that have any guns that have a on publican side. and even on the democratic side, i think it would be safe to say that elizabeth warren -- >> and we will eat this discussion with the charlie cook at this point to bring you live coverage of the senate. senators return from work on a measure seeking to change and obama administration rolled the with the regulation of what streams and wetlands. live coverage of the senate. giy father patrick j. conroy, the house chaplain. the house chaplain:let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day.

we thank you for your ongoing presence and sustaining grace in us all, and your concern for our nation. continue to bless and inspire the men and women who serve in the united states senate. may they be encouraged by any movement that has occurred, and may the hopes and prayers of the american people, and indeed the world, for healthy and productive legislation be met with results inspired by your spirit. forgive our failures, our lack of faith. may the good intentions of all acting in this chamber be rewarded by solutions to our struggles that benefit our nation. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the

united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 3, 2015. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom cotton, a senator from the state of arkansas, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g.hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: two federal courts have already found that the obama administration's plan to regulate the land around nearly every pothole and ditch is illegal. it's hardly a surprise. the administration's so-called waters of the u.s. regulation is

a cynical and overbearing power grab dressed awkwardly as some clean water measure. it's not. many argue it actually violates the clean water act. the true aim of this massive regulatory overreach is pretty clear. after all, if you're looking for an excuse to extend the reach of the federal bureaucracy as widely and intrusively as possible, why not just issue a regulation giving bureaucrats dominion over land that has touched a pothole or a ditch or a puddle at some point. that would seem to be pretty much everything. and that's why the waters and d.u.s. regulation is so worrying. it would force americans who live near potholes, ditches and puddles to give bureaucrats permission to do just about anything on their own property.

want to spray some weed? a permit. want to put a small pond in your backyard? ask uncle sam. want to build a barn or just about anything else on the land you own? good luck getting be approval from the feds on that. one court said that this regulation was so ridiculous, it had to be the result of a process that is inexplicable, arbitrary and devoid of a reasoned process. that sounds about right. it certainly wasn't a process that appropriately involved the untold numbers of stakeholders shourd to be affected by such a wide ranging regulation. let me read you something from a constituent from west liberty in kentucky. here's what he wrote. i'm disappointed that small businesses like mine were not considered in this rule-making process. government regulations like a proposed l rule are complicated,

expensive to navigate and a real obstacle to growing my business. this change and its ridiculous overreach and restrictions could decrease land value and hinder my ability to expand, develop and use my own private land. please, he said, support s. 1140, the federal water quality protection act. i have good news for this kentuckian and for the many americans who feel the same way. i do not support the federal water quality protection act. i actually worked with senator barrasso. i do support the federal water quality protection act. i actually worked with senator barrasso to introduce it and will take a vote to move the bipartisan bill forward this afternoon. the bipartisan majority of the senate supports the federal water quality protection act, what it says, mr. president, is pretty simple. if the administration is actually serious about protecting waterways and not

just cynically using this regulation as a ploy to extend the bureaucracy's reach, then it should follow the proper process to get to a balanced outcome. it should appropriately consult with the americans who would be the most affected by the regulation, especially farmers, ranchers and small businesses, not to mention the home builders, manufacturers, mine operators and utility providers who would beders who would be impacted in my state. it should appropriately consult with the states. it should actually conduct a regulatory impact analysis required of it. in short, what this bipartisan bill would do is require the administration to actually follow the balanced proash it should have -- approach it should have followed in the first place. it's commonsense bipartisan legislation that would protect our waterways while protecting the american people from heavy-handed legislation that

threatens their property life and livelihoods. a similar bill passed the house with bipartisan support. american places like eastern kentucky suffered enough from this administration's regulatory onslaught already. this latest regulation threatens to turn the screws even tighter for almost no benefit at all. i call on every colleague to join me in standing up for the middle class instead of defending cynical, job-crushing regulations. i would ask them to join me in supporting the bipartisan federal water quality protection act this afternoon. i would also like to thank my colleague from iowa for her hard work on this issue. she has introduced a measure that would allow congress to overturn this massive regulation in its entirety. it's another avenue the senate can pursue as we seek to protect the middle class from this unfair regulatory attack. i know the senator from iowa is

actually with us on the floor right now. she's here for a different reason. but it's a matter, the matter i'm turning to right now. last week the senate marked two milestones. first, our colleague from vermont cast vote number 15,000. we all noted it at the time. then our colleague from iowa cast vote number 12,000, and that's what we'd like to note now. it's true that senator grassley still has some catching up to do if he wants to overtake the senator from vermont, but there's more to the story than the top-line number. out of those 12,000 votes, our colleague has taken, the last 7,474 of them consecutively. he hasn't missed a single vote since 1993. he has the second longest consecutive voting record in

senate history. second place out of 1,963 senators. that's pretty impressive. even so, we know our colleague never likes to settle for second. good for him, then he will soon grab gold in a different way. he's just a few months out from becoming the longest-serving senator in iowa history and yet he's one of the most energetic guys around here. a runner in every sense of the term. he's got a lot of fans in iowa too. i don't think it's any great mystery why the people of iowa keep sending him here. this is a senator with a deep love for his state and a simple philosophy. when he's here in washington, he's voting. when he's back in iowa, he's out meeting iowans. he makes a point to hold town hall-type events in each of iowa's 99 counties every single

year. he hasn't missed a single county in over three decades. no wonder he began his assent into twitter legendom with four simple words: attending events in iowa. that tweet is hardly infamous as -- assumed deer dead or staff has informed me what a kardashian is. i'm left now questioning. here's something questioning in at least as many calories. at the end of every 99 county swing, senator grassley has a ritual. he gets a blizzard from dairy queen. sometimes chocolate, sometimes vanilla, but always, always swirled with snickers.

this year he got to dq so early he had to wait in the parking lot for him to open. of course because he is the senior senator from iowa, he tweeted about it. here's what he said. i'm at the jefferson iowa dairy queen doing, you know what. that's some tweet but in this dairy queen story you have the perfect metaphor for the senator from iowa. early riseer, driven, open to change, never afraid to mix it up. for this lover of dairy and his home state it makes perfect sense. the people of iowa are lucky to have him here fighting on their behalf. here's to another 99 counties. here's to the 12,000 vote milestone he crossed last week. and finally, mr. president, on an entirely different and sad

matter, there was never any doubt when our colleague from tennessee was nearby. six feet, six inches tall, deep, booming voice, magnetic personality that lit up any room he was in, fred thompson may have towered over the senate in a very literal sense, but he was one of the most down-to-earth guys you'll ever meet. he was a true gentleman with a kind heart. and this senator who lived life to the very fullest, the first in his family to ever attend college, never forgot where he came from. now, in a weird twist of fate, it turns out that fred and i actually came from the same place. we were both born in what was then known as the culbert county hospital in sheffield, alabama.

getting back to fred's humility, how many actors can you say that about? senator thompson hardly fit the hollywood stereotype. senator thompson didn't fit the political stereotype either. he was just fred. he had one of the most interesting careers you could ever imagine. senate colleague, watergate lawyer, presidential candidate, radio personality. and he was an icon of silver and small screen alike. one who didn't just take on criminals as an actor, but as a real-life prosecutor as well. that, mr. president, was fred thompson. that was the man many of us had the pleasure to serve with. i'm reminded of some words shared recently by fred's friend of 50 years, a friend who succeeded him here in the senate very few people can light up a

room the way fred thompson did, he said. i will miss him greatly. so i join the senior senator from tennessee in the same sentiment. i know the entire senate does as well. just as the senate joins together in sending condolences to fred's loved ones: geri, and his children in particular in this very, very difficult time. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: for many decades the american people heard their elected officials and political hopefuls talk family values. but right now we need more than talk. we need members of congress to step to the plate and help working families. our country has fallen well behind the rest of the world when it comes to paid family leave. we're the only developed country in the world that does not mandate paid medical leave for workers.

think about that. we're the only developed country in the world that does not mandate paid medical leave for workers. think about that. the most industrialized and successful country in the history of the world mandates less paid and protected family leave than mall at -- malta, slovakia, estonia. what does this mean for working american families? parents can't stay home and take care of their sick children, mothers rush back to work after giving birth to a child. it means working americans have to choose between a paycheck and a family be responsibilities. right now, the united states provides family leave for only 12% of its private sector work force. we're one of three nations without paid maternity leave. one of three countries. papua new guinea, oman, and you know what? the united states. three nations without paid maternity leave.

