John Hoeven

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I would respond briefly to the Senator from Arizona and then turn to the Senator from Wyoming on that issue as well for more detail on the legislation. He has tremendous expertise in this area and has been working on it for a long time. Clearly, it is a double win because not only are we no longer burning off or flaring that natural gas, but we are using natural gas, which is a very clean resource, for a whole range of energy uses, whether it is powering homes or many other uses. So it is a huge environmental win.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I turn to the good Senator from Arizona for any final comments. Seeing that he doesn't have any, I thank him. I also thank the good Senator from Wyoming and ask if there are any final comments he might have on the legislation. He has been an author of much of this legislation. I thank him for that tremendous work and for being part of this effort.

Mr. HOEVEN. Oh, boy. To convert it, it is billions, right, it is in the billions of dollars. I don't have the exact number, but it is a huge amount. It is $1.5 million a day in my State alone so the Senator can see we are talking billions of dollars. There are also tremendous environmental benefits as well. But let's go to the legislation for a minute because I think this is responsive to the question asked by the Senator from Arizona about: OK. How do we make it happen? The reality is we are producing the energy now, we can produce more, and this doesn't cost taxpayer money. This creates revenues without raising taxes. This is going to create revenues to help address the debt and the deficit. This is enabling and empowering the private companies to make investments to create jobs, make investments to produce the energy. Going back to this chart, Exxon wants to invest $10 billion today, creating thousands of jobs and a tremendous amount of revenue for the Federal Government to reduce the deficit and debt. It doesn't cost a penny. That is not what it is about. It is about streamlining the regulation, cutting the redtape. That means making sure we streamline and expedite the process to get wells approved. That is the first area of legislation that increases our production onshore. We can do it offshore as well. But we are talking about more production. As I say, we are already producing more than we consume. Second, it is about building those gathering systems. It requires permits and approvals to build gathering systems, so we are not able to build those gathering systems. If you can't build a gathering system, what happens? You burn off the gas because you can't get it to market. So that process is being held up. Again, it is about cutting through the redtape, reducing the regulation and bureaucracy. It doesn't cost anything. The final piece, the same thing--getting approval to export LNG. Right now there is one that has final approval from the DOE and FERC. There are 26 applications pending. One has final approval from the DOE--Department of Energy--and the FERC. Six have conditional approval and 26 are pending. It is as simple as getting the approvals and cutting through that redtape. This is not about spending taxpayer dollars; it is about generating revenues.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments, his leadership, and for his willingness to work on this vitally important issue. In terms of responding to his question: OK. What needs to happen--I wish to take a minute to give an overview of the legislation and then ask the Senator from Wyoming to comment in more detail. As I said at the outset, and I actually have said several times, this is about more energy, it is about job creation, it is about growing the economy, and it is about national security. It is also very much about environmental benefits. I showed you gas being flared off a well. This gas is just being flared. Not only is that wasting a natural resource which we can capture and get value for, but when we capture that, we also create environmental benefits. Nationally, we flare or vent, burn off, 212 billion cubic feet of gas a year--212 billion cubic feet of gas a year now being burned off.

