[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4957-H4963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2018, CLEAN WATER COOPERATIVE 
                         FEDERALISM ACT OF 2011

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I

[[Page H4958]]

call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 347

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2018) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make 
     determinations relating to the State's water quality 
     standards, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Olson). The gentleman from Utah is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 
5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a 
structured rule and makes in order 10 specific amendments that were 
received by the Rules Committee. Nine of those were offered by 
Democrats; only one amendment made in order was offered by a 
Republican. So the vast majority of amendments that were received by 
the Rules Committee which are in compliance with House rules were made 
in order under this resolution, with most being from Democrats.
  So this is a very fair rule and continues the record of the Rules 
Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as 
possible which conform to House rules. I commend Chairman Dreier for 
continuing the record of fairness and openness in the formulation of 
this particular rule.
  Likewise, I would also like to commend the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica, for bringing 
this bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation which seeks to 
restore just a little bit of balance between States and the Federal 
Government when it comes to implementation of Clean Water Act mandates. 
The Clean Water Act was originally intended by Congress to restore and 
maintain the integrity of our Nation's waters, which is a noble goal. 
Who can be opposed to that? We all support the idea of clean water in 
our Nation and our communities. But the Clean Water Act was originally 
intended to be a partnership between the States and the Federal 
Government and allowed the States to be authorized as the lead 
authority for water quality programs and permits.
  Unfortunately, the bill was written in a very careless and sloppy 
way, and so the time has come when it can be re-altered or 
reinterpreted as time goes on. It doesn't matter that the Constitution 
does not allow that. The Constitution clearly says that all legislative 
powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress. What we have 
seen is an agency of the Federal Government start to expand beyond 
their responsibility because the legislation itself, the core 
legislation, is somewhat vague.
  John Marshall once said that agencies should have the power to fill 
in the details. We're not talking about details. We're talking about 
where agencies of the Federal Government have expanded their power and 
responsibility far beyond what was ever intended, specifically when it 
relates to the value and the priority of States.
  For example, the State of Florida had previously obtained EPA 
approval for its statewide water quality and nutrient criteria 
development plan, and even though the State of Florida is well under 
way in developing its own nutrient standards based on those earlier 
Federal approvals, the EPA, in 2010, decided to step in and, with what 
Nelson Rockefeller used to say as the deadening hand of bureaucracy, 
imposed its own new water quality standards for nutrients in the State 
of Florida; violating the implicit State and Federal partnership 
established under the original Clean Water Act and stomping all over 
the good work that Florida had been doing when it was completing its 
tasks based on those earlier Federal approvals.
  In other States, the same thing has happened. In West Virginia, the 
EPA retroactively vetoed permits previously issued for coal mining 
operations by the Army Corps of Engineers.

                              {time}  1230

  These examples of overreaching by an administration, specifically the 
EPA, have upset the longstanding balance between Federal and State 
partners in regulating our Nation's waters and has undermined the 
system of cooperative federalism that was supposed to have been 
established in the original Clean Water Act. The EPA's actions have 
pulled the rug out from under the States in a very capricious and an 
extremely arrogant manner, have created an atmosphere of regulatory 
uncertainty for businesses and local governments, which now have to 
plan and rely on clean water permits as they think they might be used 
in the future.
  This new uncertainty has an extremely negative impact on businesses 
both large and small, and has most certainly contributed to the 
negative impacts on the Nation's economy and the inability of this 
administration to create jobs and reduce employment below 9 percent in 
spite of massive record spending and crushing debt.
  This bill is indeed common sense. It is a targeted approach at 
correcting some of the abuses. It is not about distribution of water. 
It is not actually even about the quality. It is about the process in 
which we are involved as to who gets to decide. And it also restates 
that the people who live in the States logically care about their own 
States and do not have to rely on the largess of the all-wise and all-
important Federal Government to make decisions for them.
  Passage of H.R. 2018 will not in any way gut the clean air 
regulations or endanger citizens into drinking dirty water. The EPA 
retains its ultimate authority. However, the bill has been narrowly 
drafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about 
their own quality standards without interference or retroactive second 
guessing by those inside the Beltway, bureaucrats who have little or no 
local knowledge of the conditions or qualities that are under their 
consideration.
  The growing excesses of the EPA in second-guessing the States and 
retroactively revoking previously granted approvals must stop. The 
status quo hurts people, and it does not help the value or the quantity 
or the quality of our water.
  This bill is a good start. It is not completion of the issue, but it 
is a good start in trying to provide balance and