america, oman and new guinea. that's really unfair, and it doesn't qualify as family values. i was pleased recently to learn that the new speaker, paul ryan, told house republicans that his family's off-limits. i don't know if that means friday afternoons or just saturday and sunday. he wants to spend more time with his family. i applaud him for that. there were some people who mocked congressman ryan for that, and they're wrong. all parents should work to protect that time with their families. but here's the problem -- for millions of americans, the concept of a work-family life balance is nothing more than a fantasy. for far too many americans, more time at work and less time with families is the only way to put food on the table and a roof over their head, and still these hardworking families are falling

behind. an unpaid day off is out of the question. now, contrast that with the united states senate. the republican-controlled senate doesn't work five-day weeks. and yet, millions of americans can't get a day off when loved -- a loved one dies or a child is confined to a hospital bed. if you play baseball, the average salary there is more than $2 million a year. if your wife has a baby, you go, you take off. but they make millions of dollars a year. middle-class americans don't make that. speaker ryan sets a more family-friendly work schedule for himself, but he is blocking legislation that would provide the bare minimum in paid leave to hardworking americans. before we worry about ourselves, we should worry about the millions of americans who can't get a day off work to care for a sick child, can't get a half day off work. that would be really family values. this week -- i ask this to

appear in a separate place in the record, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you. this week, the senate will vote on two pieces of legislation that will nullify drinking water protections for 117 million americans. the administration's clean water rule will restore important safeguards to protect american water sources from pollution and contamination. this landmark rule from the obama administration will finally resolve years of confusion to provide regulatory certainty for businesses, farmers, local governments without granting any new permitting requirements. the republicans in congress are intent on undermining these important protections. the senate leader -- i'm sorry. the republican leader and his colleagues are forcing the senate to vote on legislation to roll back president obama's clean water rule. this legislation will fail, of course, and republicans know it will fail. last week, the junior senator from texas said this, and i quote -- "next week, we'll have a show vote on the waters of the

united states -- the united states leadership is very happy. we'll have a show vote. it will get the vote and it will fail." close quote. perhaps the junior senator is right, this is another republican charade. i hope not. if these bills were to pass, president obama will veto them, yet republicans are content to waste the senate's time just so they can launch another attack on the environment. but this is just the first of a series of environmental attacks we expect this month from republicans. they're also preparing to nullify the president's rules to address climate change. they have to plans to address climate change. they are just wasting valuable senate time on these show votes. i would ask the record reflect a new statement by me at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: every united states senator was sent to this distinguished body for one reason -- to represent the people of this state and the people of this country. our constituents expect us to legislate. they expect us to be here on the senate floor voting and representing their interests. in the united states senate,

there is no one better at upholding that responsibility than the senior senator from iowa. last thursday, charles grassley cast his 12,000th vote as a united states senator. as remarkable as that is, as my friend, the senior senator from kentucky, said, it's even more impressive that he has cast almost 7,500 consecutive votes here on the senate floor. he hasn't missed a vote since july 14, 1993. he toaldz the second longest consecutive vote streak in senate history behind william proxmire from wisconsin. that's a lot of votes. but senator grassley's constancy and unwavering work ethic comes as no surprise to those who know him and are acquainted with his background. chuck grassley have a farmer, and he's proud of that. he got his start in politics when he was elected to the iowa house. in 1959. he served there for a decade and a half. in 1974, he ran for the united states congress, served three terms in the house of representatives before he was

elected to the senate in 1980. 36 years, 12,000 votes, that's remarkable, as is 7,470 consecutive votes. so i say congratulations to my friend chuck grassley on his incredible milestones. mr. president, over the weekend, the people of tennessee lost a member of their family. fred thompson, who my friend the republican leader, has talked about in some detail, died after a recurring battle with lymphoma. those of us who served with him remember that wonderful voice. his voice was so good that many people said he should be an actor. well, he was. he was an actor. he had a beautiful voice that projected so very, very well. but he was good wherever he was -- the floor of the senate, a movie studio, town square of

his home. he was a statesman in every sense of the word. his dedication to responsibility and public service fueled his commitment to bipartisanship and compromise. fred thompson was known for his courageous heart and straightforward approach to public service. i'll miss him a great deal, mr. president. he was always very kind and thoughtful and friendly to me. the senate is a better place for having had him here. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1140, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 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. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until

12:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent to proceed momentarily as though in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, you know, i -- i've had the privilege of serving with several hundred senators in this body over the years i have been here. ansar grassley has been a very special friend during that time. he's represented the voice of iowans for nearly three and a half decades. i think we have been friends for that three and a half decades. i think of senator grassley 12,000 votes, hundreds of hearings, countless numbers of tweets, probably four dozen sweater vests later, he's the same down to earth iowa farmer

who visits every one of the state's 99 counties every year. he's also the iowa farmer who when vermont was hit with a terrible flooding a few years back was the first person to contact me to say vermont stood with iowa when we were hit with a natural disaster, iowa stands now with vermont. he and i have worked together, we have had a productive relationship that spans those decades. on the judiciary committee, we take our leadership responsibility seriously. we have both made sure that both as chairman and as ranking members that every senator has a chance to be heard. we have found ways to come together in meaningful legislation. we enjoy each other's company. we're able to kid each other as i did on his recent birthday, but more importantly we do what i was told to do when i first

came to the senate and i'm sure senator grassley was told when he did -- we keep our word. we've always kept our word to each other. it also helps that we both married above ourselves. his wonderful wife barbara, my wife marcelle are very close friends. they sometimes say they belong to that special club that nobody wants to join, that of cancer survivors. senator grassley's willingness to listen and work hard was most recently on display in the judiciary committee as we hammered out an important compromise on sentencing reform which brought the left and the right together, both parties together and it was a -- i think every single senator complimented his leadership. and i must admit that was grateful for senator grassley's comments last week when i crossed a voting milestone.

he said we had been good friends, hopefully cast many more votes together. i share that hope and the knowledge we will, and i congratulate my friend on this achievement, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: i rise today to congratulate my friend, colleague and iowa's outstanding senior senator on passing his 12,000th vote in the wee early hours of this last friday morning. in fact, there are only 17 other senators in history who have cast more votes than senator chuck grassley. on top of that, he has the longest existing voting streak in congress. this farmer from iowa serves as the chairman of the senate judiciary committee and is one of the highest ranking members in the united states senate. but that has not gone to his

head, not for chuck grassley. back home in iowa, he travels all 99 counties every single year, and he has done this for 35 years. 35 wonderful years. and today, his travels across the state to all 99 counties have a name. it is called the full grassley. so that is something that our elected officials and even the presidential candidates that visit iowa, it's something that they try to complete as well. senator grassley has set a high bar, and i'm very glad that he did. over the years, i've learned quite a bit about my friend, senator chuck grassley. he is extremely thrifty, and because he is extremely thrifty, of course he's always looking out for our taxpayer dollars. he fights tirelessly for

accountability and transparency in washington, and i can always count on senator grassley to stop by my office for doughnuts and coffee and to meet all of our wonderful iowa constituents who happen to be visiting washington, d.c. he says it's to visit the constituents. i really do think it's for the free doughnuts. but we are glad that he stops by. senator grassley is the epitome of the iowa way, and he has faithfully upheld these values in the united states senate. he is a workhorse and has dedicated his entire career to serving iowans. iowa has no greater friend than senator chuck grassley. congratulations, senator, on your 12,000th vote. congratulations to barbara also. get your twitter ready because at noon we're going to celebrate.

thank you, mr. president. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i thank all of my colleagues and particularly my colleague from iowa but also people that are very senior leaders of this body like senator mcconnell and reed -- reid and my friend on the judiciary committee, senator leahy, who i have served with there for 35 years. i thank them for their kind words that they have said about my service to the people of iowa. as their elected representative. i have interacted with tens of thousands of iowans as their senator, so i have -- i have a feeling that i know each iowan personally at this point. of course i don't. i know that that's technically impossible, but the benefits of a state that is not especially big geographically is that i --

i have enough planning that i can get to every county every year, as has been said several times by my colleagues. every year, iowans in each county host me at a question and answer at their factories, their schools, their service clubs or most of these are my own town meetings that i set up. i might get a dozen or so questions on any topic under the sun, and that's how it should be in representative government because that is a two-way street. the electorate job is to ask the questions and my job is to answer them. if people are satisfied that i answered their questions, or at least i tried to answer them, i hope that i demonstrated how much their participation means to the process of representative government and to my casting my vote in washington, because i bring the benefits of every comment, question, and criticism

heard from iowans to that vote. with these 12,000 votes, i think of the many conversations and pieces of correspondence behind each vote. whether i'm meeting with iowans in the hart building in washington or at the university of northern iowa volleyball matches during my -- near my harm in new hartford, the time that people take to visit with me is well spent for me, and i hope they consider it time well spent for them. people ask me if i have any hobbies, and i can't say that i do, at least not in the way that people usually think of hobbies. my time spent with the people of iowa is one way of my work -- is part of my work, and i want to get, make sure that that's what i get paid to do, is to listen. another way my time with iowans is my pleasure and my relaxation. with someone who stops me at the

