U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–913 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–248 

BUSINESS MEETING 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 10, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 4 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 32 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................... 61 

Carper, Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ........................ 67 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts .......... 84 

LEGISLATION 

The text of S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act ........................... 34 

The text of Cardin-Boxer Amendment No. 1 ......................................................... 63 

The text of Boxer Amendment No. 1 ...................................................................... 74 

The text of Boxer Amendment No. 5 ...................................................................... 77 

The text of Markey Amendment No. 1 .................................................................. 86 

The text of Boxer Amendment No. 6 ...................................................................... 89 

(1) 

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2015 

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, Boozman, 

Wicker, Fischer. Rounds, Sullivan, Boxer, Carper, Cardin, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Our meeting will come to order. 

We do not have a lot of people here yet. We are going to go ahead 

and Senator Boxer and I will do our opening statements. Then we 

will wait for our quorum to show up. 

I have made addressing EPA regulatory overreach one of my top 

priorities as Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee. That is why I am particularly glad that today 

we are marking up the bipartisan S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act after holding a bicameral oversight hearing in 

February, three field hearings in Alaska and Nebraska, and a legislative hearing. 

Two weeks ago, EPA issued a final rule that expands Federal authority under the Clean Water Act by changing the definition of 

‘‘waters of the United States.’’ Absent legislation to stop it, this 

new rule will go into effect later this summer. 

EPA took this action despite the fact that according, to the Corps 

of Engineers, 60 percent of the comments, during the comment period, opposed the rule, including 32 States, the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors, the National League of Cities and the National Association 

of Counties. We have all these people opposing this very stringent 

rule. 

I have to add at this point that in my State of Oklahoma, which 

I do not think is much different from any other State, our Farm 

Bureau head, Tom Buchanan, says the problems the farmers and 

ranchers in Oklahoma face have nothing to do with anything you 

find in the farm bill. It is all overregulation by the EPA and the 

water regulations that scare them the most. That is their No. 1 priority right now. 

Fortunately, this bipartisan legislation will stop the final rule 

and make EPA and the Corps of Engineers go back and redo it. 

2 

This time, they cannot avoid consultation with States and local 

governments. They will have to do a full economic analysis, including an unfunded mandates analysis, and they will have to review 

the impacts on small businesses and small local government. 

These are process steps they skipped because they claim that a 

definition has no direct costs, a claim strongly disputed by States, 

local governments, and the Small Business Administration Office of 

Advocacy. We know that from the hearing we had here in these 

chambers. This legislation also prevents EPA from issuing a new 

rule that simply repeats their regulatory overreach. 

Unlike the rule they issued 2 weeks ago, in a revised rule, EPA 

will not be able to claim the power to control land and water use 

based on use of water by birds or other animals, the seepage of 

water into the ground, water storage, and the overland flow of flood 

water. At the same time, the legislation encourages EPA to regulate streams that actually carry pollutants to navigable water and 

wetlands next to streams and rivers that filter pollutants. 

Before some of you came in, I made the comment that in my 

State of Oklahoma, the president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, 

Tom Buchanan, says their No. 1 concern is this issue. I know that 

is probably true in Mississippi and other States too. We are going 

to try to correct that. 

Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

3 


99913.001
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

You heard my chairman say that his priority is going after EPA 

overreach. His priority is going after the Environmental Protection 

Agency. It is his right, as he and I have said often. Elections have 

consequences. When I had the gavel, we did a lot of different things 

here. He has the gavel and it is his right. 

I want to remind colleagues that this is the Environment Committee and not the anti-environment committee. I hope we will remember that our charge is to protect the people of America from 

harmful pollution. 

Today, we are considering legislation that would undermine one 

of our Nation’s landmark laws, the Clean Water Act, and roll back 

protections for the American people, their drinking water. It will 

actually roll back protections for 117 million people. 

We talk a lot about national security, as we should. Nothing is 

more important than protecting the lives of the American people. 

Members of this Committee should understand that when we 

weaken the Clean Water Act, as this bill will do, we are putting 

the lives of our people in danger. 

The Clean Water Act prevents the uncontrolled pollution of the 

streams, rivers, and lakes where our children swim and that provide drinking water to millions of Americans. If the Clean Water 

Act does not apply, polluters can dump raw sewage that would 

sicken children swimming in contaminated waters. 

Factories can discharge industrial waste containing heavy metals, such as arsenic, lead, and selenium. Drilling companies can 

discharge wastewater containing known carcinogens like benzene 

and chromium–6. We need a strong Clean Water Act to ensure this 

does not happen. 

Decades ago, the United States experienced widespread damage 

and degradation to our environment. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio was on fire and our lakes were dying from pollution. In 

1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act. 

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today would take us in 

the wrong direction by removing protections and creating more confusion and uncertainty about which waters are protected. That is 

why over 80 scientists with expertise in the importance of streams 

and wetlands, as well as the Society for Freshwater Science, have 

written to us opposing this bill. 

We have also received opposition letters from numerous sportsmen groups, including the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, 

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Izaak Walton League of America, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited 

and many other groups. 

I ask unanimous consent to place all of them into the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

5 


99913.002
6 


99913.003
7 


99913.004
8 


99913.005
9 


99913.006
10 


99913.007
11 


99913.008
12 


99913.009
13 


99913.010
14 


99913.011
15 


99913.012
16 


99913.013
17 


99913.014
18 


99913.015
19 


99913.016
20 


99913.017
21 


99913.018
22 

Senator BOXER. These groups understand the important link between clean water and outdoor recreation. These groups work with 

Republicans and Democrats alike and they fiercely oppose this bill. 

Over 40 leading law professors that study, teach, and write about 

the Clean Water Act have concluded ‘‘S. 1140 would constitute a 

massive weakening of the Clean Water Act.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent to enter these and other letters of opposition into the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

23 


99913.019
24 


99913.020
25 


99913.021
26 


99913.022
27 


99913.023
28 


99913.024
29 

Senator BOXER. The final Clean Water Rule that S. 1140 will 

block clearly protects streams that provide drinking water to millions of Americans while establishing exemptions for numerous 

water bodies that do not impact downstream water quality. 

For the first time, Federal regulations will explicitly exclude numerous types of ditches. You are going to hear all kinds of misinformation on this. This rule excludes numerous types of ditches, 

stormwater collection and treatment systems, artificial ponds, 

water-filled depressions, puddles, and recycling water facilities. 

If the Barrasso bill, S. 1140, passes, all of these new exemptions 

will be blocked. This bill would create more confusion for businesses and landowners by taking away new exemptions and sending EPA and the Corps back to square one. 

After years of uncertainty following two Supreme Court decisions, we should not pass legislation that would create more confusion and invite years of new litigation. The Obama administration’s 

efforts are about protecting drinking water for American families 

and businesses, and the process, alluded to by my chairman, has 

been open and inclusive. More than 1 million comments were received during a comment period that lasted over 200 days, and over 

400 outreach meetings with stakeholders and State and local governments were conducted. 

Instead of advancing a bill that would allow more pollution of our 

waterways, we should listen to the wide variety of stakeholders 

that support the proposed clean water rule. A poll released last 

month shows that 78 percent of the people think Congress should 

allow the rule to move forward but not in this committee. Who are 

they listening to? I will leave that to you to figure out. 

