On the recordMarch 25, 2015
I rise in support of my amendment No. 347, an amendment to hold the EPA and the Army Corps to their word about the scope of their proposed waters of the United States rule. The administration says there is a lot of misunderstanding with their proposed waters of the United States regulation and what it covers. Time and time again, we have heard from the EPA and the Corps that this rule would not cover things such as puddles, rainwater, snowmelt, and irrigation ditches. The Barrasso amendment would help to make sure this rule is crystal clear by listing out those things the EPA and the Corps have indicated or led folks to believe would not be covered under the rule. So if you believe the waters of the United States rule does not go far enough, that the Federal Government should be in the business of regulating puddles in our constituents' backyards, then vote against my amendment. That is what voting against my amendment would mean. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to protect the waters of the United States. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