village inn at cedar falls where i go for sunday brunch after church, to talk about cybersecurity, i'm glad to do it. what's important to the people of iowa is my vocation. i'm grateful for the opportunity to cast 12,000 votes, thanks to the people of iowa, thanks to my wife and the rest of my family who regard what's important, representing the people of iowa. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i want to thank the people of iowa for sending us chuck grassley and to say that he doesn't just represent iowa. he personifies it. i know of no united states senator who better personifies his fate than the senator from iowa. mr. president, i ask consent that i be recognized to say a few words about our departed colleague, fred thompson and

following my remarks senator corker be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: it is my sad duty to report that fred dalton thompson who served in this body from 1995 to 2003 representing our state of tennessee died in nashville on sunday. honey, my wife, and i and the members of our family, every one of whom knew fred very well, as well as members of the united states senate expressed to fred's family, his wife geri, their children hayden and sammy and his sons ton ni and dan and his brother ken, our pride and friend's life for his sympathy and his death. very few people could light up the room the way fred thompson did. the truth is most public figures have always been a little jealous of fred thompson. his personality had a streak of

magic that none of the rest of us have. that magic was on display when he was minority counsel to the senate watergate committee in 1973, asking former white house aide alexander but butterfield e same question, mr. butterfield, are you aware of any installation of any listening devices in the oval office of the president, thereby publicly revealing the existence of tape recorded conversations in the white house. national public radio later called that session and the discovery of the watergate tapes a -- quote -- "turning point in the investigation." unquote. the thompson magic was evident again in 1985 when fred was asked to play himself in the movie "marie." if real life he had been an attorney for the chair of the

parole board. after that fred was cast in a number of movie roles as a c.i.a. director, the head of dulles airport, an admiral, the preses -- president of nascar, three presidents of the united states and a district attorney in "law and order." that magic served him well when he served in the united states senate in 1994 for the last two years of vice president gore's term. it was a good public career. he defeated a strong opponent by more than 20 percentage points mostly because when he appeared on television, tennesseans liked him, trusted him, and voted for him. fred took on some big assignments during his time in the senate, but sometimes he would become impatient with some of the foolishness around here. a washington reporter once asked him if he missed making movies. yeah, he said.

sometimes i miss the sincerity of hollywood. people ask me sometimes how could an actor accomplish so much. in addition to those things i've already mentioned, during the 1980's, fred was invited twice to be special counsel to the united states senate investigating committees. when he retired from the senate, he took over paul harvey's radio show. in 2008, he was a front runner for the presidency of the united states. for the last several years, it's been hard to turn on the television without seeing fred thompson urging you to buy reverse mortgage. i believe there are three reasons why his career with a so extraordinary and so diverse. first, he was authentic, genuine, bona fide. and so far as i know, he never had an acting lesson. as he did in marie and as he did in most of his movie roles, he played himself. there was no pretense in fred

thompson on or off the stage. second, he was purposeful. in 1992, when he was yaiks -- education secretary i invited fred to lunch in the white house lunchroom. for years i had urged him to be a candidate for public office. i hoped he might run in 1994. what struck me during our entire luncheon conversation was that not once did he raise any political concerns. his only question was if i were to be elected, what do you suppose i could accomplish? and when he was elected, he was serious in principle. he was a strict federalist, never a fan of washington telling americans what to do, even if he thought it was something americans should be doing. and he was not afraid to cast votes that were unpopular with his constituents if he was convinced that he was right. now, the third reason for fred thompson's success was that he

worked hard. now, to many, my saying that will come as something of a surprise. he was notoriously easy going, but he grew up in modest circumstances in lawrenceburg, tennessee. his father was a car salesman. he was a double major in philosophy and political science at the university of memphis. he did well enough to earn scholarships to tulane and vanderbilt law schools. to pay for school he worked at a bicycle plant, a post office and a motel. before he was watergate counsel, he was assistant united states attorney. the remainder of his busy life has been filled with law practice, stage and radio shows, counsel to senate investigating committees, more than 20 movies, television commercials and eight years as a united states senator. i've attended a number of memorial services for prominent figures, and as a result i've added a rule to lamar alexander's little plaid book and it is this: when invited to speak at a funeral, be sure to

mention the deceased as often as yourself. i mentioned this rule last year when i spoke at howard baker's funeral, because there came a point in my remarks when i could not continue without mentioning my relationship with senator baker, and i, therefore, had to break my own rule. the same is true with fred thompson. we were friends for nearly 50 years. in the late 1960's, both of us fresh out of law school, we were inspired by senator howard baker to help build a two-party political system in tennessee. fred's political debut was campaign manager for john williams for congress against ray blanton in 1968. my first political for ray was howard baker's senate campaign in 1966. when senator baker ran for reelection i recruited fred to be campaign manager. in 1973 senator baker asked me to be minority counsel to the

watergate committee. i suggested he ask fred instead because as a former united states attorney, fred was much better equipped for the job. when i lost the governors race in 1974, the thompsons were one of two couples that honey and i invited to go to florida to lick our wounds. and when i was sworn in as governor in 1979, even without asking him, i announced that fred thompson would fly back to nashville from washington, d.c. to review more than 60 pardons and paroles that had allegedly been issued because someone had paid cash for them. i wanted to celebrated watergate personality to help restore confidence in tennessee's system of justice. in the spring of 2002, fred telephoned to say he would not run for reelection. so i sought and won the senate seat that both he and howard baker had held. i have the same phone number today that both of them had when they were here. during my general election campaign in 2002, an opponent

said, why, fred and lamar are both in howard baker's stable. fred replied, stable hell, we're in the same stall. several times i got a dose of fred thompson's magic during those humbling experiences when i asked him to campaign with me. campaigning with fred thompson was a little like going to dollywood with dolly parton. you can be sure no one is there to see you. we have a tradition of scratching our names in the drawers of the desks that we occupy here on the floor of the united states senate. when i arrived here in 2003, i searched high and low until i found what i wanted: a desk occupied by two predecessors. my friend, fred thompson, and our mentor, howard baker. during one of those late-night senate budget sessions a few years ago, i scratched my name after theirs. i'm proud it will remain there

as long as this desk does. baker, thompson, alexander. tennesseans in our country have been fortunate that public service attracted fred dalton thompson. we will miss his common sense, his conservative principles and his big, booming voice. we have lost one of our most able and attractive public servants, and my wife, honey, and i have lost a dear friend. is. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i rise to share my voice with lamar alexander's at the loss of a great tennessean and a great american. and i appreciate so much senator alexander chronologically going through much of the great senator thompson's life and

talking about the personal experiences. elizabeth and i too want to share our condolences with gerry , hayden and sammy along with tony and dan, his sons by his first marriage with sarah; and his brother ben. i was able to talk to tony last week as fred was in hospice care. as you would expect, fred being the kind of person that he was, never forgetting where he came from, they wanted to spend those last days together and quiet and didn't want a lot of phone calls or a lot happening to make people aware of what was happening. fred had reached his end, and no doubt again tennessee has lost a great son and as has our nation. fred was one of those people, as lamar just mentioned, that had extraordinary talent. and the thing that, to me, was so unique about him having that

extraordinary talent is he also had the gift of knowing when and how to use it. his extraordinary ability as has been chronicled as a lawyer, his ability when faced with a case that became something of national notoriety to himself become an actor and play the role that he was -- in this case in real life -- and then to serve in the united states senate in the way that he did. i too had the extraordinary privilege, as i have had in knowing someone like lamar alexander who i think is one of the great public servants of our state. howard baker, who's been a mentor to all of us and had such an impact on myself, on lamar and on fred. but also to know fred. back in 1994, as i was telling some tennesseans earlier today, i was also running for the senate in a race that no one remembers because of the results.

but as lamar mentioned, everywhere you went, people wanted to see fred. fred had this extraordinary ability to capture people's imagination. and fred was unabashedly proud of our nation and never apologized for what our nation has done around the world to make the world a better place. but i was able to dry around and see these hoards of people gather around fred. people would pat bill frist and myself and the other folks running in the other primary on the head and say someday you, too, might be a united states senator. fred was somewhat criticized that year because of the way he was going about the race. and again, it reminds me of how much talent he had and his ability to know how to use it. and he told people look, the first time i run a television ad, this race will be over. he did, and it was.

as lamar mentioned, he went on to win about 20 points. because of the way people felt about him, not only around our state but around our country. fred was very impatient with serving in the senate, and i had multiple conversations with him about that. and actually, you know, serving here, one can understand with someone like fred who constantly wanted to make something happen how that was a frustration. but i know for a fact in watching his early days coming in, heading the homeland security committee and doing the many things that he did that he affected our state and country in a very positive way, something that all of us would help to emulate. we will miss him. he is a rare talent. he is one of those people that just makes you want to do better when you're around him.