It is time to restore much-needed certainty, consistency, and effectiveness and S. 1140 does just the opposite. It would result in 

further delay, more uncertainty, and less protection for the American people. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

30 


99913.025
31 


99913.026
32 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

We have reached an agreement that we are going to consider the 

Manager’s Amendment to S. 1140 with members amending that 

document. These amendments that come in will be to that document I just described. 

I want to ask members to keep in mind, we have to have a 

quorum of 11 in order to pass this, but our amendments only need 

7. Right now we have 8, so we are going to go through these as 

quickly as possible. We have 11 amendments out there and I want 

to ask which members seek recognition to each amendment and 

allow each member to call up his own amendment. We can have 

committee counsel available at the table to answer questions. At 

the conclusion of the members’ statements and questions, we will 

vote on each amendment. 

I would like to start by asking Senator Barrasso if he would like 

to make comments about the underlying bill which is the Manager’s Amendment. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do 

appreciate your holding a markup on this bipartisan, pro-environmental protection, pro-small business legislation. 

S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act is legislation 

I introduced along with Democratic Senators, Senator Donnelly, 

Heitkamp, Manchin, along with other members of this committee, 

including you, Mr. Chairman. This is legislation that will protect 

our Nation’s navigable waterways, the streams and wetlands that 

help keep our navigable waters clean. 

This bill is a testament to the hard work that both sides of the 

aisle have done in achieving an agreement on an environmental 

protection bill. Our rivers, lakes, wetlands and 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 and dozens of others. The people of Wyoming voted to keep these waterways safe and pristine for their children and grandchildren. They 

understand there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. It is 

possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways while still respecting the difference between State waters and 

Federal waters. 

Unfortunately, the rule the EPA has released does not do that. 

In fact, the rule is actually worse than the proposed rule. This is 

important because many of my colleagues have been waiting for 

the rule to be released and gave the Administration the benefit of 

the doubt. 

I am here to tell you that no matter what concessions EPA has 

claimed, they added new provisions that greatly expand their authority. For example, instead of clarifying the difference between a 

stream and erosion of the land, the rule defines tributaries to include any place where EPA thinks it sees an ordinary high water 

mark. What looks like, not what is, but the EPA says what looks 

like a high water mark. 

33 

Even worse, EPA proposes to make these decisions from their 

desks using aerial photographs and laser generated images claiming a field visit is not necessary. Under the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency also has the power to regulate something 

as ‘‘waters of the United States’’ if it falls within a 100-year floodplain or if it is within 400 feet of navigable water or a tributary 

and EPA claims there is a significant nexus. 

Under this rule, significant nexus means a water feature that 

provides ‘‘life-cycle dependent aquatic habitat for a species.’’ If you 

start drawing 4,000 foot circles around everything the EPA identifies as a tributary and everywhere there is a potential aquatic 

habitat for birds and fish in that area, I expect nearly the whole 

Country would be included. 

Mr. Chairman, this is not just me, this is from the economic 

analysis of the EPA-Army Clean Water Rule, May 2015, this year. 

This is what the EPA says to confirm my suspicions. ‘‘The agencies 

have determined that the vast majority of the Nation’s water,’’ the 

Nation’s water, not the States’ water, not the counties’ water, not 

local water, but the Nation’s water, they think they own it all, ‘‘the 

Nation’s water features are located within 4,000 feet of a covered 

tributary, traditional navigable water, interState water or territorial sea. We believe, therefore, that very few waters will be located outside of 4,000 feet and within 100-year floodplain.’’ They 

believe they can control it all. 

Mr. Chairman, in addition, the final rule exempts puddles. They 

define that as very small, shallow and highly transitory pools of 

water that forms on pavements, that is good, or upland during and 

immediately after a rainstorm or similar precipitation event. It 

does specifically include other pools of water created by rain such 

as prairie potholes, vernal pools, even if the land where these pools 

of water form is far away from any navigable water or even a tributary. 

Since the Supreme Court issued its 2001 decision in the Swank 

case, none of these isolated pools of water have been found to be 

jurisdictional applying a case by case analysis. Under this new regulation, nearly all of them will 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 uncertainty in 

communities all across America. Rather than support an EPA rule 

that is actually worse than the proposed rule and does not represent the interests of our farmers, ranchers, families and communities, let us move forward with this bipartisan Federal Water 

Quality Protection Act to assure the public that we hear and we 

understand their concerns. At the same time, let us give EPA and 

the Army Corps the certainty they need to confidently move forward with a new rule that truly reflects the needs of the constituents that we represent. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on 

this bipartisan piece of legislation. 

[The text of S. 1140 follow:] 

34 


99913.027
35 


99913.028
36 


99913.029
37 


99913.030
38 


99913.031
39 


99913.032
40 


99913.033
41 


99913.034
42 


99913.035
43 


99913.036
44 


99913.037
45 


99913.038
46 


99913.039
47 


99913.040
48 


99913.041
49 


99913.042
50 


99913.043
51 


99913.044
52 


99913.045
53 


99913.046
54 


99913.047
55 


99913.048
56 


99913.049
57 


99913.050
58 


99913.051
59 


99913.052
60 


99913.053
61 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Does any member seek recognition for an amendment? Senator 

Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would offer Cardin-Boxer Amendment No. 1. 

Senator INHOFE. Cardin-Boxer Amendment No. 1, you are recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, our responsibility 

is to make sure that we protect the public from polluters. So when 

we talk about burdens on different segments and so forth, we want 

to make sure our regulatory structure is fair to all. 

Make no mistake, our burden and our responsibility is on the 

public health of the people of this Country. That is why on a bipartisan basis, we enacted the Clean Water Act to protect public 

health. We do not want to go back to rivers catching fire and the 

circumstances that Senator Boxer alluded to in her opening comments. 

I oppose the bill that is before us. Two weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps responded to the 

challenge laid down by the Supreme Court a decade ago. That decision created uncertainty in case by case determinations as to what 

waters would be regulated under the Clean Water Act and reinstated a science-based protection using sound, peer reviewed scientific data for clean water. 

That is exactly what we want them to do, to use science, to use 

the best data available to protect the public and make sure that 

we have clean water. 

For the first time ever, the regulation spells out with clarity 

those waters that are not subject to the Clean Water Act and 

adopted a narrower working definition of waters of the U.S. than 

was the working use prior to the Supreme Court decision. They listened to the comments made during the review process as Senator 

Boxer pointed out. They listened to the million comments made 

and tailored a rule that complies with its responsibility to protect 

the public in regards to clean water. They listened to the reasonable concerns expressed by the stakeholders. 

Therefore, the legislation we have before us, if not amended, will 

send EPA and the Army Corps back to the drawing board and create uncertainty once again where there will not be clarity as to 

what is subject to the Clean Water Act because we have denied the 

agencies moving forward and Congress has not adopted the certainty as to what is subject to the Clean Water regulations. We are 

talking about wetlands and tributaries that affect the clean water. 

The amendment I have offered, first, corrects a mistake in the 

underlying bill. The goal of the Clean Water Act is not as stated 

in the bill before us, to protect traditional navigable waters from 

water pollution. That is not the goal stated in the Clean Water Act. 

The goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. 

62 

My amendment corrects the misstatement contained in the underlying bill but then goes to I think the heart of what I hope all 

of us would agree. That is, the provisions will not be effective if the 

Administrator and Secretary determine the implementation of the 

provisions is likely to increase the probability of exposure to discharges of toxins and pollutants in amounts that could adversely 

impact the health and welfare of persons served by public drinking 

water systems, including infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and other vulnerable populations. I say that because we are 

all subject to having clean water in our environment but those particularly susceptible are the most vulnerable, our children, our elderly and vulnerable populations. 