[[Page H4959]]

rationality back into the public process that we have and, more 
importantly, allowing people to know that when decisions are made, they 
are not going to be arbitrarily taken away and changed in the future. 
No government can operate that way. No business can operate that way. 
This should not be the policy of the United States. This is a good 
bill. More importantly, this is an extremely fair rule, and I urge its 
adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Utah on the 
occasion of his birthday and convey my warm birthday wishes to the 
gentleman from Utah.
  Despite it being his birthday, however, I have to disagree with much 
of what he said regarding the rule and the bill. I rise in opposition 
to the rule and the bill.
  This is an important debate that our country has had for generations 
with regard to State sovereignty and the role of the Federal 
Government. It is an ongoing discussion since the revolutionary 
discussions of Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton. And as the pendulum of 
popular discourse swings back and forth on this fundamental issue, our 
country has concluded without a doubt that at the very least there are 
certain decisions that affect the whole country and interstate commerce 
that cannot be made unilaterally by different States.
  That is true for civil rights with regard to the Voting Rights Act 
and the Civil Rights Act. It is true for immigration, which can only be 
addressed at a national level, and it is undoubtedly also true, as I 
will describe, for the protection of our environment and public health. 
Responsibility is fundamentally an American value, taking 
responsibility for your own actions.
  But, Mr. Speaker, cancer clusters, polluted air and polluted water 
don't know State boundaries. The Cuyahoga on its way to Lake Erie 
literally caught on fire from overpollution when the Clean Water Act 
was written. It wouldn't stop burning simply because of a State 
borderline. Spilled oil in Montana's Yellowstone River won't stop at 
the border of North Dakota as it joins the Missouri River and makes its 
way down to the mighty Mississippi. Maintaining the Federal 
Government's basic safety net, the Clean Water Act, ensures that each 
State meets the basic safety standards in their own way, giving them 
flexibility; but it is a critical application of Federal authority with 
regard to interstate commerce and interstate activities.
  The interstate nature of polluted air, polluted water and the 
devastating effects that pollution has on all of our health, as well as 
our economy and jobs with regard to recreational opportunities, 
demonstrates clearly that it is an issue that should be confronted by 
all of our States together in the United States of America here at the 
seat of the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not fool ourselves. The bill before us today isn't 
just about the role of the Federal Government. The bill isn't just a 
push for State sovereignty. Rather, this bill is satisfying two very 
niche special interests at the cost of the American public. This bill 
is designed to benefit mountaintop coal mining companies and large 
factory farms.
  H.R. 2018 would restrict EPA's ability to revise an existing water 
quality standard or promulgate a new one, unless the State concurs, 
effectively giving veto power to each State. It would prohibit EPA from 
rejecting a water quality certification granted by a State. It would 
prohibit EPA from withdrawing approval of a State or from limiting 
Federal financial assistance for the State program if a State is out of 
compliance with water quality standards.
  Mr. Speaker, mountaintop coal mining deserves a legitimate debate 
here in this body, and perhaps the gentleman from Utah and I might 
agree on some parts of that and disagree on others. That debate needs 
to carefully examine the arguments of jobs in the coal industry, energy 
independence versus environmental and public health concerns, also 
legitimate concerns; but that debate shouldn't be held under the guise 