i thank him for his tremendous service to our country. i thank him for the tremendous and deep friendships that he created all around our state. and i thank him for causing all of us to constantly remember where we came from. with that, i join senator alexander, and again in expressing our deep condolences again to his family and all who are around him, especially when the end came. with that, i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, first of all, i would ask unanimous consent that senator cardin be managing our side. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i'm going to make a statement about s. 1140,

which is before us, and i know senator barrasso, i wonder, senator, can i get my statement, just due to a hectic schedule? i won't go very long. is that all right with you? thank you, my friend. i want to thank senator barrasso for that. so it is kind of commonplace here that it's another day and another attack on the environment. today is no exception. today it's an attack on the clean water act. that's what i believe s. 1140 does. and, mr. president, the name of this bill is -- quote -- the federal water quality protection act, unquote. i tell you, if we could sue for false advertising, we would have a great case because this bill doesn't protect anything. it allows for pollution of many bodies of water that provide drinking water to 117 million

americans. one in three americans, their drinking water will be at risk if my friend's bill passes. that's why i feel so strongly about it. you see it right here. 117 million americans are served by public drinking water systems. that's 94% of public drinking water systems that rely on these headwater streams. it affects one in three americans. so -- and that's in 48 states. so we're talking about a bill that is called the federal water quality protection act, but it's about pollution, not protection. and in a way when we name these bills the opposite of what they are, remember this is called the

federal water quality protection act which he in fact it is going to lead to contamination of waterways. it reminds me of the book "1984" where the government is making sure people believe different things, and they have slogans like war is peace, war is peace, and you think about it and finally you can't tell the difference between war and peace. pollution is not protection, and this bill will lead to pollution. because s. 1140 blocks the final clean water rule that clearly protects these waters while exempting ditches and storm water collection and treatment systems. artificial ponds, walter fill depressions, puddles and recycled water facilities. what you will hear from the other side is oh, the obama administration has written a rule that's protecting puddles. that is none sense. the fact is the clean water rule

is going to bring certainty to the clean water act, and it's going to protect the drinking water of 117 million americans, and yet my republican friends want to stop it. and the exemptions that are in there would be gone. not only the exemption from ditches, storm water collection, artificial ponds, depressions and recycled water facilities, but also the exemptions for agriculture and forestry. is that right? so we're going to have a situation where there's more chaos surrounding our water laws. it's going to lead to confusion for businesses and landowners. and it's going to take us back to square one to figure out a whole other route. and following two supreme court

decisions, we shouldn't pass legislation that would create even more uncertainty and invite years of new litigation. now, the other thing you hear from the other side is oh, this thing, this clean water rule that the obama administration wrote, they didn't listen to the public. well, more than one million comments were received during a comment period that lasted over 200 days. and, mr. president, 400 outreach meetings with stakeholders and state and local governments were conducted. so this bill by sending us back to square one ignores this robust outreach, and it will wind up wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, forcing e.p.a. to go right back, right back to square one. how many more comments do these friends of mine on the other side of the aisle want? my god, 400 outreach meetings

over 200 days, and more than a million comments. it makes no sense to me. so nothing is more important than protecting the lives of the american people, and when we weaken the clean water act, that's what we do. now, i want to show you a photograph. this was the cuyahoga river in cleveland, ohio, decades ago. it caught on fire. it caught on fire because there was no regulation and there were all kinds of toxics on this waterway. our lakes were dying, and this one -- when the people saw it on fire, they said enough is enough. they demanded the clean water act. we passed it. i wasn't here then. it was 1972. by an overwhelming bipartisan

majority. and we have made tremendous progress, mr. president. today our rivers, lakes and streams are far cleaner than they were, and the clean water act has been one of our most successful laws. let's look at the support for the clean water act. this is unbelievable when you see this. and this is overwhelming public support for the clean water rule that my friends on the other side of the aisle, the republicans, want to stop in its tracks. 79% of voters think congress should allow the clean water rule to move forward. 80% of small business owners support protections for upstream headwaters in the e.p.a.'s new clean water rule. so somebody has to explain it to me, and i'm sure my friends will try to and i will look forward to hearing their reasoning, why they're going against 79% of the voters and 80% of small

businesses. it makes no sense. the bill takes us in the wrong direction, in the wrong direction. that is why over 80 scientists with expertise in the importance of streams and wetlands, as well as the society for freshwater science, oppose this bill. and i have received opposition letters from so many groups, i'm going to read them to you, and as i read these groups, think about these groups. these are objective groups. these are nonpartisan groups. the american public health association, the physicians for social responsibility, the trust for america's health, scientists and legal experts, 82 scientists, 44 law professors, the american fisheries society, the american sustainable business council, representing 200,000 businesses, oppose this bill.

35 u.s. breweries. now, that's kind of interesting. the breweries count on clean water. they are just very upset about the barrasso bill. they oppose it. the american fly fishing trade association. i thought my republican friends support outdoor recreation the backcountry hunters and anglers oppose this. the illinois council of trout unlimited. the international federation of fly fishers. the florida wildlife federation. the national wildlife federation. the theodore roosevelt conservation partnership. trout unlimited. then you have the alliance for the great lakes, the american canoe association, american rivers, the blue green alliance. and, mr. president, i'm not going to go on that much longer. i'm just going to finish reading this list, because when i speak, okay, you know i'm a strong environmentalist. i'm wearing my green today on

purpose. but these groups are very, very concerned about the barrasso bill, as are 79% of voters. now, here are the other groups that weighed in. bluestream communications, california river watch, central ohio watershed council. they know because they have algae blooms coming to their lakes. clean water action, clean up the river, coastal environmental rights, defenders of wildlife, earthjustice, environment america, evangelical environmental network. do you want to know why the evangelical environmental network is here, mr. president? because they believe we are harming with this bill god's creation, god's creation. that's why they're involved. greenpeace, gulf restoration network, kentucky waterways alliance, lake champlain

international, league of conservation voters, national parks conservation association, the nature coast conservation, new jersey awed done, northwest environmental advocates, ohio river foundation, prairie rivers network, river network, sierra club, southern environmental law center, surfrider foundation, and the center for rural affairs. now, there are reasons that all these groups and scientists and biologists have come together. they want to protect the waterways of the united states of america. this bill will take us back to square one. this bill goes against the most incredible group of opponents. this bill ignores the will of the people. so i'm very, very hopeful that we will have enough votes to stop the special interests that want to keep dumping toxic material and dangerous material

into our waterways. and with that, i would yield the floor and i know senator barrasso or senator inhofe would like time. and i'd ask unanimous consent that when the first republican speaker is done, it goes back to a democrat, back to a republican, if that's okay with everybody. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: let me do three things real quickly. one is a request, one is an apology and one is the truth. on the request, i ask unanimous consent that chuck rodalock, a legislative fellow in senator flake's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: secondly, an apology. you know, i'm very fortunate, i have had the same staff for 21 years in the united states senate. they have never made a mistake.

my staff has never made a mistake until last friday. last friday, i was informed by my staff we had three votes starting at 1:00 in the morning -- two votes, and yet there were three. so i'm the guy that came down, thinking i had already voted, and so i apologize to the leader, i apologize to the staff that was working, and more than anything else, i apologize to the -- to the guys down here on the front row, our pages, who had to stay up another 15 minutes at 4:00 in the morning because of me. okay, i apologize. on the truth side, first of all, put in the record my good friend from california was talking about all the groups. i have five times as many groups are now on record, of which many are from the state of california. i have a long list. i want to make that a part of the record, those from california. and then the 480 very thoughtful groups that are opposed to this

bill. i ask unanimous consent that it be a part of the record, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: the -- you know, the waters of the united states snort -- is not noarp -- another example of regular overreach. i chair the committee on environment and public works. we have authority over the e.p.a. and yet they won't come and testify, i think is something that never happened before. this rule we're talking about now is illegal. it's not supported by science. it's not supported by the technical experiences of the corps of engineers. it is a political power grab. 31 states filed lawsuits against the wilderness. if we don't act to send this rule back, states, local governments, farmers and landowners could face years of abuse by e.p.a. until the courts inevitably strike the rule down.