Mr. HOEVEN. We are here today to talk about energy--energy for our country but also energy for our allies. This is a discussion not just about energy, it is about jobs, good-paying jobs. It is also about economic growth. It is about generating tax revenues to help reduce the debt and the deficit without raising taxes. It is about national security--not only our national security but also working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, as well as our allies in Europe, the European Union, and working to help countries such as the Ukraine that very much need energy supply from sources other than Russia. With the current events going on in the Ukraine, it is very clear that we need to play a long-term game, a long-term strategy--deploy a long-term strategy when it comes to helping our allies, not only in terms of our national security but working with our allies to make them stronger, their strength, their national security. The national security of allies also contributes to our strength and our security here at home. So that is what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about the North Atlantic Energy Security Act, legislation we are introducing today--myself, Senator Barrasso, Senator McCain, and Senator Murkowski. I am going to take a few minutes to talk about energy production, transportation, and export in terms of building our energy future in this country and working with our allies. Senator Barrasso is here, and he will be talking about the specific legislation. Senator McCain will join us as well to talk about the national security issues and implications. I will start with the first chart. Very simply, what we want to do is continue to produce more energy in our Nation, in the heartland of our Nation and throughout our country. We want to transport that increased production to market. That includes not only markets domestically but also markets where we can export it to our friends and allies in the European Union, to the Ukraine, and to Japan. That is the simple equation we are working on. Again, it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about a growing economy. It is very much about national security. That gas is produced throughout our country, more and more all the time. Right now we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. We only use 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, so we are already producing more than we consume, and that number is growing. What happens when you produce more than you consume and you do not have a market for that gas? In places such as North Dakota, we are flaring off that gas. Right now, just in my State alone, we flare $1.5 million a day of natural gas--$1.5 million a day. That is natural gas that we need to capture, that we need to get in gathering systems, that we need to transport to markets, and we need markets for that gas. This is just common sense. How do we move gas from North Dakota to places such as Ukraine, where there is much need for a market? Well, we need both interstate and intrastate pipeline systems. On this chart, you can see that the purple is the interstate. That is how we move gas across State lines. But we also need intrastate gathering systems. A lot of oil wells produce natural gas as a byproduct; other wells are just gas wells. But you need gathering systems, the blue systems that go to all those wells so that gas can be gathered, put in the interstate system, and moved to markets--markets throughout the United States and markets overseas. As I said a minute ago, we produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, States such as North Dakota, Wyoming, and many others. That number is growing. We produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, but we only consume 26 trillion, so we are flaring off that gas. We need markets. As we work to build those gathering systems and those interstate pipelines, how do we get markets? Well, we move that product to overseas as liquefied natural gas, LNG. It is cooled and condensed, put on ships, and moved to other markets--the European Union, Ukraine, Japan--by ship. But we need the LNG facilities to do it. We do not have them. So that is a problem, right? Well, it is, except we have many companies that are not only ready and willing but anxious to build the facilities. Here are 16 right here, 16 applications. Of the 26 applications that are pending, many of them have been pending for over a year waiting to get approval from the Department of Energy and from the FERC. So here we are flaring off natural gas, as I showed a minute ago--$1.5 million a day in my State--flaring it off because we produce more than we consume. We need markets. These applications are just sitting there and have been for more than a year. If they get approved, what happens? Let's take an example. Here is one by a company everybody has heard of--Exxon. Exxon has an application. As you can see here, they have had an application in for over a year waiting to get approved at Sabine Pass, TX, which is right down in that gulf area. They are ready, willing, and able to spend $10 billion right now, today, to build that facility. Where are they going to move the gas? They are going to move it to the United Kingdom so it can go right into the European system. We will touch on that European system and how it gets to places such as the Ukraine in a minute. But if they can get approval-- I have already talked to their CEO, Mr. Rex Tillerson. He indicates that within 36 to 40 months of approval, they can be moving gas into the European markets. Does that sound realistic? It certainly does. Obviously that is a very large company with the capabilities to do what they say they are willing and want to do. Here is another example. Here is Cheniere. Same place--Sabine Pass. This is one that did get approved. This is one that did get approval. They intend to be delivering gas into the European market by the middle of next year--middle of next year. So this is not something that is going to