of State control or under the guise of water pollution permits. This is 
a backdoor handout for a few destructive companies. It is not something 
that should be discussed under the concept of federalism.
  I, for one, think that oversight of mountaintop mining is critical; 
and, again, I am happy to have that discussion. Continued handouts to 
the coal industry keep us addicted to a dirty source of energy when 
more jobs and a better standard of living and true energy independence 
are possible today through clean energy born of American innovation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today as a member of the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, for 
folks who don't follow exactly what the Rules Committee does, the Rules 
Committee is that committee that is the very last committee to touch 
any piece of legislation that comes to the floor; and it is the 
responsibility of the Rules Committee to decide what kind of choices we 
will be able to make about the bill once it gets to the floor.
  Now, there was a time in this House, Mr. Speaker, where what that 
meant was that the Rules Committee closed that process down, didn't 
allow any other options, any other opinions, no amendments at all, sent 
a bill to the floor and said take it or leave it. But, Mr. Speaker, 
under the leadership of Chairman Dreier on the Rules Committee and 
under the leadership of the Speaker of the House, that process has 
begun to change. Now, it is not perfect, but it has begun to change.
  I rise in support of a rule today where the Rules Committee asked all 
435 Members of this House, when it comes to the Clean Water Cooperative 
Federalism Act, asked all 435 members of this House: What would you 
like to see changed about this bill? How would you like to see this 
bill improved? What would you like done differently in this piece of 
legislation?
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had that exact same process on 
the flood insurance program. Not only did we allow lots of amendments 
to the flood insurance program; we allowed an amendment to eliminate 
the program altogether. That is the kind of openness that has been 
incorporated in this 112th Congress.
  Well, this rule today is no exception. That is why I rise in strong 
support of it. We asked all 435 Members of the House, How would you 
improve the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act? Send in your 
amendment now, have it preprinted, and let us come and consider your 
ideas. And, Mr. Speaker, we did that, Republicans and Democrats alike. 
I have here, we only had one Republican amendment submitted, and we 
made that in order. We had 11 Democrat amendments submitted. One of 
those was non-germane. One was duplicative. The other nine were made in 
order.
  Here we are, a Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Speaker; and 
through the leadership of the Speaker and the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, we have said all amendments should be preprinted. All 
amendments should be considered.
  Here we are on the floor of the House today, a Republican House, 
considering one Republican amendment and nine Democratic amendments. 
Now, a lot of folks ask why that is, Mr. Speaker. I get that every time 
I go back home. I live in a very conservative Republican district, as 
you know, Mr. Speaker. And so folks say: Rob, why don't you just shut 
down the process and do it your way because your way is the right way?
  And I tell them: You're absolutely right. In our part of the world, 
our opinion is the right opinion. But there are a lot of other 
opinions. You get to Washington, D.C., 435 Members of Congress, that's 
435 opinions. Sometimes it's 436 or 437 opinions among the 435 of us. 
And we can only have this body, the people's House, work its will when 
all of the people are heard.
  I just say, and I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding, it has 
been such a pleasure to be a part of the Rules Committee and serving 
with