Second, the amendment says if it would compromise the safety 

or heighten the risk of illness from consumption of fish or swimming, that also would be taken into consideration as far as the implementation of this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I would hope my colleagues would accept this 

amendment. I remember in some of my previous years in the 

House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans joined together in the proud tradition of this Country to protect the public. 

In every Congress, we looked at ways we could buildupon the success of the past to protect public health so communities felt safe 

in their community with clean water, and I might also add clean 

air. I think my amendment makes it clear that we will put public 

health first and carry out the burden that we have to protect the 

public health. 

[The text of Cardin-Boxer Amendment No. 1 follow:] 

63 


99913.054
64 


99913.055
65 


99913.056
66 


99913.057
67 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Let me note a little bit on what he said. Senator Cardin and I 

were elected to the House in the same year. I remember very well 

and believe we have been doing just what you suggested over those 

some 28 years now. 

I would only observe that this amendment does not amend the 

Clean Water Act but as you point out, sends it back to have areas 

where we feel it needs a lot of surgery worked out. I also am a little concerned about when we give the power to the Administrator 

and the Corps. I am not sure I have as much faith as you in their 

having that power. 

I would ask for anyone who wants to be heard on this amendment? Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Before us we have a bill authored by Senator Barrasso, who I 

think is one of our more thoughtful people, who is delightful to 

work with and to know. While I cannot support his proposal, I 

would say there are several aspects of his bill that do have merit. 

I want to mention a couple of them. 

I think a report to Congress on how to ensure communities are 

not harmed intentionally by this new rule would be helpful to ensure EPA stays on the right track. I also believe that the concept 

of maps showing watersheds that must be protected is a good one 

as long as it is done thoroughly and carefully. 

I commend him for trying to make an honest effort to address a 

couple of areas that need to be addressed. 

Having said that, I have not been in lock step with EPA, none 

of us have, but I will say this. Gina McCarthy, the Administrator, 

has made a strong effort to be as open as I think she and the agency can be. 

The idea of having a 200 day period in which to receive input is 

extraordinary. They did not just get a couple thousand recommendations for changes, they got a million. I think they made 

an honest effort to try to incorporate those into this final rule. 

Is it perfect? No way, nothing is perfect. While we strive for perfection as our goal, we cannot be perfect. I am going to support 

Ben’s amendment. I hope the rest of us will also. 

At the end of the day, some of the things that Senator Barrasso 

has called for in his bill deserve support. While there are other 

pieces of the legislation that will not allow me to support it, I commend him for that effort. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

68 


99913.058
69 


99913.059
70 

Senator INHOFE. You will have that opportunity. 

Senator BOXER. Let us go back and forth here. 

Senator BOXER. That is fine. 

Senator INHOFE. Those who want to be heard on the amendment 

from this side? 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I want to thank Senator Cardin for his work on this. 

Mr. Chairman, here are the facts. These are the facts. This is not 

made up. This comes from American Rivers. 

The EPA estimates that up to 3.5 million people fall ill from 

swimming in waters contaminated by sanitary sewer overflows 

every year. If we start taking streams out of this regulatory reach, 

if we start taking waters out, people can dump their sewage in 

there without any type of permit. We will see this number go up, 

including the 1.5 million people in California every year on the 

beaches. 

We have some pretty strict regulations but even with that, people get sick from the untreated sewage. There are pathogens in the 

water. Cryptosporidium contaminated the drinking water supply in 

Milwaukee. In 1993, 400,000 people became ill and 100 people died 

because they were vulnerable. 

Why on earth does the Environment Committee want to remove 

bodies of water from this rule where they can become filled with 

these pathogens? Toxic algae blooms, I know my friend has had direct experience with that. In addition to pathogens, the high nutrient levels in untreated sewage can cause illness when they create 

algae blooms. Symptoms from exposure include memory loss, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, liver failure, respiratory paralysis 

and even coma. 

We are not talking about bureaucracy and EPA overreach. We 

are talking about how we can protect our people from these illnesses. 

I will conclude with this, I think the Cardin amendment strikes 

a provision in S. 1140 that would essentially rewrite the objective 

of the Clean Water Act. My friend is right. It sends the rule back. 

But essentially, because frankly, I do not think the American people would stand for it 1 second if you tried to repeal the Clean 

Water Act, you would be voted out of office. They do not do that. 

They play with this rule and rewrite the historic objective of the 

Act. The historic objective of the Act supported by Republicans and 

Democrats overwhelmingly 40 years ago says, we want to restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the 

Nation’s waters. This is what Senator Cardin does. He restores this 

important definition. 

The amendment also says that the Act is null and void if it 

would increase exposure to toxic pollution or increase the likelihood 

that people will get sick from consuming fish or swimming in recreational waters. Colleagues, that is the least we can do, protect 

peoples’ health. 

The amendment opposed the historic focus of the Clean Water 

Act and it does not undo the many achievements of the Act over 

the last four decades. I hope we can at least vote yes. Otherwise, 

the American people will see that a Clean Water Act has protected 

71 

them, even though it certainly has not been perfect. People have 

still gotten sick but we have protected people. We are one of the 

best in the world in this and that it is not being rescinded in part 

by this law. I urge a yes vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Before recognizing Senator Barrasso to respond, does anyone else 

wish to be heard on this amendment? 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to specifically thank Senator Carper for his fine 

comments. We have worked closely together on a number of issues. 

He is an honest broker, continues to be, and it is a privilege to 

serve with him as a former Governor, a former U.S. Member of 

Congress and now as a Senator. He is someone that I think really 

understands his State, the needs and concerns there. I appreciate 

his kind comments. 

Mr. Chairman, I do need to oppose the Cardin-Boxer Amendment 

No. 1. The bill I propose does not amend the Clean Water Act, so 

it does not amend Section 101 of the Act. It is not necessary to reState those goals. 

In addition, even though rivers and streams that are sources of 

drinking water are clearly protected by S. 1140, as are the wetlands next to those rivers and streams that serve to filter pollutants, this amendment, the Cardin-Boxer amendment, gives EPA 

the authority to vacate the entire bill with a spurious determination which is my specific concern. 

This would result in the status quo, which is unacceptable to cities, towns, farmers, ranchers, small business owners, hardworking 

taxpayers and those who want clean water and their livelihoods all 

across the Country. 

I would urge a no vote on this amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

The Cardin-Boxer Amendment is before us. 

Senator CARDIN. Can I close? 

Senator INHOFE. Of course. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to close. 

Let me say, I share Senator Carper’s observations that we need 

to work together. Senator Barrasso and I serve not only on this 

committee together but also on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We have been able to work together and sometimes we disagree. 

Let me just point out what the bill says. It says, ‘‘The Federal 

Water Pollution Act is an Act to protect traditional navigable waters from water pollution.’’ In fact, what the Clean Water Act says 

is it is ‘‘to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ That is what the Act says. 

Senator Barrasso, your bill changes the Clean Water Act’s fundamental principle to protect public health. You are changing it to 

say ‘‘to protect traditional navigable waters.’’ That is a change, a 

significant change, a fundamental change in the Clean Water Act. 

The reason why we underscored that with the rest of this bill is 

because this is what the Clean Water Act is about. The Clean 

72 

Water Act is about people who swim who know that we have regulations to protect their health. People who live near water know 

that we have regulations and a law to protect their health and that 

clean water is a national priority. That is what the Clean Water 

Act says. 