and, believe me, it is inevitable that the rule will be overturned. i think we know it's not just my opinion. this is the conclusion of two courts that have looked at this rule so far. on august 27, judge ericson of the district of north dakota issued an injunction that prevented the wotus rule from going into effect in 13 states. oklahoma, my state, was not one of the 13 states. according to judge erickson, and this is her quote "the rule allows e.p.a. regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the chemical, physical or biological integrity of any navigable, in fact, water." unquote. as a result of her concluding this rule is likely arbitrary and capricious, that means it violates the law. this is what the judge said. on october 9, the sixth circuit court of appeals reached the same conclusion and issued a nationwide stay on the wotus

rule. my committee has conducted a lot of oversights. i think we've had six hearings so far. we have a memorandum of the army corps of engineers that document the fact that e.p.a. is claiming the authority to assert federal control wherever they want, no matter what the science says or what the technical or legal experts of the courts say. so what we have is a rule that is not developed based on science or technical expertise. instead it's based on a political goal to call everything in a water as united states. if we look at the chart that's up right now, it's imperative that we have to act right now. this is what we're having right now around the country. let me make this comment. i'm very much concerned about this. the ones who want this the most are the farmers and the ranchers. a lot of other people too.

but in my state of oklahoma -- i come from a farm state -- and i can remember not too long ago a guy named tom buchanan -- tom buchanan is the chairman of the oklahoma farm bureau. and he said, you know, historically it's not been this way, but as it is right now a major problem that farmers and ranchers have in my state of oklahoma is not anything that's found in the farm bill. it is the overregulation of the e.p.a. and of all of the regulations of the e.p.a. that are overregulating, putting farmers out of business, the one that is worse is the waters in the united states. and i will share this with you, mr. president. five years ago the -- i would say the liberals, those who want all the power in washington, they made an effort to take the word navigable out. historically, this has always

been in the jurisdiction of the states, and in order to except for navigable waters. i understand that and everybody else does too. senator feingold from the senate and congressman oberstar from the house got together and introduced a bill to take the word navigable out and give all the power to the federal government. not only did we defeat their legislation, but they were both defeated in the next election. so it's a huge issue. it's one of overregulation. it's one that we need to go ahead since the courts have decided what is going to happen eventually, we need to go ahead and pass this legislation or we're going to be working in a direction that is contrary to our court system. i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, let me make it clear what this legislation would do. it's true that it would stop the final rule on the waters of the

u.s. that's been issued. it would also change the underlying criteria in the clean water act. it not only blocks the rule from going forward, it weakens the clean water act. let me just talk a little bit about both. the final rule on the waters of the u.s. that has been issued restore the clarity to the enforcement of the clean water act. it restores it to what was commonly understood before a series of supreme court cases that really raised questions as to which water bodies in fact can be regulated under the clean water act. and the worst possible outcome is the lack of clarity. we don't know. you don't know what the rules are. the final rule that's been proposed that now is now final would restore that clarity to what was generally understood to be waters of the u.s. and to say it in layman's terms, it's waters that lead to an effect to the water quality of our streams, our lakes and

waters in america. it affects public health. it affects public health directly by the health of our waters of the u.s. as well as providing the source for safe drinking waters. so what's at risk? if this final rule that's blocked that's not become law over half of our nation's stream miles will become rifng -- at risk of not being regulated under the clean water act. acres of wetlands are at risk of not being adequately regulated under the clean water act. the drinking source for water, for one out of three americans would be at risk. so this legislation would not only block the implementation of the final rule, it would also weaken the clean water act. it would drastically narrow the

historic scope of the clean water act, arbitrarily putting in nonscientific standards for how the rules would be developed. and, mr. president, let me tell you, since the enactment of the clean water act, every congress has tried to strengthen the clean water act, not weaken it. the clean water act was a bipartisan legislation passed in 1972. as senator boxer pointed out, it was in response to rivers literally catching fire and dead zones being found in our lakes. in the chesapeake bay we had the first marine dead zone that we were trying to respond to. in san francisco bay, we had p.c.b.'s at unacceptably high levels. that's why we passed the clean water act. and every congress, its legacy should be to strengthen the clean water act to make sure that we do have clean waters in the united states. if this legislation were to

become law, the legacy of this congress would be to weaken the clean water act. i don't think we want to do that. as pointed out, it not only rescinds the final clean water rule, it really changes the goal of the clean water act. currently the goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, biological integrity of the nation's waters. that's science-based. instead it would be changed to protect traditional navigable waters from pollution, which is a far different standard than dealing with the health issues of the waters of the united states. the arbiter of this would be the department of agriculture on the hydrological science. they're not qualified to do that. that's not their field. as i will point out in detail, the regulatory structure for agriculture has not changed under this final clean water act. and the bill would ignore hydrological science by requiring p continuous flow of

water to be regulated, ignoring the fact that there are seasonal variations where you can have water flows that dry up for a period of time which are still critically important to supply clean water in the united states. and ignores the nexus test which has been referred to in supreme court cases, using adjacent water next to navigable waters without any definition of what "next to" means. it puts public health at risk. for all those reasons, we don't want to jeopardize and move backwards on the clean water act of 1972. we want to add to that. and this legislation would in fact move us in the wrong direction. i just want to for one moment talk about the chesapeake bay. i think the people of maryland, the people of our region know how important it is, how important it is for our economy and watermen to make their living off of, the recreational use in the bay. millions of people every year depend upon the bay for their

recreation. it is a way of life of our state, of our region. it's a national treasure, the largest estuary in our hemisphere. well, it depends upon receiving clean water supplies. to come in from other states, not just maryland. you can't regulate the clean water of the chesapeake bay without having a national commitment to it because it knows no state boundary. that's why we need a strong clean water act. now, i've heard my colleagues talk about, well, agriculture farmers are against this. well, farmers will not be harmed by the e.p.a.'s final clean water rule. it actually is good for farmers because it provides certainty and clarity. in developing the rule, the e.p.a. and army listened carefully to the input from the agriculture committee, u.s. department of of agriculture and state departments of agriculture. as senator boxer pointed out there were hundreds of meetingings with stakeholders

across the country. it required protected water. agricultural activities like planting, harvesting, removing stock across streams have long been ex-cliewppedded from permanent -- excluded from permanent and that won't change under the rule. in other words, farmers and ranchers won't need a permit for l normal activities to occur in and around those waters. the rule does include normal farming, ranching practices, those activities including plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage and harvesting for production of food, fiber and forest products. soil and water conservation practices on dry land are preserved. agriculture storm water discharges no changes. instruction and maintenance of farm and stock ponds where irrigation ditches or dry land not regulated under this bill. maintenance and drainage of ditches not regulated.

construction or maintenance of farm, forest and temporary mining roads not regulated. ensure neeldz -- fields flooded for rice are exempt and be used for bird habitat. the rule expands commonsense exclusions from prior converted crop lands, waste treatment systems, irrigated areas, otherwise dry land, artificial lakes or ponds, constructed in dry land, water-filled depressions created as a result of construction activities. the list goes on and on. the rule does not -- does not -- protect any types of water that have not historically been covered under the clean water act. it does not add any new requirements for agriculture. it does not interfere with or change private property rights. it does not change policy on irrigation or water transfers. it does not address land use. it does not cover erosion fee tourists such as gullies, rails and nonwet land areas.

in other words, mr. president, we have maintained the historic exemptions from agriculture from the clean water act. they are not expanded under this rule. so, let me just give quotes from people who are directly impacted about what is being done under the korean water rule and -- under the clean water rule and would be affected by the legislation before us. the small business community. and i quote from david leevine. it will give the business community more confidence that streams and rivers will be protected. this is good for the economy and vital for businesses that rely on clean water for their success. business owners want a consistent regulatory system based on sound science. that's what this rule provides. ben rainbolt, executive director of the rocky mountain farmers union. water is critical to the livelihood of family farms and

ranches. the rule employs a commonsense rationale for both clarifying with bodies of waters should fall under the clean water act as well as maintaining the existing c exemptions for agriculture. this rule will result in cleaner, safer water for agriculture, rural communities and all who count on healthy streams and rivers. and then andrew nimpley, government affairs representative in new belgium brewery. our brewery and communities depend on clean water. beer is 90% water. if something happens to our source -- water -- the negative effect on our business is almost unthinkable. we rely on responsible regulations that limit pollution and protect waters as its source. over the past 23 years we've learned that when smart regulations and clean water exist for all, business thrives. i particularly like that one, mr. president, because i think we've all seen the ads 0en television about water and clean water. it affects all of our

businesses. let me conclude, if i might, by those who depend upon recreation who strongly support the clean water rule and oppose the legislation that's before us, and i'll quote from andy carkois, an owner of a fishing fly company. "anyone who has ever swam in our beautiful great lakes or fished or boated on our waters has benefited enormously. now it is time to raise our voices in support of clean water. our economy and future generations of hunters and anglers depend on it." so, mr. president, i think the verdict is clear. this rule that has been proposed will add to the protections that the public deserves for public health and their drinking water. it is a sensible regulation. it is clearly under the authority of the clean water act. i would urge my colleagues to reject this legislation,