[[Page H4960]]

folks like the gentleman from Colorado--whose editorial I read in the 
paper this morning with great interest--serving on a committee with 
folks like the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Utah, who 
are committed to openness in this process.

                              {time}  1240

  I'm a believer, Mr. Speaker. I'm one of the new guys. I have only 
been here 6 months. I believe that we can do better for America when we 
do things in an open process.
  Now, because I come from a conservative district, I know for a fact 
that when we open up the process to all comers, I'm going to lose, Mr. 
Speaker. I'm going to lose because this House kind of sits in the 
middle. We are a center-right nation. So I come from a far-right 
district; that means I'm going to lose. But I tell you, as an American, 
I want this House to work its will. I want this body to work the way 
the Founders intended it to work. I want us to take these baby steps, 
Mr. Speaker, towards restoring the faith of the American people in the 
work that we do here.
  So, again, it is with great pride that I rise today as a member of 
the Rules Committee, as someone who supported this rule and as someone 
who is so appreciative of the leadership of Chairman Dreier and of 
Speaker Boehner and of our friends on the other side of the aisle who 
enable us to make this process the open process that it is.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and then 
to vote their conscience on the underlying provision.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York, the ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and I also oppose the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I was heartened that my Republican colleagues accepted 
many of the amendments offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, and I 
commend them for their attempts to adhere to the open process that they 
promised.
  However, I was disappointed that an amendment offered by my good 
friend from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) was not made in order because it 
would have addressed perhaps one of the most fundamental areas of 
concern for this bill that I and a great many others share, and that is 
that it undermines the Federal floor on water quality standards that 
has made the Clean Water Act such a success. This body should have had 
the opportunity to vote on such an important issue, and yet the rule 
denies that opportunity.
  I am a strong supporter of efforts to protect the Long Island Sound, 
which borders the northern shore of my district and also the southern 
shore of Connecticut. In my view, the investment of Federal, State, and 
local resources to clean up and protect the sound significantly 
benefits communities in my district and in our region generally in 
terms of increased economic productivity, increased revenues from 
commercial and recreational uses of the sound, and increased quality of 
life for local residents. As a New Yorker, I take great pride in the 
efforts my State has made in improving the water quality of the sound, 
and I appreciate the collective efforts of our neighboring States in 
cleaning up the sound.
  However, under H.R. 2018, we revert back to the State-by-State, go-
it-alone approach that was the hallmark of water pollution prevention 
before the enactment of the Clean Water Act. Under H.R. 2018, if the 
EPA proposes a revised water quality standard that science dictates is 
needed to clean up the sound and Connecticut decides that they don't 
want to implement that standard, the EPA would no longer have the 
authority to compel them to do so nor would New York have any recourse 
under the Clean Water Act to ensure that Connecticut or other upstream 
States are doing what is needed; in other words, a recipe for the kind 
of pollution that we dealt with prior to the implementation of the 
Clean Water Act.
  For this and a great many other reasons, H.R. 2018 flies in the face 
of decades of experience in implementing the Clean Water Act and risks 
all the gains in water quality that we have made over the past 40 
years. For that I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri, a member of the Water Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Carnahan.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis) 
for yielding and for the work he is doing on this rule.
  I appreciate the consideration of the Rules Committee in making one 
of the amendments I offered on this bill in order. However, I offered a 
second amendment that gets right at the heart of the issues addressed 
by this legislation, and, unfortunately, this amendment was not made in 
order. I can only assume this is because the majority does not want a 
floor debate that demonstrates the weaknesses inherent in this 
legislation.
  My constituents in the St. Louis region I represent understand how 
important the Clean Water Act is. Situated at the confluence of our 
country's two greatest rivers, the Mississippi and the Missouri, St. 
Louis has a long relationship with the mighty rivers. We have long 
relied on the rivers to take our products to market and to connect us 
to the rest of the country, and, of course, we depend on them to 
provide clean drinking water. At the same time, we have learned to 
rebuild after devastating floods, and I'm sorry to see that this year 
may well go down in history as the most devastating year for flooding 
since the epic year of 1993.
  I appreciate that the Rules Committee made in order my amendment 
which will allow us to debate and vote to ensure provisions which help 
ensure that flooded communities do not have to worry about unclean and 
unsafe water as they recover. However, Mr. Speaker, my constituents 
want to know that their water is clean and safe at all times, not just 
in the wake of natural disasters.
  This bill seeks to give States greater control over their water, but, 
unfortunately, water does not always obey State borders. This bill 
fails--it fails--to ensure that water flowing from an upstream State 
meets the standards for water quality for any of the downstream States. 
This legislation will undermine the precedent we have established since 
President Nixon signed the Clean Water Act into law in 1972 that allows 
the EPA to balance the concerns of different States and ensure clean 
drinking water for everyone.
  If H.R. 2018 were to become law as it stands now, the EPA would lose 
this critical ability. In that case, Missouri would have little 
recourse if, say, Minnesota or Illinois decided to adopt clean water 
standards below what is acceptable to Missouri.
  My amendment which was not made in order is simple: It would have 
exempted water that travels between States, thus solving the issue of 
differing standards between States. If one State chooses to allow 
polluters to discharge harmful chemicals into a shared water body, 
other States that share the waters should have a say, and EPA should 
step in and ensure basic standards are met. Unfortunately, H.R. 2018 
without my amendment will allow States to adopt inconsistent standards 
that will create uncertainty for business, damage our environment, and 
undermine our public health.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, recent peer-reviewed scientific studies suggest that 
mountaintop mining is associated with higher cancer risk and elevated 
birth defect rates and many other health problems in Appalachian coal 
mining communities. Rates of cancer and birth defects are much higher, 
and with direct links to mountaintop mining practices, than the 
national average and even higher than in areas with traditional coal 
mining. Is this really what the rest of us are being asked to subsidize 
at the cost of our own States and our health?
  If we want to debate mountaintop mining, let's do it--and there are 
pros and cons, legitimate issues and stalking horses as well--but we 
don't want to hurt the rest of the States in that process.