I understand Senator Barrasso’s intent, but that is not what the 

bill says. The bill changes the fundamental direction of the Clean 

Water Act in addition to stopping the agencies from moving forward on its regulations. 

I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Is there a motion on the Cardin-Boxer Amendment No. 1? 

Senator BOXER. So moved. 

Senator INHOFE. Second. 

All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[Chorus of noes.] 

Senator INHOFE. A roll call has been requested. The Clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

73 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. No. 

Senator INHOFE. I would remind the Clerk he did not call my 

name. 

The CLERK. I am sorry. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. The yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment is not accepted. 

Senator CARPER. I would ask unanimous consent that my statement be entered for the record at the appropriate place. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, of course. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to run back to Homeland Security. 

We are trying to get a TSA Administrator confirmed. I am going 

to run and do that. 

Thanks so much. 

Senator INHOFE. That is important. 

Do other Senators have amendments? 

Senator BOXER. I do. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I would call up Boxer No. 1. 

Senator INHOFE. Boxer No. 1. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My amendment ensures that the Secretary of the Army and the 

Administrator of the EPA retain their authority to protect our Nation’s drinking water supply. 

The Clean Water Act is a critical tool for preventing pollution of 

water bodies that provide drinking water. The final Clean Water 

Rule protects streams and wetlands that provide drinking water to 

1 in 3 Americans. S. 1140, the bill before us, would block this important rule and the protection it provides for our drinking water. 

This amendment is very simple. It simply says that nothing in 

this bill affects the Secretary and Administrator’s authority to protect sources of drinking water. Colleagues, that is the least we can 

do, the least we can do. 

I hope we can all agree the EPA and the Corps should retain the 

authority to ensure that our drinking water supply is safe and 

clean. 

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. 

[The text of Boxer Amendment No. 1 follows:] 

74 


99913.066
75 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Let me observe that I have the same problem with this amendment that I had with the last one, because you are saying they are 

without a lot of guidelines, able to have that power. I would object 

to this amendment. 

Does anyone want to be heard? Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

I support the Boxer Amendment. Mr. Chairman, when our constituents turn on their tap or go to their wells, they expect the 

water they are drinking is safe. I do not know of a more fundamental responsibility we have than to make sure that, in fact, is 

real. 

The truth is that as we are chipping away at the protections we 

have on clean water and clean air. A lot of assumptions made by 

people in this Country are not necessarily accurate. You have seen 

recent reports that are challenging, in some cases, the safety of 

drinking water. 

This amendment is so straightforward and commonsense. It does 

not stop what Senator Barrasso is trying to do in his bill. It just 

says we have to guarantee we are doing everything we possibly can 

to make sure when you turn on the tap, the water is safe. 

It seems to me that at a bare minimum, we should have broad 

support, if not unanimous support, for this amendment. I do not 

quite understand the Chair’s objections to saying that the agency 

responsible for clean water, you cannot trust to make sure we have 

safe drinking water. I do not understand the logic of that argument. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Do others want to be heard? If not, Boxer Amendment No. 1 is 

before us. A roll call has been requested. The Clerk will call the 

roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

76 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there other amendments? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I know everyone has things to do. I had nine amendments but 

I am only offering three. I know they are painful for you, but we 

will make it quick. I have Boxer Amendment No. 5. 

Senator INHOFE. Boxer Amendment No. 5, thank you. 

Senator BOXER. This amendment simply says the bill is null and 

void if EPA or the Corps determines that implementation of the bill 

will increase costs. That should be a good one for you guys and 

gals. It would lengthen the time to obtain a permit or perpetuate 

the lack of regulatory predictability and certainty. 

Stakeholders have waited far too long for EPA and the Corps to 

address the confusion created by recent Supreme Court cases. Now 

that the agencies have acted, we should not start the process over 

as this bill requires. 

S. 1140 sends EPA and the Corps back to square one while adding new and confusing terms that will have to be interpreted and 

likely will be litigated. They will go straight to the courthouse door. 

I can assure you of that. Environmentalists have a record of winning, even in the U.S. Supreme Court as we did on climate and 

many other things. 

S. 1140 could result in years of delay, confusion and uncertainty. 

My amendment ensures that the new requirements of this bill will 

not add to the problem by decreasing predictability and making it 

more difficult and time consuming to get a permit. 

If you support certainty and predictability, and if you do not 

want to see more cost associated with this, I hope you will support 

Boxer Amendment No. 5. 

[The text of Boxer Amendment No. 5 follows:] 

77 


99913.060
78 


99913.061
79 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

I would observe the amendment gives the EPA and the Corps the 

discretion to decide whether or not any of these three standards 

are met. I believe that would render S. 1140 ineffective, in my 

opinion. 

Do others want to be heard? Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. 

I now have the drift of your concerns. I appreciate that. You do 

not want to give the discretion to the Environmental Protection 

Agency or the Army Corps to implement the Clean Water Act. 

Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon us to write the regulation 

and put it into law and for us to take on the responsibility that 

would normally go with an agency. I do not think we can do that, 

but I do not know how this committee can act by the Majority in 

saying we are not going to give the agency the ability to carry out 

our intent through its actions because we do not believe they will 

do that. 

The Majority is saying that to us in a way that is consistent with 

what we intend and yet we are not prepared to enact a definitive 

statute as to how the law operates. You are sending it back. To me, 

what you are doing is just delaying and delaying and delaying. We 

have delayed it over a decade. 

You are not doing any favors to the stakeholders who have to operate under the Clean Water Act. They need certainty. One thing 

I have learned, when I talk to different business groups, residents 

and people, they want certainty. They say, give us the rules and 

we will operate under the rules. 

Yet, Mr. Chairman, you are saying you do not want to give the 

ability of the agency to bring certainty and you are not prepared 

to give the certainty by statute. That puts us in a terrible position. 

I am just expressing my frustration and support of the Boxer 

Amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me respond by expressing my frustration. 

It might be that you feel that the Administrator, the Corps and 

the others are in a position to make these determinations unilaterally without the input of someone who is elected. If you talk to any 

of the farmers or ranchers in Oklahoma and you will find they look 

to us, not the unelected bureaucrats, for the interpretations. I 

would object to it. 

Does anyone else want to be heard? 

Senator BOXER. I would just close. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, of course. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I hear over and over again from Republican 

friends that they do not want to have rules or laws that increase 

costs. All we are saying is if there is an increase in costs and if 

it is going to take more time to obtain a permit or perpetuate the 

lack of regulatory predictability, the bill is null and void. 

If you want to vote no against predictability and costs, high 

costs, go ahead. I am sure you will, but just know that it is kind 

of unusual to see my Republican friends voting against something 

that clearly says, if it is going to increase costs, it should be null 

and void. 

Let us vote and see. Maybe I will be shocked. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer, thank you very much. 

80 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, Senator Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. I think the Ranking Member has perhaps hit 

on what is one of the key issues that many of us feel has to be addressed. That is, in this particular case, this amendment would actually ask the rulemakers to decide whether or not they could void 

a law passed by Congress and allow them to recreate the rules the 

way they want to interpret them without any oversight from Congress. 

In other words, this would suggest the agency itself could look 

at our legislation as passed and then, if it increases costs, in their 

determination, they could then eliminate the direction of the Congress of the United States. 