take forever to happen. We not only have the fact that we can start moving natural gas over here in a very reasonable amount of time, but think of the impact on the markets in Europe and the impact on Russia and gas prices when they know it is coming. I am going to ask Senator McCain to step in here. I mentioned a minute ago that application I showed you that is pending from Exxon. They want to move that natural gas to market right here in the UK. What this chart shows is the pipeline network throughout Europe that will enable them to move that product throughout Europe and even into Eastern Europe, including places such as Ukraine. Right now where is all that gas coming from? Russia, Gazprom. All these pipelines are coming down from Russia and providing that gas to the European countries, to the European Union, and to the Ukraine. Of course, that makes them dependent on Russia and that enables Russia to engage in the kind of activity we have seen and we can't always be reacting short term. We need a long-term strategy to break that hold. Here are some of the numbers. This shows not only Ukraine but look at the impact on other NATO countries, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, 100 percent of their gas coming from Russia. Think of the leverage that gives Russia in this situation. The last chart is the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. Quite simply, we are going to cut the redtape that is holding up production and infrastructure, we are going to reduce flaring, and we are going to expedite LNG to our friends and allies, to countries such as the European Union, to Ukraine, to Japan. We reduce the redtape that is holding up production. We are producing 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and we can produce a lot more, but we have to cut through the redtape. We also enhance and expand our ability to build the gathering systems that move that natural gas to market, and we allow export. We have an expedited process so we can export that gas to the markets we need, to our friends, and to our allies. Again, this is about energy, but it is about creating jobs, it is about growing our economy, it is about the national security of our country and our allies, and it is about having a long-term strategy that works, not going from crisis to crisis. With that, I turn to my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, to comment on some of the national security implications.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed for the next 30 minutes to engage in a colloquy between myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Barrasso.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. We are here today to talk about energy--energy for our country but also energy for our allies. This is a discussion not just about energy, it is about jobs, good-paying jobs. It is also about economic growth. It is about generating tax revenues to help reduce the debt and the deficit without raising taxes. It is about national security--not only our national security but also working with our closest friend and ally, Canada, as well as our allies in Europe, the European Union, and working to help countries such as the Ukraine that very much need energy supply from sources other than Russia. With the current events going on in the Ukraine, it is very clear that we need to play a long-term game, a long-term strategy--deploy a long-term strategy when it comes to helping our allies, not only in terms of our national security but working with our allies to make them stronger, their strength, their national security. The national security of allies also contributes to our strength and our security here at home. So that is what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about the North Atlantic Energy Security Act, legislation we are introducing today--myself, Senator Barrasso, Senator McCain, and Senator Murkowski. I am going to take a few minutes to talk about energy production, transportation, and export in terms of building our energy future in this country and working with our allies. Senator Barrasso is here, and he will be talking about the specific legislation. Senator McCain will join us as well to talk about the national security issues and implications. I will start with the first chart. Very simply, what we want to do is continue to produce more energy in our Nation, in the heartland of our Nation and throughout our country. We want to transport that increased production to market. That includes not only markets domestically but also markets where we can export it to our friends and allies in the European Union, to the Ukraine, and to Japan. That is the simple equation we are working on. Again, it is about energy. It is about jobs. It is about a growing economy. It is very much about national security. That gas is produced throughout our country, more and more all the time. Right now we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. We only use 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, so we are already producing more than we consume, and that number is growing. What happens when you produce more than you consume and you do not have a market for that gas? In places such as North Dakota, we are flaring off that gas. Right now, just in my State alone, we flare $1.5 million a day of natural gas--$1.5 million a day. That is natural gas that we need to capture, that we need to get in gathering systems, that we need to transport to markets, and we need markets for that gas. This is just common sense. How do we move gas from North Dakota to places such as Ukraine, where there is much need for a market? Well, we need both interstate and intrastate pipeline systems. On this chart, you can see that the purple is the interstate. That is how we move gas across State lines. But we also need intrastate gathering systems. A lot of oil wells produce natural gas as a byproduct; other wells are just gas wells. But you need gathering systems, the blue systems that go to