certainly the cloture motion, so that we don't reject the rule and wa weaken the clean water a. with that, i would yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the opportunity today to move this legislation, that is bipartisan and it protects our environment and it helps small businesses all across the country. s. 1140, the federal water quality protection act is legislation that i introduced along with a number of democrat senators, senator donnelly, heitkamp, and manchin, along with many other senators. the senator from california previously spoke, and i would just point out to her that the california chamber of commerce supports my legislation. the california farm bureau supports my legislation. because this legislation will protect our nation's navigable waters and the streams and wetlands that help our navigable waters say clean. this bill is a testament to the hard work both sides of the aisle has done in achieving an

agreement on an environmental protection bill. our rivers, our lakes, our wetlands, all other waterways are among america's most treasured resources. in my home state of wyoming, we have some of the most beautiful rivers in the world. the snake river, the wind river, dozens of others. people from around the world come to wyoming. they come to visit because we have an environmental landscape that is second to none. anyone who has come to my state and experienced yellowstone national park, the grand tetons, the bighorn mountains, comes away with a sense that wyoming is a pristine and beautiful place. it's what wyoming sells. and it's what makes wyoming so unique. so the people of wyoming are devoted to keeping our waterways safe. we want to preserve the water for our children and grandchildren. we understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

it is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways while respecting the difference between state waters and federal waters. this is the environmental legacy that my constituents want, and it is a legacy that they have earned for their decades of sound management. it is the people of wyoming who have kept wyoming's waterways pristine and beautiful. so the e.p.a. has now released new rules. the new rule is called the waters of the united states rule, wotus. this rule does not work, not for either of your constituents, certainly not for those who have to put a shovel in the ground to make a living. the courts have begun to weigh in with their concerns about this wotus rule and they have a given congress and stake hoirlds a necessary pause. that's why we're here today.

judge ericsson of the district of north dakota in walkin augusd an injunction blocking it. he did it because it was inex-politiccable and devoid of a reasoned process. he also stated with regard to the rationale behind the e.p.a.'s rationale for what is and is federal water, "it appears that the standard is the right standard only because the agencies say it is. the unite united states' sixth t court of appeals then put a nationwide stay on the rule in the same year. in granting the stay, this is what the court said. "the sheer breadth of the ripple effecteffects caused by the ruls definitional -- maintaining the status quo for the time-being."

keep it as it is for the time being. the court added "a stay temporarily silences the whirl wind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new rule and whether they will survive legal testing." so what the courts have done is said, let congress have time to act. now, we don't have to sit on the sidelines and watch this rule slowly crumble under legal scrutiny. contrary to some activities rhetoric, we are not facing an immediate environmental water crisis. the sixth court stated that in granting the stay, that neither is there any indication that the integrity of the nation's water will suffer eminent injury if the new scheme is not immediately implemented and enforces. they even called it a scheme. we now have the opportunity to do better. and to do better, we must act now. that's why we must take this opportunity to pass the legislation before us that will

have e.p.a. do a new rule under a specific set of principles outlined by congress. these are principles that protect navigable water and adjacent wetlands as well as farmers, as well as ranchers, as well as other land oarchlts i know that some senators gave them the benefit of the doubt with this rule. those senators waited for the final result to see if those concerned would be addressed. i'm here to he will it you today, mr. president, that whatever concessions the e.p.a. says they made to address some of these serious problems raised by this -- by their proposed rule, the e.p.a. added new provisions in the final rule that greatly expand their authority. this is disappointing because i believe the great majority of senators voiced concerns in the process and those concerns fell on deaf ears. the e.p.a. has produced a final rule worse than the one that they originally proposed.

here's an example. instead of clarifying the difference between a stream and an erosion on the land, the rule defines "tributaries" to include any place where the e.p.a. thinks -- where e.p.a. thinks it sees an ordinary high-water ma mark. what looks like -- not what is, but what looks like, what they think is this ordinary high-water mark. even worse, e.p.a. proposes to make those decisions from sitting at their desks, using aerial photographs, laser-generated images claiming that a visit to the location is not necessary. under the rule of the environmental protection agency also has the power to regulate something as "waters of the united states if it falls within a 100-year floo floodplain" or t is within 400 fetal o feet of a

navigable tributary. under this rule, a significant nexus can mean a water feature that provides life-cycle dependent aquatic habitat for a species. if you're drawing 4,000-foot circles around anything the e.p.a. defines or identifies as a tributary -- remember, 4,000 feet -- we're talking about 14 football fields long. and everywhere there is a potential aquatic habitat -- essentially almost the entire united states, according to this, would be under water. actually 100% of the styt statef virginia is under this jurisdiction. 99.% of the state of missouri falls within this area. under water, if you will, according to the e.p.a. guidelines. now, i'd like to take a moment to talk about puddles because one of the previous speakers on the other side of the aisle talked about puddles. people know what they think about when they think about a pupuddle.

when 2 ranges. -- when it rains. defined as very small, shallow and highly transitory pools of water that forms on the pavement or uplands or immediately after a rainstorm or similar precipitation event. i guess that would be like when the snow melts. the rule specifically does take control over other pools of water created by rain, like those that we have all around wyoming. prairie potholes, vernal pools, even if the land where the pools of water form is faraway from any navigable water or even a tributary. under this new regulation, mr. president, nearly all of these pools of water created by rain will now be considered waters of the united states, giving the environmental protection agency the power to regulate what you do on that land. these provisions are sweeping and will create unnecessary and uncertainty activities in communities all across the

country. mr. president, there's plenty that i've already outlined in the waters of the united states rule that's bad bad for agricule with the many methods it provides for federalizing previously state-controlled bort water. states have made these decisions in the past. now we're adding another level of government bureaucracy. this rule is bad for agriculture. for those people who produce our food. farmers, ranchers, and others are used to working with their states to protect their land and water under that you are own stewardship. but i will tell you, mr. president, we heard from the senator from california about groups opposing this. 480 different groups support this bill and they are major national groups -- american farm bureau, american soybean association, american sugar alliance, the milk producers council, the national association of wheat growers, the national cattlemen's beef association, the national chicken council, national corn growers association, national

council of farm cooperatives, the united egg producers, usia rice federation. i could go on and on. these are the food producers of america. they support the legislation in front of the senate today. the point is that not one state -- not a single state in this country is out there that doesn't have a strong agricultural presence. we all do. so i urge all senators to make sure, as you prepare to vote on this motion to proceed, you check with your folks at home. i'd also note that many industries outside of agriculture are concerned with the rule as well. these include manufacturers, homebuilders, small businesses, you name it. they're all very concerned with this rule and may want congress to act now. action could mean congress can pass a congressional review act resolution, which would be considered possibly later in the process. but that would eliminate the wotus rule and prevent a

substantially similar rule from being proposed. that would allow for a new rule, as long as it was not substantially similar to the existing rule. we need to vote on this resolution because i believe that s. 1140 is a better route, the one that we have here today. this is the bipartisan compromise. this is the bill that has a number of senators from the democrat side of the aisle cosponsoring the legislation. most importantly, this piece of legislation on the floor today allows for congress to establish the principles -- congress to establish the principles of what the new e.p.a. would look like. now, i know there are a number of democrats who have ideas to improve the legislation that's on the floor today specific for their own states. if my colleagues vote to proceed to the motion to proceed at 2:30 this afternoon, we will have an open amendment process that would allow members to improve s. 1140 in a bipartisan way. we're willing to work with anyone who wants to improve this

rule in a bipartisan way. but let's not sit on the side lines anymore. rather than support an e.p.a. final rule that actually makes it worse and was worse than the proposed rule, a rule that will likely not survive legal scrutiny based on what we saw from the courts, a rule that doesn't represent the interests of our farmers, ranchers, families, small businesses, our communities, let's move forward with a bipartisan federal water quality protection act to assure the public that we hear and we understand their concerns. at the same time, let's give e.p.a. and the army corps the certainty they need to confidently move forward with a new rule, a rule that truly reflects the needs of the constituents that we represent. let's protect our nation's waterways for the long term. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, the famous republican senator

from rhode island, john chafee, who was one of the authors of the clean water act, would be sorry to see what has become of his party today and what's being done to the clean water act that so many republicans worked so hard for over so many years. the pretense is that some evil bureaucrat force at the e.p.a. has leapt out to take over american farmers and ranchers. that's not what happened. the supreme court made decisions about what the clean water act says, defining the navigable waters of the united states, and e.p.a. had to follow the supreme court's guidance, which they did. and i believe they have been faithful to that supreme court guidance. they went through more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications. they did 400 public meetings. they had over a million comments

on the proposed rule, and the vast majority of those comments were guess what? in support of the rule. what we have here is not some d.c. bureaucratic evil presence against ranchers and farmers across the country. what we really have here is a fight between upstream and downstream. and as senator barrasso very plainly said just a moment ago, the big players in this are the big special interests and agriculture, the big pork produce producers with their jie jie -- ginormous lagoons, the big ag conglomerates. if you want to be with them, fine. let's not pretend this is about protecting little ranchers and farmers. this is about upstream versus downstream. i come from rhode island. i'm from a downstream state. i've got to say if i were in big agriculture and i saw this rule, instead of coming in here and