That is wrong. That is exactly getting to the heart of the problem 

of what is going on with the bureaucracy in Washington today. 

They are creating 3,500 more rules every single year. We have a 

million rules on the books today. None of them have been approved 

by the elected Members of Congress. They are put into effect and 

there is no oversight today. 

Perhaps the way we fix it is in the future, this Congress takes 

back the responsibility to actually make sure the rules being put 

in place follow the guidelines and understanding and interpretation 

of the Congress which passed the rule of the law in the first place. 

I really do believe that is what this is all about. 

Senator CARDIN. Would my colleague yield? 

Senator ROUNDS. I would. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate your comments because I think 

many of us share the responsibility we have in Congress to oversee 

agencies. I take that very, very seriously. 

The challenge is that we do not have the same capacity to do the 

scientific peer reviews that the agency does to use best science, to 

do all that is implied in the Clean Water Act. That was always the 

intent of Congress, that it be based upon science, that there be scientific peer-reviewed data used and cost analyses must be done. All 

that must be done. It is done by the agency. We should be oversighting that. I agree with you, but how do we proceed if they cannot get a regulation done? 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Chairman, if I could, the Science Advisory 

Board was designed to actually address the issues as presented to 

them not only by the agency but also by this committee. If you take 

a look at the GAO report, which was just done and completed and 

passed out, it suggests very strongly that they are not being asked 

for those analyses in terms of what the costs are today. 

Not only should the agency take into account what the Science 

Advisory Board could do if requested, but then it should be shared 

with us as to whether they came up with the analysis of what the 

actual costs are. I do not believe that is occurring right now. 

I understand the need for good rules. I still think the elected officials in this Country should have the ability to look back, review 

and do the oversight on a regular and ongoing basis of what those 

rules should look like when they are implemented so that the laws 

put in place today, when they are implemented correctly, follow the 

spirit and the intent of the law itself. 

81 

I do not believe the rules being put in place today necessarily do 

that or that we have the system in place right now that effectively 

oversees that implementation. Until such time as that occurs, the 

only way we have to stop a bad law or bad rule from going into 

effect is to literally pass an act by Congress. 

That is what we are trying to do today, to replace and say, we 

have seen the rules that you are putting in place, we see what you 

are trying to do, and we disagree. If we disagree, then we will rewrite a part of the law or amend the law so that you cannot do 

what you are trying to do or what you misunderstand our intent 

was in the first place. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I really trust my friend and believe he is here 

for the right reason, to do the right thing. But I just want to say 

the way it works or the way it should work is when Congress 

passes a law and it is overwhelmingly passed by Republicans, that 

was 1972, the Clean Water Act, then it is overwhelmingly reauthorized in 1987, and the agencies carried out, in this case it is the 

Army Corps and the EPA carried out, we do our oversight but we 

should not be tearing apart the Clean Water Act. 

I will tell you this. The check and balance lies with the courts. 

There is no doubt about it. We have seen business sue on one hand, 

we have seen environmental groups sue and the courts have looked 

at this. 

This bill rips the heart out of the rule and frankly, out of the 

Clean Water Act. As Senator Cardin so beautifully stated in his 

opening amendment, which we said let us at least restore that. We 

could not even get that vote here. 

I want to say this. I hope you will vote for this. The fact is EPA 

approval among the American people is about 70 percent. Our approval is 19 percent. As much as my friend would like to see Congress trump the EPA, the American people know in their heart of 

hearts. 

They do not want this to be about politics or are we voting for 

the polluters or are we voting for special interests. They want the 

EPA and the Army Corps. Even when you look at the polling done 

around this, the Corps overwhelmingly, on this particular rule, 

they trust the Corps 72 percent and trust us 25 percent on this 

rule, and EPA well over 60 percent. 

My view is for all the talk about how wonderful we are, we all 

have egos and know we are here for the right reasons and I do not 

question that. We work hard and want to do the right thing. The 

American people say, get out of the way here, have the EPA and 

the Corps protect our waters. 

That does not mean everything they do is right but this rips the 

heart out of the Clean Water Act. We should not be doing that. If 

I could say, this is a low point for me personally in this committee. 

I have seen us argue about a lot of things but I do not see why 

we are doing this and I think it is sad. I would go so far as to say 

I do not think this will ever become law. I do not know anymore. 

I do not think it will, just judging from the votes we are having 

here. 

82 

In any event, I do not doubt my friend’s intentions in any way 

but I do think we are ripping the heart out of a bill that is a landmark bill which has separated this Country from a lot of other 

countries and has done a great job for 40 years. We are messing 

with it and that is a sad day for the Environment Committee. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Let me take the Chair’s prerogative. It has been stated twice in 

the record in this meeting how overwhelmingly popular the Corps 

of Engineers and the Administrator and this Administration is. 

Let me remind you that 60 percent of the responses during the 

comment period of this regulation were negative. I have never seen 

it that high. That is very negative. 

The second thing is, you are right when you say we pass laws 

and we have oversight. We have different Administrations that 

come along and not always the same Administrator of the EPA, not 

always the same Corps of Engineers. In fact, they reflect the philosophy of the Administration. 

If you think we are all that unpopular and they are that popular, 

I would invite you to come to Oklahoma. I would suggest that Senator Fischer, who had a field hearing in Nebraska, would probably 

agree with what I just said. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. If I may add to the points you raised, Senator 

Boxer appropriately talks about a law passed in 1972 and reauthorized in 1987. This is 2015. She talks about those who support 

the EPA. Let me tell you what was in the Washington Post on 

Monday, June 8. 

I would imagine most Americans who read this story would not 

support this agency where the headline is Discipline at EPA Lax, 

Watchdog Says. ‘‘The Environmental Protection Agency is creating 

a festering culture of complacency by dragging its feet on actions 

against employee misconduct, the agency’s watchdog found, employees watching pornography on government computers.’’ This is 

under Gina McCarthy and there is a picture of Gina McCarthy 

there. 

‘‘Employees watching pornography on government computers and 

a senior executive who looked the other way while an employee 

faked a timesheet and a senior employee who took another paying 

job while on the Federal clock’’ are some of the examples the Inspector General cited last week. 

In the realm of fraud and abuse, the Inspector General cited a 

need for better management oversight and prompt action against 

employees guilty of misconduct. The EPA, they say, is not using 

the tools it has to take action against employees who break the 

rules. 

Investigators cited examples of wrongdoing that were no-brainers 

for quick punishment, this is under Gina McCarthy, but were handled instead by a laissez-faire approach. Two employees, each earning $120,000 a year, watching pornography on the job, were put on 

paid administrative leave for almost a year before anyone tried to 

fire them. 

One case was discovered in November 2013, when Gina McCarthy was Director of the EPA and another was in May 2014. It took 

83 

until March 2015 for the agency to move to fire them. One employee retired. The other remains on paid leave while appealing the 

decision. I do not believe the American people aware of this would 

be supportive of an agency under the direction of Gina McCarthy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, since this is about my amendment and it has gotten a little bit off track, I do not know what 

someone watching pornography, which is outrageous, has to do 

with that. A person should be fired, fined and maybe jailed, I do 

not know the details, but what does that have to do with making 

sure that when people turn on the tap water and they have a 

drink, they do not get sick from some chemical toxin in the water? 

We could talk about lots of other things in the news that you 

would not want me to bring up. Let us not go there. 

I urge an aye vote. I want to have a roll call on this. 

Senator INHOFE. Boxer Amendment No. 5 is before us. There has 

been a motion. Is there a second? 