all those wells so that gas can be gathered, put in the interstate system, and moved to markets--markets throughout the United States and markets overseas. As I said a minute ago, we produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, States such as North Dakota, Wyoming, and many others. That number is growing. We produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year, but we only consume 26 trillion, so we are flaring off that gas. We need markets. As we work to build those gathering systems and those interstate pipelines, how do we get markets? Well, we move that product to overseas as liquefied natural gas, LNG. It is cooled and condensed, put on ships, and moved to other markets--the European Union, Ukraine, Japan--by ship. But we need the LNG facilities to do it. We do not have them. So that is a problem, right? Well, it is, except we have many companies that are not only ready and willing but anxious to build the facilities. Here are 16 right here, 16 applications. Of the 26 applications that are pending, many of them have been pending for over a year waiting to get approval from the Department of Energy and from the FERC. So here we are flaring off natural gas, as I showed a minute ago--$1.5 million a day in my State--flaring it off because we produce more than we consume. We need markets. These applications are just sitting there and have been for more than a year. If they get approved, what happens? Let's take an example. Here is one by a company everybody has heard of--Exxon. Exxon has an application. As you can see here, they have had an application in for over a year waiting to get approved at Sabine Pass, TX, which is right down in that gulf area. They are ready, willing, and able to spend $10 billion right now, today, to build that facility. Where are they going to move the gas? They are going to move it to the United Kingdom so it can go right into the European system. We will touch on that European system and how it gets to places such as the Ukraine in a minute. But if they can get approval-- I have already talked to their CEO, Mr. Rex Tillerson. He indicates that within 36 to 40 months of approval, they can be moving gas into the European markets. Does that sound realistic? It certainly does. Obviously that is a very large company with the capabilities to do what they say they are willing and want to do. Here is another example. Here is Cheniere. Same place--Sabine Pass. This is one that did get approved. This is one that did get approval. They intend to be delivering gas into the European market by the middle of next year--middle of next year. So this is not something that is going to take forever to happen. We not only have the fact that we can start moving natural gas over here in a very reasonable amount of time, but think of the impact on the markets in Europe and the impact on Russia and gas prices when they know it is coming. I am going to ask Senator McCain to step in here. I mentioned a minute ago that application I showed you that is pending from Exxon. They want to move that natural gas to market right here in the UK. What this chart shows is the pipeline network throughout Europe that will enable them to move that product throughout Europe and even into Eastern Europe, including places such as Ukraine. Right now where is all that gas coming from? Russia, Gazprom. All these pipelines are coming down from Russia and providing that gas to the European countries, to the European Union, and to the Ukraine. Of course, that makes them dependent on Russia and that enables Russia to engage in the kind of activity we have seen and we can't always be reacting short term. We need a long-term strategy to break that hold. Here are some of the numbers. This shows not only Ukraine but look at the impact on other NATO countries, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, 100 percent of their gas coming from Russia. Think of the leverage that gives Russia in this situation. The last chart is the North Atlantic Energy Security Act. Quite simply, we are going to cut the redtape that is holding up production and infrastructure, we are going to reduce flaring, and we are going to expedite LNG to our friends and allies, to countries such as the European Union, to Ukraine, to Japan. We reduce the redtape that is holding up production. We are producing 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and we can produce a lot more, but we have to cut through the redtape. We also enhance and expand our ability to build the gathering systems that move that natural gas to market, and we allow export. We have an expedited process so we can export that gas to the markets we need, to our friends, and to our allies. Again, this is about energy, but it is about creating jobs, it is about growing our economy, it is about the national security of our country and our allies, and it is about having a long-term strategy that works, not going from crisis to crisis. With that, I turn to my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, to comment on some of the national security implications.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments, his leadership, and for his willingness to work on this vitally important issue. In terms of responding to his question: OK. What needs to happen--I wish to take a minute to give an overview of the legislation and then ask the Senator from Wyoming to comment in more detail. As I said at the outset, and I actually have said several times, this is about more energy, it is about job creation, it is about growing the economy, and it is about national security. It is also very much about environmental benefits. I showed you gas being flared off a well. This gas is just being flared. Not only is that wasting a natural resource which we can capture and get value for, but when we capture that, we also create environmental benefits. Nationally, we flare or vent, burn off, 212 billion cubic feet of gas a year--212 billion cubic feet of gas a year now being burned off.