whining and complaining and yanking people's chains in order fo get changes made, i would grab this rule and run like a bank robber, because this bill does so much for upstream agriculture at the expense of downstream fishermen, downstream aqua culture, downstream health of our rivers and bays. all agriculture exemptions and exclusions from the clean water requirement that have existed for 40 years have been retained. well, we've learned a little bit since then about what goes on. one place that i went to learn recently was over to ohio. i spent the weekend in ohio doing one of my climate tours of the different states of the union, and in ohio i went here, to port clinton on lake erie, and i was taken by the folks

from stone laboratories and from some of the leading charter captains in this area off to the bass islands just offshore. and they told me about the a gentlemanly -- about the algae bloom. it was so thick that the fishing captains described that their boats slowed down in the muck. it was like running your powerboat through pudding. toledo had to stop providing fresh water to its citizens and spent millions and millions of dollars having to import fresh water and provide bottled water. this lake, lake erie, is 2% of the water of all the great lakes, 50% of the fish. 2% of the water, 50% of the fish

in the great lakes in lake erie, so it has a robust fishing economy for wall eyes and perch. the folks who go out and make this their livelihood, they don't think it's very funny, because this whole watershed feeds down into lake erie. and phosphorous, because of climate change, has driven rain bursts. the rains have powered up in this area, so the phosphorous is washing off the farmers' fields and coming down, and that is what is creating the cyanatic algael bloom. wyoming doesn't have a lot of downstream. it is a landlocked street, so i appreciate why the -- it is a landlocked state so i appreciate why the senator is so enthusiastic about this. for those of us who are downstream, this is a rule that frankly is too weak. and the fact that we have to stand here and fight it from even getting more weak, from putting our rivers and our bays

at even more risk is very, very unfortunate. and it's not just phosphorous. phosphorous is what happens to drive the bacteria growth in lake erie. but it's insecticides. it's nitrogen. and it's doing immense damage in our waterways. i'll conclude where i began. if you're big agriculture and this is your special interest bill, you ought to run for it. don't waste your time on this. grab this existing clean water act bill and go for it like a bank robber with his money, because you got away with being able to continue to do immense damage to downstream resources without any regulation at all. and to now be here complaining is really amazing to those of us who are representing downstream states, downstream interests, downstream fisheries, downstream bays and all the catchmen areas like lake erie that get clobbered as a result of pollutants that flow into our waters. with that, i will yield the

floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ride in support of bipartisan legislation that will hurt job growth and plans to place a large share of our nation's farmers, and small businesses into the regulatory grip of the e.p.a. this burdensome regulation is the e.p.a. and army corps' final rule on the waters of the u.s. s. the bill to fix it is called the federal water quality protection act. and that's the bill that we're seeking to proceed to today so that we can debate it, amend it and pass it to deal with this onerous regulation. the burdensome regulation that we're talking about, of course, is the e.p.a. and army corps' final rule on waters of the u.s.

the legislation, the federal water quality protection act is legislation to address it authored by my good friend from wyoming, senator barrasso, and i cosponsored this legislation along with many others on our side of the aisle, but also this is a bipartisan bill with our colleagues from across the aisle as well. and so this is bipartisan legislation. it's had bipartisan input. and i encourage members on both sides of the aisle to proceed to this legislation. let's have this very important debate on behalf of our farmers and ranchers and so many others across this country, job creators across this country. as i say, offer amendments, have our votes. but we need to deal with this very important legislation for the benefit of the american people. this waters of the u.s. rule expands the scope of the clean water act regulation over america's streams and wetlands. it says, a real power grab by the e.p.a. and expeedz --

exceeds the statutory authority of the e.p.a. the supreme court has found that federal jurisdiction under the clean water act extends to -- quote -- "navigable waters." end quote. i don't think anyone is arguing about the e.p.a.'s ability to regulate navigable bodies of water like the missouri river, in my state, but the supreme court has also made clear that not all bodies of water are under the e.p.a. jurisdiction. yet, under the administration's final rule, all water located within 4,000 feet of any other water or within the 100-year floodplain is considered waters of the u.s. as long as the e.p.a. or the army corps of engineers decides that it has -- quote -- "significant nexus" to that navigable water. in the opinion of either the corps or the e.p.a. these agencies define significant nexus so that almost any body of water qualifies.

for instance, if an area can hold rain water or has water that can seep into groundwater, which is almost any water anywhere, by then there is significant nexus, according to the e.p.a. or the army corps of engineers. not to mention the fact that areas like the perry pothole region in my state of north dakota, are specifically targeted as waters of the u.s. the result is that the vast majority of the nation's water features are located within 4,000 feet of a covered body of water. with this expansive rule sounds out of bound to you, you're not alone. in fact, the waters of the u.s. rule is such an overreach by the e.p.a. and the corps that 31 states -- 31 states -- are suing to overturn it, including my state of north dakota, which has led a lawsuit brought by 13 of those 31 states.

when banning a preliminary injunction against this rule, the north dakota or federal district court stated that -- quote -- "the rule allows e.p.a. regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of any navigable in fact water." end quote. it went further to state that -- quote -- "the rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent water. no evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to navigable in fact water." end quote. meanwhile, the sixth circuit court in cincinnati, ohio, issued a nationwide stay of the rule, citing that the e.p.a. and the corps did not identify -- quote -- "specific scientific support substantiating the reasonableness of the bright line standards they ultimately

chose." end quote. this waters of the u.s. rule is clearly flawed from a legal perspective. but i think it's even more important to take a look at how this rule, if allowed to be implemented, will affect hardworking americans with excessive regulation. for those of you who haven't had the opportunity to visit with a farmer from my state of north dakota know that dealing with excess water is a common issue, a daily issue, to say the least. and those farmers can tell you that just because there is water in a ditch or a field one week, that doesn't mean that there will be water there the next week. and it certainly doesn't make that water worthy of being treated the same as a river. a field with a low -- with a low spot that has standing water during a rainy week and happens to be located near a ditch does not warrant clean water act regulation from a legal or, more importantly, from a simple commonsense standpoint.

the corps and e.p.a. have responded to these concerns by saying that they are exempting dozens of conservation practices, but these exemptions only cover farmers and ranchers for changes made before 1977 or changes that don't disturb any water or land that is now considered to be a waters of the u.s. in other words, if you need a new clean water act permit, you're not going to qualify for the e.p.a.'s exemption under this rule. moreover, the exemption does not cover all clean water act permits. because of this rule, the farmer with a low spot in the field next to a ditch described above may now be sued under the clean water act section 402 national pollutant discharge elimination system. this farmer faces the risk of litigation costs for the use of everyday weed control and fertilizer applicants among other essential farming activities. farmers and ranchers are far

from the only job creators who will suffer under this rule. in fact, the small business administration office of advocacy has expressed concern about the impact it will have on other small businesses as well. i'm so concerned about this rule that i've led the effort on our appropriations committee to stop the rule in its tracks. we were successful, including language in the committee-passed interior e.p.a. appropriations bill to do just that. this federal water quality protection act, however, offers a long-term solution by vacating the waters of the u.s. rule, sending the e.p.a. and the corps back to the drawing board to develop a new rule with instructions to consult with states, local governments and small businesses. america's farmers, ranchers and entrepreneurs go to work every day to build a stronger nation. thanks to these hardworking men and women, we live in a country where there is affordable food

at the grocery store and where a dynamic private sector offers americans the opportunity to achieve a brighter future. the federal government should be doing all that it can do to empower those who grow our food and create jobs. yet instead, regulators are stifling with burdensome regulation that generates uncertainty and cost. the final rules produced by the e.p.a. and the corps proposes to regulate any body of water, pretty much water anywhere in the united states, is not the way to go. let's stop this regulation. please join me in voting to proceed to the federal water quality protection act. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: mr. president, i come before the senate today to talk about this waters of the u.s. resume and the legislation pending before us, s. 1140. i hope that we can proceed to

the bill. this is an important issue. obviously the definition of waters of the u.s. sets the rules of the game, who is covered under the clean water act. as has been stated, several supreme court decisions over the past decade, decade and a half, have created some uncertainty, a lot of uncertainty for landowners and those who work the land. who aren't sure whether they are going to be regulated or not. regulated entities need rules that have some certainty. that is not what we're getting here with this rule. the rule issued on june 29 defines jurisdiction very broadly, as we've heard, especially when it comes to streams that don't flow year-round. intermittent and ephemeral streams, of which arizona has many. now several scientists who have been involved in the rule-making process have told my staff that