Senator CARDIN. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. A roll call has been requested. The Clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

84 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. The yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The motion is not carried. 

Are there other amendments? 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have an amendment at the desk, Markey Amendment No. 1. 

Senator INHOFE. Markey Amendment No. 1. Senator Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment intends to focus on public health, only the public health aspect of what this bill could undermine. It wants to say 

that there should not be a negative result with regard to the drinking water that could ultimately wind up poisoning people who 

drink it. 

The new EPA Clean Water Rule is about clarity, clarity for developers, for farmers or city and town managers and landowners. 

The rule was written to clarify ambiguities resulting from two Supreme Court decisions on whether some types of wetlands are considered to be waters of the United States that are subject to the 

Clean Water Act. 

Since these types of wetlands supply most of the water that flows 

through our rivers, this legal ambiguity means EPA might be powerless to protect drinking water sources from pollution dumped into 

wetlands. 

A staggering number of groups actually asked EPA to write this 

rule to clarify the legal ambiguities. These groups included steelworkers, manufacturers, road builders, retailers, farmers, religious 

organizations, public health groups, real eState developers, miners 

and oil and natural gas developers. In 2013, these groups were 

joined by 30 Republican Senators who sent a letter asking the EPA 

to write the rule. 

The EPA rule resolves uncertainty and controversy. It improves 

consistent administration of the Act and it clarifies the roles of 

State and Federal Government. More than 800,000 comments were 

sent in support of the Clean Water Rule. More than 80 percent of 

the public and small business owners favor the protections it provides. 

Where the Clean Water Rule seeks clarity, the bill we are considering today would only muddy the waters by introducing new ambiguities, ignoring science and creating new pollution loopholes in the 

Clean Water Act. This bill’s only solution to pollution is confusion. 

Where EPA’s Clean Water Rule will reduce litigation, this bill 

would spawn lawsuits by inventing undefinable, unscientific terms 

which would be impossible to administer consistently. 

85 

This bill would strip the protections from wetlands that supply 

drinking water to 117 million Americans. The bill puts drinking 

water at risk for 7 million people in my own State of Massachusetts alone. It is this very issue that I am most concerned about, 

the drinking water supply that millions of Americans rely on to be 

clean and safe. 

My amendment is very simple. It merely states that the provisions of this bill cannot go into effect if the EPA Administrator determines that their implementation is likely to increase the probability of exposure to toxic pollutants in amounts that could adversely impact the health of people, including infants, pregnant 

women and the elderly who need a source of safe drinking water. 

It is as simple as that. It deals with infants, pregnant women 

and the elderly and the health effects that could, in fact, be created 

because of this bill which is being propounded. If you want to keep 

the ‘‘clean’’ in the Clean Water Act, then you should vote for my 

amendment. 

If you do not think the bill before us today is a threat to drinking 

water, then you should also vote for my amendment. I urge an aye 

vote. 

[The text of Markey Amendment No. 1 follows:] 

86 


99913.067
87 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

I would respond that as I have looked at this, it looks like the 

EPA could vacate the bill by making a spurious determination. I 

think after the comments made by Senator Barrasso, I am not sure 

I want to have those individuals making those spurious determinations, so I would oppose the amendment. 

Do others want to be heard? If not, Markey Amendment No. 1 

is before us. Is there a motion? 

Senator MARKEY. I would ask for a roll call. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a motion and second and a roll call has 

been requested. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. The yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The motion is defeated. 

Are there other amendments? Senator Boxer? 

88 

Senator BOXER. I have my last amendment. 

I just want to say that it is very sad to paint the employees of 

the EPA with the brush of one individual or even a small group 

who were doing terrible things, just like it would be bad to paint 

all of us because some leader in the Congress also has a bad past. 

Let us not do that. It is wrong. It is just plain wrong. I feel for 

those people who come to work every day whether it is the Army 

Corps or the EPA and come there for the right reasons, to do the 

right thing, to protect drinking water, to protect the vulnerable 

populations. 

Let us not paint Gina McCarthy with this brush or anybody else. 

It is a disgrace to do it. It is awful to do it. It is wrong to do it. 

I call up my Amendment No. 6. The amendment says the bill is 

null and void if EPA or the Corps, who I would remind everyone 

have multiple times more approval among the people than we do, 

if they determine that implementation of the bill would increase 

pollution or increase costs incurred by the States. 

Remember unfunded mandates? This bill could very well lead to 

unfunded mandates. This bill could. Also, it could lead, and will 

lead, if it does ever become law, I believe to increased pollution because there are going to be so many streams, rivers and bodies of 

water that are exempted that will then dump pollution into drinking water and dump pollution into recreational streams and rivers. 

Over 40 environmental law professors who write and teach about 

the Clean Water Act have said S. 1140 would constitute a massive 

weakening of the Clean Water Act. Let us be clear what this is. 

You can hide behind attacks on the EPA, attacks on the Army 

Corps all you want but what you are doing is a backdoor repeal of 

the Clean Water Act with huge carveouts. This is what they write, 

that it could be argued to exclude vast swaths of currently protected water. 

The bill will dramatically narrow the scope of the Clean Water 

Act, allowing uncontrolled pollution and placing an extraordinary 

burden on our States because EPA will be absent, the Corps will 

be absent. 

Trust me, I have been in local government. When someone gets 

sick, they knock on your door and that is your problem and you 

will not be able to call on the EPA or the Army Corps to help because they will be excluded from this. 

This amendment, my amendment, my last one, ensures that the 

bill will not undermine the basic goals of protections of the Clean 

Water Act which prevent pollution. The amendment makes sure 

that the bill will not place all of the burden for protecting our waterways on the States and require them to shoulder the costs. 

I would hope we would have at least one or two people from the 

other side, who constantly lecture us about how we do not want to 

put more costs and burdens on the States, would vote for this. 

If you oppose increasing pollution in our Nation’s waterways and 

if you oppose putting greater burdens on the States, I urge a yes 

vote on this amendment. I would move it. 

[The text of Boxer Amendment No. 6 follows:] 

89 


99913.062
90 


99913.063
91 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

I would only respond the same as I did to the last one, that the 

EPA could vacate the bill by making a spurious decision and I 

would oppose this amendment. 

Do others want to be heard? Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, I think we have come down to the heart of what 

many of us see as one of the major problems with the way the Federal regulatory process works today. Not only would this amendment suggest that the EPA could overturn a congressionally determined law by their own determination but in this particular case, 

it even goes farther in that it suggests that we would be addressing 

surface waters of the individual States. 

Once again, we may think that being elected as Members of Congress we should make all of the determinations for every level of 

government. I think it is about time that we decide that if we 

wanted to be school board members or if we want to dictate what 

happens in our local schools, we ought to be on the school board. 

At the same time, if we want to make determinations about surface waters in the States, that would be back at the legislative 

level in the States. Not all good advice from us is necessarily good 

law that should be dumped back on the local levels. 

With all due respect to the Ranking Member, I really think there 

are responsible individuals at the State level just like there are responsible individuals at the Federal level. With Congress suggesting that we could allow a Federal bureaucracy or an administrator to make a determination as to our intent and then to overturn a law passed by this Congress goes to the very heart of what 

is wrong with Washington, DC. today. 