Mr. HOEVEN. Oh, boy. To convert it, it is billions, right, it is in the billions of dollars. I don't have the exact number, but it is a huge amount. It is $1.5 million a day in my State alone so the Senator can see we are talking billions of dollars. There are also tremendous environmental benefits as well. But let's go to the legislation for a minute because I think this is responsive to the question asked by the Senator from Arizona about: OK. How do we make it happen? The reality is we are producing the energy now, we can produce more, and this doesn't cost taxpayer money. This creates revenues without raising taxes. This is going to create revenues to help address the debt and the deficit. This is enabling and empowering the private companies to make investments to create jobs, make investments to produce the energy. Going back to this chart, Exxon wants to invest $10 billion today, creating thousands of jobs and a tremendous amount of revenue for the Federal Government to reduce the deficit and debt. It doesn't cost a penny. That is not what it is about. It is about streamlining the regulation, cutting the redtape. That means making sure we streamline and expedite the process to get wells approved. That is the first area of legislation that increases our production onshore. We can do it offshore as well. But we are talking about more production. As I say, we are already producing more than we consume. Second, it is about building those gathering systems. It requires permits and approvals to build gathering systems, so we are not able to build those gathering systems. If you can't build a gathering system, what happens? You burn off the gas because you can't get it to market. So that process is being held up. Again, it is about cutting through the redtape, reducing the regulation and bureaucracy. It doesn't cost anything. The final piece, the same thing--getting approval to export LNG. Right now there is one that has final approval from the DOE and FERC. There are 26 applications pending. One has final approval from the DOE--Department of Energy--and the FERC. Six have conditional approval and 26 are pending. It is as simple as getting the approvals and cutting through that redtape. This is not about spending taxpayer dollars; it is about generating revenues.

Mr. HOEVEN. I would respond briefly to the Senator from Arizona and then turn to the Senator from Wyoming on that issue as well for more detail on the legislation. He has tremendous expertise in this area and has been working on it for a long time. Clearly, it is a double win because not only are we no longer burning off or flaring that natural gas, but we are using natural gas, which is a very clean resource, for a whole range of energy uses, whether it is powering homes or many other uses. So it is a huge environmental win.

Mr. HOEVEN. Absolutely an environmental win.

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I turn to the good Senator from Arizona for any final comments. Seeing that he doesn't have any, I thank him. I also thank the good Senator from Wyoming and ask if there are any final comments he might have on the legislation. He has been an author of much of this legislation. I thank him for that tremendous work and for being part of this effort.

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in a very important discussion with regard to the waters of the United States and the proposed rule by the EPA. The good Senator from Missouri, I, a Senator from Wyoming and--as has been already said on the floor--about 30 of us in total are proposing an amendment to the sportsmen's bill which is currently under consideration on the floor--an amendment that would address the regulatory overreach by the EPA and, specifically, their proposed waters of the U.S. regulation. The amendment we have is very simple, very straightforward. It is relevant to the legislation that is currently on the floor and should be brought forward for a vote. It is amendment No. 3453, and as I said it deals with the waters of the United States. I am going to take just a minute to read it because it is very simple and very straightforward and could be dealt with in a very expeditious way. Obviously with 29 Senators supporting it, it is an amendment that we should be voting on. This is a clear example of an amendment where this body needs to take a stand, and it is one that should receive a vote as part of this sportsmen's legislation. So I will read from the amendment: In General. Neither the Secretary of the Army nor the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall-- (1) finalize the proposed rule entitled ``Definition of 'Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act''; (2) use the proposed rule described in paragraph (1), or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance, as a basis for any rulemaking or any decision regarding the scope of the enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (b) RULES. The use of the proposed rule described in subsection (a)(1), or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance, as the basis for any rulemaking or any decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall be grounds for vacation of the final rule, decision, or enforcement action. So very simply, what we provide is that the EPA cannot move forward with the proposed waters of the U.S. rule. It is appropriate because in essence, as my colleague from Missouri very accurately described, the EPA has gone way beyond its jurisdiction on this rule. EPA alleges that it is responding to confusion in regard to the proposed Waters of the U.S. rule that it is getting from farmers and ranchers across our country. The fact is that is not the case. What EPA is doing is they are expanding their jurisdiction dramatically under an argument that the Supreme Court did not make, but an argument, rather, that the EPA is