Alan Simpson: “They are absolutely right. This would block the implementation of this rule in the future. That is what we are trying to…”

“They are absolutely right. This would block the implementation of this rule in the future. That is what we are trying to do. We are saying this rule is no good, start again. It doesn't mean that these streams would be in danger or anything else. We are saying to the Army Corps and to the EPA, go back and start again, because they were wrong in this rule and they far overreached their authority of the Clean Water Act. I think that is what a court is going to decide, and this probably won't be necessary because a court is probably going to throw this out. The reality is we all want clean water. If this amendment is not adopted and our language goes into effect, it doesn't mean that these wetlands and these streams are going to be unregulated. They will be regulated, as they were before, by the State governments. We have a Federal system. We have Federal law. We have State laws. The State laws do some things. They have regulated water within their States for years and have done a pretty good job of it. Is the Clean Water Act necessary? You bet it is. You are right. The Cuyahoga River hasn't started a fire for a long time because of the cleanup that has been done, but that doesn't mean that they need to regulate every little mud puddle and stream in the State of Idaho. I strongly oppose this amendment, as I have in years gone by. And I would say it again: This is telling the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to start over again.…”