I really think this is the heart of the problem that we have when 

we talk about the Environmental Protection Agency and their impact at the local level where it appears as though we think we at 

the Federal level know everything there is to know about what is 

going on at the State level and that we should assert the responsibilities which rightly belong to the States where there are good 

people who care just as much about quality water as we do. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. First of all, I think Senator Rounds raises many 

very important points but I think there is some fundamental misunderstanding as to what our appropriate role should be, what a 

Federal agency’s appropriate role should be, and how we should 

interact with the States. 

I have heard complaints that there have been too many regulations issued and the number of regulations. Congress passes laws. 

They are well intended. We want clean water. We want clean air. 

That was not controversial among the Democrats and Republicans 

because the public understands that clean water and clean air is 

not controlled by one State, that you need to have a Federal policy 

on how you are going to get clean water. 

The water that is going to end up in the tap when I turn it on 

in Baltimore may very well have come through West Virginia. They 

understand that we have to deal with the water of the Nation. 

That is why we passed the Clean Water Act. 

92 

We are not scientists, we are not capable of developing all of the 

implementing regulations, so we asked the agency to do that. We 

give them certain direction on how that is going to be done. We are 

pretty clear about that and the type of reviews they have to go 

through, including scientific reviews, costs analyses, and complying 

with what Congress sets up as the goals. We have already gone 

through some of that. 

Senator Boxer’s amendment is pretty clear in what it says. It 

says ‘‘cause or contribute to the impairment of surface or coastal 

waters of the States.’’ They have to make that determination. 

We have seen court decisions when the agencies go beyond what 

Congress says they can do. We have court oversight and we should 

have congressional oversight. I agree with Senator Rounds. 

I think one of the most important responsibilities of this committee and every committee of Congress is to oversight the laws on 

the books rather than always looking to create new laws. I think 

that is very important. If we have to change or eliminate laws, we 

need to do that. I agree with you on that. That is our responsibility. 

However, do not say we are not going to let agencies carry out 

their responsibilities because they are not complying with the will 

of Congress. If we do not think we are clear about what we say, 

let us say it clearer. We cannot be the implementing agency. 

Part of what I find frustrating is the fact there happens to be a 

Democrat sitting in the White House. I had to say that because I 

think that is part of the problem we are confronting today, that we 

do not believe an agency will carry out what I, as an individual 

member believe they should, even though the law says something 

different than what I believe as an individual member of the Senate. 

I am not questioning anyone’s motives. Believe me, I am not. The 

collective wisdom of the Congress of the United States said we 

want clean water. It is up to the Environmental Protection Agency 

and the Army Corps to carry out those directives. 

Yes, we can be clearer in those directions and we should be clearer. We can have the agency here for oversight hearings to make 

sure they are carrying out what we believe the intent should be. 

Members of the committee, we have been debating this issue for 

over a decade under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. If this bill becomes law, we are back to the drawing board 

and we have the same ambiguity, the same case by case determinations which our stakeholders do not want because we have not 

been able to figure out how Congress needs to interact with the 

agency on a review. Do not blame the agency, it is our responsibility. 

The Boxer Amendment is a directive to what they must do. They 

cannot just say we are going to overturn the rules of Congress. 

They have to comply with the language we put in the statute or 

anyone can take them to court, as they have taken them to court. 

They have taken them to the Supreme Court of the United States 

with, by the way, decisions that had additional ambiguity that only 

Congress can clarify. 

Yet we are not trying to clarify it and now we are blocking the 

Administration from trying to give some clarity to the stakeholders 

93 

and protect what Congress said is the mandate of clean water for 

the United States. 

I understand Senator Rounds’ frustration. We are all frustrated 

by this. I hope together this committee can carry out its most fundamental responsibility of oversight. That is what we need to do. 

You are going to have my support and I think all of us want to 

make sure that the agency is carrying out what Congress said, not 

what I would like Congress to have said, but what Congress has 

said and carry it out in the most cost effective way. On that, we 

would be together. 

In the meantime, I am afraid if this bill became law without 

some of the amendments we have offered, what we are doing is basically failing to carry out our responsibility in Congress. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I urge an aye vote but I really want to say how important I think 

this debate has been. It has been done with respect for each other. 

I hope anyone who has watched this understands how breathtakingly different it is now than it used to be when it comes to environmental protection. I will prove it by putting a letter in the 

record in a minute. 

We have always felt, all through history until this moment, that 

when it comes to our drinking water, Republicans and Democrats 

have agreed that no matter where you live, your child should have 

safe drinking water and your elderly grandmother should have it. 

Everybody should have it. It is an American value. 

Now, all of a sudden, wait a minute, I hear voices here which are 

sincere. We do not know everything. Of course, we do not know everything but I know one thing. I think a child in Arkansas, Alaska, 

California, Maryland or any one of our States deserves to be protected. 

I would unanimous consent to place in the record this incredible 

letter. I do not know how my staff found it but they did. It is from 

the very first and the fifth Administrator of the EPA under both 

Nixon and Reagan. Ronald Reagan, I would say is the hero of the 

Republicans. I always hear him being praised up and down. 

Listen to this. This is Ruckelshaus who wrote this in 2007. 

‘‘Broad Clean Water Act jurisdiction is not only necessary to clean 

up the Nation’s waters, it is necessary to ensure that the responsibility for maintaining and restoring clean water is shared equitably 

throughout the watershed and from State to State. 

‘‘In passing the Clean Water Act, Congress recognized that the 

State-by-State approach to water pollution control had failed and 

that it was necessary to maintain a Federal floor for water pollution control to ensure that discharges in one State do not jeopardize water quality in another.’’ 

I would like to put that in the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

94 


99913.064
95 


99913.065
96 

Senator BOXER. I will conclude with this point. 

All this talk about the States know better. I love my Governor 

and I love my State and they are great. We work together on 

things. They want a strong highway bill. There my Chairman 

agrees, we work hand and glove. 

We have a Federal Highway Trust Fund and there are some in 

the Republican Party who want to do devolution and have no role 

for the Federal Government. I hope we do not have it on this committee. We will find out when we bring forward our bill. 

Look at Texas. They are always talking about Texas is alone, we 

do not need anyone else. The minute they had the floods, President 

Obama, please declare an emergency. We have to work together. 

There have to be values. 

We have one Department of Defense. There are reasons. Dwight 

Eisenhower, another great man, said that you cannot have defense 

if you do not have a system of highways. Here we have the first 

EPA Administrator who was there again later, a proud Republican, 

saying State-by-State approach to water quality has failed. 

It is a breathtaking change in the parties. I am shocked about 

it. I never cease to be shocked about it but it is the evolution of 

the parties. I am sad about it because I think the people will suffer 

and people will be hurt if this legislation were to pass because as 

I said, so many waterways would be exempted that we would have 

more people getting sick. 

I do not think this will pass. I hope the American people will engage. 

By the way, on the comments, there are different ways to look 

at the comments. Some ways to look at the comments is the way 

my friend portrayed it. Others are that more than 80 percent of the 

comments were positive on the rule. 

Be that as it may, this is our turn to be heard. I think we all 

have been heard. I hope we will have an aye vote for this so we 

can take a stand against more State costs and a stand to protect 

the people from pollution. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Sullivan, I am going to ask a favor of 

you because I am getting a little concerned that we are getting 

down to the 11 quorum that we have to have to pass this. After 

we pass the bill and before we do the technical, which has to be 

done also, at that point, I would like to recognize you because I 

know of something you want to say that is pertinent to this and 

get some results from the counsel. Is that acceptable with you? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. It would be right after the vote. We will still be 

in session. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I move the amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Before you move the amendment, do others 

want to be heard? 