making that under what they call ``significant nexus'' they are empowered to regulate waters far beyond navigable bodies of water. This is something I think affects almost every industry sector, but I am going to bring it back to a discussion of our farmers and ranchers and private property rights, which are, in fact, impacted by this proposed rule to talk about why it is so important that we have an opportunity to vote on this amendment and to defeat the proposed rule. America's farmers and 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. In these difficult economic times the Federal Government should be doing all it can to empower those who grow our food and create jobs. Yet instead regulators are stifling growth with burdensome regulations which generate costs and uncertainty. The proposed rule by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the waters of the United States is exactly the type of regulation that I am talking about. The waters of the United States rule greatly expands the scope of the Clean Water Act with regulations over America's streams and wetlands. If we look at the chart I brought, we can see it is not just affecting our farmers and ranchers, it goes far beyond that. For example, it affects the power industry, the oil and gas industry, the construction industry, and the manufacturing industry. Almost anything you can think of is impacted by this regulatory overreach. It is clearly a power grab by the EPA, and it needs to be checked. The Supreme Court has found that Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends to navigable waters. We are not arguing with the EPA's ability to regulate something like the Missouri River or a lake that is a navigable body of water, but the Supreme Court has also made it clear that not all bodies of water are navigable or under the EPA's jurisdiction. What has our farmers and ranchers so concerned is that the Corps and the EPA went far beyond lakes and rivers. This new proposed rule would bring EPA permitting, reporting, enforcement, mitigation, and citizen lawsuits to ephemeral streams. Ephemeral streams are really dry land most of the time. To a farmer, an ephemeral stream is simply a low area across the field. It brings tributaries into it--tributaries which are all ditches that carry any amount of water that eventually flows into a navigable body of water. Think about that. Ditches. All waters that are deemed adjacent to other jurisdictional waters, including dry ditches and ephemerals, plus any other waters that the EPA has determined to have a significant nexus. In real-world terms, these categories could bring burdensome regulations to a vast number of small, isolated wetlands and ponds. It is hard to see, but that is what we tried to depict on this chart. It is almost any type of water anywhere you find it. For those of you who have not had the opportunity to visit with a farmer from my State of North Dakota, know that dealing with excess water is a common issue, to say the least, particularly in recent years. Most farmers could tell you that just because there is water in a ditch or a field one week doesn't mean there is going to be water in that field or ditch the next week. It certainly doesn't make that water worthy of being treated the same as a navigable river or lake. It defies common sense. A field 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, as I have said, commonsense perspective. The Corps and the EPA have responded to these concerns by saying they are going to exempt dozens of conservation practices, but these exemptions are extremely limited and they do not cover many Clean Water Act rights. For example, the farmer with a low spot in his field next to the ditch described above--as I just explained--may now be sued under the Clean Water Act's section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Think about that. Now the farmer faces the risk of litigation and litigation costs for using everyday weed control or fertilizer applications among other basic and essential farming activities. Let me get this right. The EPA is saying: We are doing this because this is going to help farmers somehow understand what they have to do. So the EPA goes beyond navigable bodies of water--let's take a State such as Ohio, for example. They are going to go beyond the Great Lakes and beyond the Ohio River, and the EPA is now going to extend their regulatory jurisdiction to water wherever they find it--in a ditch or on a farm--and they are going to regulate that, and they might give that farmer or rancher an exemption, and somehow they are helping and clarifying things for that farmer or rancher? It defies common sense. Farmers and ranchers have to work through uncertain weather and markets to ensure that America is food secure, and they do an amazing job of it. They are the best in the world. Sixteen million people in this country are either directly involved in agriculture or indirectly involved in agriculture. We have a positive balance of payments in agriculture. We have the lowest cost, highest quality food supply in the world. Now the EPA by its own volition is going to go out and make it harder and more expensive and more difficult for our farmers and ranchers to do what they do better than anyone in the world. Farmers and ranchers have to work through uncertain weather and markets to ensure that we have food security. They don't need the burden of additional regulations and litigation, and they certainly don't need that burden under the auspices of the EPA saying that somehow this is going to help. Well, that is not the case. I offered a very similar amendment in the Appropriations Committee in the energy and water section. The night before we were to have our full Appropriations Committee meeting, at 7:30 that night, that bill, the Energy and Water bill, got pulled, so we didn't have our appropriations vote