there is a disagreement between what the science says and what this rule says. science says that some streams are strongly connected and others are not. there is a so-called spectrum of connectivity. but this rule assumes that they are all strongly connected. let me just show one picture of a stream here. this is dan bell, a rancher in southern arizona near the border of santa cruz county, standing on a streambed or a dry wash or aroharoro, that will likely be covered. like dan, i grou grew up on a rh in northern arizona. i have the topography of the land was named for some of these dry washes, but they only had water after a good rain, and it last add -- at last add few minutes. under this new rule, they will

be defined as waters of the u.s. if you can imagine what ranchers and other agricultural users are feeling right now, thinking that the federal government is going to step in on top of other state regulations that already occurs in regulating what goes on with these streambeds or these dry washes. on august 27, the federal district court judge blocked the implementation in 13 states, including arizona, saying -- quote -- "it appears likely that the e.p.a. has violated its congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the rule at issue." as we know, on october 9, the sixth circuit court of appeals stated the rule nationwide -- stayed the rule nationwide. so, there is not consensus, obviously, on what this rule does or does not do. in internal member motions to reconsider the army corps of

engineers highlighted a number of -- quote -- "serious areas of concern" with a rule including the -- quote -- "assertion of jurisdiction over every strea streambed" which would have -- quote -- "the affect of asserting clean water jurisdiction over many thousands of miles over dry washes and aroros in the desert southwest." when you hear seem say it is not going to affect die washes, that's not what the rule says. we need clarification here. we need to pass legislation today. we need to actually invoke cloture so that we can debate it and ultimately pass it. this is a bipartisan measure that will address this issue and provide ultimately with a new rule a consistenc consistency ad uniformity that those who work the land need. with that, mr. president, i yield back.

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, americans have had a tough time during the obama administration. sluggish economy -- i should say, a sluggish economic recovery that's really barely worthy of the name, stagnant wages for middle-class families; and a health care law that ripped away millions of americans' preferred health care plans; and burdensome regulations that have made it more challenging for businesses large and small to grow and create jobs. and one agency has done more than its fair share to make things difficult for americans, and that is the obama e.p.a. during the course of the obama administration, this administration has implemented one damaging rule after another, from a massive national backdoor

energy tax that threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs to unrealistic new ozone standards that have the potential to devastate state economies, and rereputed rebukes have done muc. this week the senate is taking up legislation introduced by my colleague from wyoming, senator barrasso, to address one of the e.p.a.'s biggest overreaches: the so-called waters of the united states regulation. the e.p.a. has long had authority under the clean water act to regulate -- quote -- "navigable waters" -- end quote, things like rivers, lakes, and major water ways. in the inclusion of the term "navigable," mr. president, in the clean wate clean water act s deliberate. it was dlifnlt the reason it was put there is because congress

intended to put limits, real limits, on the federal government's authority to regulate water and leave the regulation of smaller bodies of water to the states. defining the waters to be regulated as navigable waters ensured that the federal government's authority would be limited to bodies of water of substantial size and would not infringe on minor bodies of water on private land. over the last few years, it became clear that the e.p.a. was eager to expand its reach. the waters of the u.s. regulation, which the e.p.a. finalized this year, expands the e.p.a.'s regulatory authority to waters like small wetlands, creeks, stock ponds, and ditches, bodies of water that certainly don't fit the definition of "navigable." and it specifically targets the prairie pothole region which covers five states, including nearly all of eastern south dakota. now, if you look at this chart here, mr. president, this is

something that is a very normal landscape in south dakota, a field like you would see. and, of course, when it gets rain, some of the low-lying areas get a little water in them. but this is basically a puddle. if you look what the the regulation would do to the way in which farmers and ranchers manage and are able to use their lands for production agriculture, it has some profound impacts. you know, we are talking about lakes and rivers here. we're talking about small isolated ponds that ranchers use to water their cattle or prairie potholes that are dry for most of the year but d do collect soe water after heavy rains along the lines of what you see in this photo. but even dry creek beds could be subject to the e.p.a.'s regulatory authority. that's how far-reaching this

legislation is. when you talk about a body of water coming under the e.p.a.'s regulatory authority, you're not talking about having to follow a couple of basic rules and regulations, okay? waters that come under the e.p.a.'s jurisdiction under the clean water act are subject it a complex array of expensive and burdensome regulatory requirements including permitting and reporting requirements, enforcement, mitigation, and citizen suits. fines for failing to comply with any of these requirements can accumulate at the rate of $37,500 per day. $37,500 per day, mr. president, in fines for failing to comply with a regulation like the one that is now being final by the e.p.a. under the e.p.a.'s new waters of the u.s. rule, creeks and

ditches would be subject to this array of regulations. ditches whose water level rarely exceeds a couple of inches would be subject to extensive regulatory requirements, including costly permits and time-consuming reports. needless to say, these kinds of requirements will hit farmers and ranchers hard. agriculture is a time--- time-sensitive business. and these types of requirements would harm farmers' ability to irrigate their crops when the seasons and weather conditions dictate. farmers can't afford to wait for a permit. now i've received numerous letters from south dakota farmers and ranchers as well as local governments expressing their concern about the e.p.a.'s new rule. one constituent writes, and i quote, "wree liv "we live in du,

south dakota. our land consists of many shallow low spots. according to the new rules, our entire farm would be under the juris disks thjurisdiction of t. the mandatory laws by the e.p.a. are just wrong and are often written and enforced by someone who has never lived or worked 0en a far0on a farm and doesn'td how the forces of nature cannot be dictated. the weather is often extreme and we must work with it. under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch or make changes to the land, even if those changes would benefit the environment." fleas a constituent in my home state of south dakota. another constituent also from my home state said, and i quote, "our business is going to be put into acute peril if the e.p.a. is not stopped. by removing the word 'navigable' from the clean water act they will be in control of every drop

of water in the united states which is disastrous for those of us engaged in farming and ranching." this from the pennington county board of commissioners, this is pennington county in south dakota, is the second largest county, home to our second-largest city, rapid city. the pennington county board of commissioners wrote to me, "in addition to tourism, agriculture is a critical piece of our local economy. this proposal would cause significant hardships to local farmers and ranchers by taking away local control of the land uses. the cost to the local agricultural community would be enormous. this would lead to food and cattle prices increasing significantly." the board also warned, and i quote again, "if storm water costs significantly increase due to this proposed rule, not only will it impact our ability to focus our available resources on real priority water quality issues, but it may also require

funds to be diverted from other government services that we are required to proirks suc providew enforcement, fire protection services, et cetera." mr. president, i've received letter after letter like these from farmers, ranchers, business owners, and local governments across my state. andeand they're not alone. concern is high across all of the united states. that is why 31 states have filed lawsuits against the e.p.a.'s regulation, as have a number of industry groups. the courts have already granted them some temporary relief. last month the sixth circuit court of appeals expanded an earlier injunction and blocked implement of the e.p.a.'s rule in all 50 states. but a final decision of the courts could be years away. so to protect americans affected

by this rule from years of litigation and uncertainty, this week the senate is taking up the federal water quality protection act introduced by senator barrasso, i would require the e.p.a. to return to the drawing board and write a new waters of the u.s. rule in consultation with states, local governments, agricultural producerings, and small businesses. -- agricultural producers, and small businesses. that seems only fitting that you actually ought to consult with the people who are impacted by this. if that had happened, maybe there wouldn't be 31 states that have already filed lawsuits against the federal government. maybe you wouldn't have all these local governments who are mortified about the impacts it is going to have on them, or agricultural producers, small businesses, home earns homeowne, developers -- i've never seen an thaissue that has so galvanized

people. we talk a lot about issues in our state because that's our number-one industry. but rarely do you have an issue which generates opposition from so many sectors of our economy. that is how far-reaching this regulation is. this is the largest federal land grab, arguably, in our nation's history. so, anyway, what the legislation also does is it explicitly prohibits the e.p.a. from counting things like ditches, isolated ponds, and storm water as navigable waters that it can regulate under the clean water act. so it takes these things that we're talking about, the stock ponds, the ditches, frankly, the puddles away from areas that the e.p.a. can assert its jurisdiction and regulate.

mr. president, everybody agrees on the importance of clean water. farmers in my state depend on it. and the legislation that we're considering today will ensure that the e.p.a. retains the authority to make sure our lakes and rivers are clean and pollutant free. but, mr. president, members of both parties should be able to agree that allowing the e.p.a. to regulate what frequently amount to seasonal puddles is taking things a step too far. the cost of this rule will be steep and its burdens will be significant, impacting those who have an inherent interest in properly managing their water to protect their livelihoods and health. back in march, a bipartisan group of 59 senators voted to limit the e.p.a.'s waters of the u.s. power grab, and three democrat senators have cosponsored the legislation that's before us today. it is my hope, mr. president, that more will j