Senator SULLIVAN. I would like to respond. We can vote now. 

Senator INHOFE. You will get a chance to do that. 

First of all, on Boxer Amendment No. 6, is there a motion? 

Senator BOXER. Move the amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator CARDIN. Second. 

97 

Senator BOXER. Request a roll call. 

Senator INHOFE. A roll call has been requested. The Clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. The yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Seeing no further members wishing to seek recognition to offer 

amendments, I move to accept the Manager’s Amendment to S. 

1140 and report the legislation to the Senate. Is there a second? 

Senator WICKER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. We will request a roll call. The Clerk will call 

the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

98 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11 and the nays are 9. 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes have it and the legislation is favorably 

reported to the Senate. Before we do our motion on the technical 

corrections, I would like to recognize Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a quick question for counsel. Under Section 4(b)(3) of the 

introduced bill, it states that the terms ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ under the Clean Water Act should not include ‘‘water that 

is located below the surface of the land including soil and groundwater.’’ 

Does this reference to soil and water include water in permafrost 

and water in the saturated soils that lie above permafrost? 

Staff. Yes, Senator, it does. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. 

Mr. Chairman, if it is OK, I just wanted to respond very briefly. 

I think this has been a very good debate as Senator Boxer menVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:46 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\99913.TXT VERN
99 

tioned. I think there are a number of us, Senator Cardin mentioned 

there is some frustration, and I would agree with that. 

We all certainly want clean water. My city in Anchorage gets 

awards almost every year for having some of the cleanest, if not 

the cleanest water, in the United States. It is in large measure due 

to the local and State authorities who make it that way. 

We also want to protect the Constitution and the separation of 

powers and Federal overreach. One of the frustrations we have had 

that has been the motivation behind this bill, again I agree with 

Senator Boxer, there are many great employees at the EPA but 

they have been acting in a way that exceeds their authority. This 

is not just hypothetical. 

There was a lawsuit last year, Utility Air Regulator Group v. 

EPA, where the Supreme Court said something in very similar situation, the EPA issued a regulation under the Clean Air Act. Many 

opposed that. I was Attorney General of the State of Alaska and 

opposed that. They said the EPA did not have the authority to do 

that, it was expanding its jurisdiction. 

The Supreme Court said the only body that can expand the 

EPA’s jurisdiction is this body. That is what they are trying to do 

with their ‘‘waters of the U.S.’’ reg, expand their jurisdiction. No 

one, I believe on either side of the aisle, thinks the EPA has the 

authority to expand its own jurisdiction. That is the crux of the 

issue. 

Let me give you one sense on the frustration of oversight. The 

EPA Administrator has sat before this committee a number of 

times. I have asked her a simple question, can you provide the 

legal basis, the legal opinion under the Clean Water Act that gives 

you the justification for this rule? It is simple. That is oversight. 

She has never responded, never responded. 

When you get blown off like that in terms of oversight, I think 

it is exactly the prerogative of the Congress to clarify what the law 

is and say where and when they do not have the authority. That 

is why I think this is a very important bill. 

They need to respond to oversight. When they do not do it, we 

need to act. In this case, they will not even provide the Congress, 

this committee, an opinion that says here is our authority under 

the Clean Water Act to issue this regulation, to issue this rule. 

They have never responded. That is outrageous. She needs to respond to this committee. 

It is a simple request. It is oversight. It is us doing our job. They 

need to do their job by responding. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I agree that we have a right to have our questions answered. I will work with you on that, absolutely. There is 

no doubt in my mind. 

I would urge you to take a look at all the court cases in totality 

that the EPA has won and lost. I would argue if you look at the 

Supreme Court, they have mostly won. I would argue when environmental groups push the EPA, because they are not doing 

enough, the environmental groups win. 

100 

I think it is worthwhile to take a look at these cases. I would say 

again, the honesty here in this committee today, I commend. I really do. We heard today the true heart and soul of members on both 

sides. It is an unbelievable change. The people have to understand 

it. 

I will continue as long as I am sitting here and it will be next 

to my Chairman until I go on to do other work, a lot of it will probably be a continuation of the work I have done, but I will continue 

to point out where I think we can come together and not be so separated on this issue of protecting our people. 

None of us wants a child to get sick. But the bottom line, let us 

recognize what you say in the name of deregulation and our authority over their authority, at the end of the day, what are we 

doing? Are we making our people safer or are we not? 

To me that is the reason I am here, to make sure people are protected. This is totally different, whether it is taking the fight to 

ISIS, which I want to do, not with our combat boots on the ground 

I might add, but taking the fight to them and also making sure 

that when our kids drink the water, they are safe or when they 

swim. 

I read recently, where was it, in Ohio where that child got sick 

in the last couple of years, got sick swimming because the waters 

had gotten so warm there were all kinds of toxins there that were 

not usually there. I think it was Lake Havasu. Am I right? Yes. 

What we do here regardless if it is at a peak that no one answered our letter, and I agree that is wrong, or at a peak because 

we are more important than the EPA and more important than the 

Corps and all that, OK. 

To me the most important thing is that our people are protected. 

Today, we took a giant step backward on that front, a giant step. 

I do not care what the bill is called. We have a tendency here of 

giving these bills beautiful names. What is this one called, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act? It is not about that. 

Let us look past the title. We have beautiful titles for bills but 

they are really not beautiful bills. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Just a minute, Senator Cardin. 

Let me respond to that first and then we have one member who 

has not been here who may want to be heard. Do you want to be 

heard? She does not. 

Let me repeat. We have said many, many times, the Republicans 

want clean water, we want our kids to drink clean water and we 

are going to be doing all we can. 

The Republican Party and the parties have not really changed. 

You talked about Ruckelshaus. It happened during that time there 

were EPA Administrators and others who were not abusing people 

on the outside. That is not true today. It is our job in oversight to 

be responsible to their needs. 

Without objection, I am going to enter into the record the Monday, June 8 Washington Times referred to by Senator Barrasso. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator INHOFE. Do others want to be heard? 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, may I correct myself? I made a 

mistake. I have to correct the name of the lake. Is that OK? 

101 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. Lake Havasu is in Arizona. On Trip Advisor, it 

says ‘‘Visitors to Lake Havasu beaches not told of killer parasite in 

the lake.’’ I was wrong on the State. There was an incident in Ohio. 

My point is all of what we do really does have implications for 

people. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I want to respond 

to Senator Sullivan’s point because I agree with Senator Boxer. 

There should be no disagreement on our committee that any reasonable request be honored by any member of our committee and 

certainly by our committee for information. I certainly support 

that. 

I wanted to point out on the constitutional issues that there are 

three branches of government, not two, not just the Executive and 

the Congress. We also have the Judicial Branch. 

In regard to these rules, we were operating, I think, with a clear 

understanding prior to the Swank and Rapanos decisions of the Supreme Court. It was the Rapanos decisions that told Congress the 

agency had to clarify the waters of the U.S. That threw in the uncertainty which is the Supreme Court interprets the laws. 

Either Congress or the agencies had to respond to the Rapanos 

decision and that is what we have been wrestling with ever since 

that Supreme Court decision came down. I thought I would just 

point that out. There are not just two branches of government. 

There are three branches of government involved in us trying to 

clarify the waters of the U.S. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you for that clarification. 

I ask unanimous consent that staff have the authority to make 

technical and conforming changes to the measure approved today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