the next morning. The amendment I had prepared simply would have defunded this proposed regulation, but because there was bipartisan support for this amendment, we are not going to get a chance to vote on it. Twenty-eight other Senators and I have been here on the floor this afternoon. The Senator from Missouri was just here. The Senator from Wyoming was here earlier. Others have been here. I am here now. There will be more. So here we stand. We are on a sportsmen's bill, this is a relevant amendment, and the question is, Why aren't we voting on it? It has bipartisan support and 29 cosponsors. It is something that is clearly important not just to our farmers and ranchers but really to businesses and industry across this great country. So why aren't we voting on it? If somebody wants to come down and make an argument that they are for it, they can do so. But when all is said and done, the way this body works is by voting and determining where the majority falls. I ask my colleagues, why in the world are we not voting on this amendment that is incredibly important to our farmers and ranchers and to businesses and to industry and to the people of this country? As I said, we didn't get a chance to vote on it in committee, and here we are on a bill where it is relevant. Are we going to get a chance to vote on it now? And if not now, when? The majority rules, so let's have a vote. Let's give everybody a chance to stand and be counted. Let's have our vote, and let's stand up for the American people and make sure we strike down this proposed waters of the United States regulation. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership on this important issue and pick up on a point he just expressed: Why are we not demanding in this body that we vote on legislation to address this proposed regulation? As he said so clearly and eloquently, this is an issue this Congress rejected. So now when one of the agencies, the EPA, goes around Congress to set up a proposed regulation that does something the Congress expressly rejected, why in the world are we not voting? It is our responsibility and our right to do so. America's farmers and ranchers and entrepreneurs go to work every day to build a stronger nation. Thanks to those hard-working men and women, we live in a country where there is affordable food at the grocery store, where a dynamic private sector offers Americans the opportunity to achieve a brighter future. In these difficult economic times, the Federal Government should be doing all it can to empower those who grow our food and those who create jobs. Yet instead regulators are stifling growth with burdensome regulations that generate cost and uncertainty. Look at the economic data, as the Senator from Wyoming said, that came out this morning. What are we doing stifling that entrepreneurial activity, that entrepreneurship, that creativity that makes the American economy go? This proposed regulation is an example of that. It touches almost every industry. We are talking about our farmers and ranchers, but it goes across all industry sectors. The proposed rule by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the waters of the United States is exactly the type of regulation that is hurting our economy, hurting our entrepreneurs, hurting our farmers, and our ranchers. The waters of the United States rule greatly expands the scope of the Clean Water Act, regulations over America's streams and wetlands. If we take a look at a chart I brought, I know it is a little hard to see, but it demonstrates the incredible reach of this proposed regulation. If we look at the chart, we can see it is a real power grab that will enable the EPA to stretch its tentacles far into the countryside and far beyond. It is not just our farmers and ranchers and water in a ditch or water in a field that is there for maybe 1 week when it rains and the rest of the time it is dry, it affects construction, it affects powerplants, it affects stormwater drainage. I cannot think of anything it is not going to affect. Is that how our country works now? Instead of the people who are duly elected to pass laws for this country, we stand here and we do not get to vote on any of these issues we were elected to vote on, and someone who is not elected at the EPA or the Corps, they put regulations in place that affect virtually every single American. Is that how this works now? Is that what it has come to? Because that is exactly what is happening. That is exactly what is going on. The Supreme Court has found that Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends to navigable waters. I do not think anyone is arguing about the EPA's ability to regulate the Missouri River or other navigable bodies of water--rivers, lakes--but the Supreme Court also made clear that not all bodies of water are under the EPA's jurisdiction. So under a significant nexus determination, the EPA has decided: We do not care what the Supreme Court said. We are going to make sure they are all under our jurisdiction, not pursuant to any law. We are going to put a regulation in place that enables us to do whatever we want with any body of water, not just navigable bodies of water. Again, that is what I have tried to show on this chart. Ephemeral streams, tributaries, all waters deemed adjacent to any navigable body, including dry ditches, including water in fields that may be there for a short period of time, runoff from storm sewers, you name it. That is not the intent of the law. That is not the intent of the Supreme Court ruling. That is why it is so important that we address it. That is what we propose to do. In the legislation we put forward, both on the floor, in the bill filed by the Senator from Wyoming, the legislation I have offered in Energy and Water, we straightforwardly, we simply and straightforwardly address this regulation. How much time is remaining?

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here this morning with the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, as well as the esteemed Senators from both Kansas and Wyoming, to talk about this regulation that is clearly an overreach by the EPA. It needs to be addressed. We have measures to address it. As the Senator from South Dakota said so well, this is a regulation that is a huge problem for our farmers and ranchers, but really, as he said, we have been hearing from almost every industry sector that this is a big-time problem that needs to be addressed, and needs to be addressed now. So, as I said, we have legislation both in committee--I have legislation in the Appropriations Committee, in the Energy and Water Subcommittee, that would address it--and the good Senator from Wyoming has legislation that he has filed, and he is requesting a floor vote. But in both cases, whether it is in committee or here on the floor, what we are saying is give us a chance to vote on this issue. This is an important issue for the American people and Senators need to indicate where they stand. I do not know why everybody should not be proud to do that--to vote on this regulatory overreach and to address this challenge for the American people. It is a very straightforward issue. That is what we are here to discuss and debate this morning, and we sincerely hope, as we continue to highlight this very important problem, the leadership of this body is going to step up on behalf of the American people and allow--allow--the Senate to address it through its rightful duty, which is to vote on issues important to the American people. To continue this important dialog, I turn to the Senator from Kansas and ask for his comments on behalf of his constituents in his State in terms of what he is hearing and the problems this waters of the U.S. proposed regulation put forward by the EPA creates in the great State of Kansas.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, that is our point. We understand that people bring different points of view to this deliberative body, but the point is this: This is an important issue that affects virtually all Americans, that affects our economy, that affects our farmers, our ranchers, our businesses, the energy sector. You name it. When we have something of this importance, we have an absolute responsibility to the people of this country to show where we stand on the issue, meaning we have a responsibility to vote on this and the other important issues before this body. That is what we are asking for. We are saying everybody has a right to bring their point of view and their opinion, but we all have a right and a responsibility to vote on these important issues. That is what we are asking for, a vote on this important issue for the benefit of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank, again, the Senator from Kansas. He is somebody who has been involved in agriculture for-- well, he is still a very young man--he is somebody who has been involved in agriculture for a long time and certainly understands what goes into farming. Think about it. Farmers and ranchers work the land, but that is also their home. Who knows the land better? Who knows the streams and the potholes and the ditches and the roads, who knows their land better than a farmer or a rancher? And who is more concerned about it? Really. Who is more concerned about it? That farmer or somebody who works at the EPA here in Washington, DC? That is important to think about as we look at this kind of regulatory overreach that goes to the very private property rights that are the foundation of this country. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership and for the legislation he has put together that he has filed and that we should be voting on right now that I am very pleased to cosponsor. I would ask the Senator from Wyoming for his comments on this issue and his legislation.

Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN. I have no objection.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed until 10:28 a.m. for the purposes of the colloquy.

Mr. HOEVEN

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Rhode Island for coming to the floor and making exactly the type of point I am making. Thank you for being here. This is the debate we should have, and it should be vigorous, as it is. We should have all Members, whether they are from a coastal State or an inland State, and we should debate every aspect of this proposed rule. This is important to them. This is something that affects American people regardless of what State they live in. We should have this debate, and then we should vote on this issue.

Mr. HOEVEN. My question to you is, very simply, first, EPA, in order to provide exemptions, has to maintain that they have jurisdiction in all these areas. That is the very point I am making to the point made by the Senator from Maryland. EPA is now deciding where they have jurisdiction and where they don't. We are not. And they are doing it far beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's rule. So my question is, If they can decide where they are going to give exemptions, how can you say they are not exerting jurisdiction? To the good Senator from Rhode Island, every downstream State can allege the issue you made in your earlier point. I understand that. But to both of you, my point is, let's have this debate and then let's vote on behalf of the American people. Would the Senators agree that is what we should be doing in this body?