[[Page H4961]]

  This bill throws into question a balance between State and Federal 
authority that has served the American people well for 30 years.

                              {time}  1250

  Why should the rest of us, once again, pay the price for a gain of a 
few coal mining companies or of a few factory farms when most Americans 
would prefer that we protect the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades?
  Oklahoma continues to battle Arkansas over water pollution from 
poultry farms, which starts in Arkansas and flows into Oklahoma. Why 
are we voting on a bill that would let Arkansas decide the fate of 
Oklahoma's waters?
  Why should a community in Tennessee, whose economy is booming thanks 
to white water rafting and the growth of the outdoor recreation 
industry, live and die by the decisions of a North Carolina mining 
company?
  Are we really going to vote for the ability of Pennsylvania to decide 
the fate of New York, Maryland and West Virginia rivers when 
Pennsylvania has decided that fracking with chemicals should be done 
without meaningful oversight?
  I will be interested to see how these pronounced downstream States 
vote on these measures, and it will be interesting to see the outcome 
of this bill and how anybody who supports it from the downstream States 
can possibly justify the votes to their constituents, who are on the 
receiving end of interstate pollution.
  H.R. 2018 would undermine the Federal Government's ability to ensure 
that States effectively implement or make necessary improvements to 
their water quality standards. If States fail to adhere to their own 
existing water quality standards, the bill would prohibit the EPA from 
insisting that States make the improvements that are necessary.
  Regarding dredge-and-fill projects, H.R. 2018 would stymie the EPA's 
ability to stop discharges that have unacceptable adverse effects on 
municipal water supplies. Now, although this veto authority has only 
been used 13 times in the past 38 years, it is a critical tool that 
safeguards against the most destructive and health-threatening 
proposes.
  Americans expect and rely on clean water and clean air that we 
breathe and drink every day. The Nation's lakes, rivers, bays, 
wetlands, and streams are vital to our health and vital to our economy. 
From the Chesapeake Bay to the Great Lakes to the Florida Everglades, 
all of these waterways and beaches are of interest and value and 
importance to our entire country. They need to be clean enough to swim 
and drink and fish from. Americans should have safe, clean water to 
drink.
  H.R. 2018 would remove the EPA's ability to protect communities from 
unacceptable adverse effects for our Nation's waters and public health. 
Before the Clean Water Act, there wasn't an effective Federal safety 
net to ensure the health of our waters, but since the passage of the 
Clean Water Act, we have made great strides in restoring our waterways. 
This bill threatens to move that back.
  Our current waterways are critical for our economy in my home State 
of Colorado and across the country. Waterways sustain the activities of 
40 million anglers and sportsmen, who spend about $45 billion a year, 
and of about 2.3 million people who spend over $1 billion a year 
hunting, as well as the multibillion dollar commercial fishing 
industry.
  Again, we have a national interest as to these issues, and it should 
not be, consistent with the American value of responsibility, within 
the ability of any one particular State to damage the economy and 
health of people in another State.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2018, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Last year, Thomas Donahue, the President of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, said in a speech to a major jobs summit:
  ``Taken collectively, the regulatory activity now underway is so 
overwhelmingly beyond anything we have ever seen that we risk moving 
this country away from a government of the people to a government of 
regulators.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we are ever going to see an economic recovery, if we 
are ever going to create enough jobs for our young people, we have got 
to stop this explosion of Federal rules, regulations and red tape. This 
country could be booming right now, but it is being held back by 
Federal bureaucrats who have very little or no business experience and 
who do not realize how difficult it is to survive in small business or 
on small farms today.
  This is my 23rd year in Congress. I believe I have heard and read 
more complaints about the EPA in the last couple of years than about 
all other Federal agencies combined. This bill is a very moderate 
attempt to rein in environmental radicals at the EPA and to put some 
common sense and, more importantly, some fairness in these clean water 
rulings.
  I have heard from farmers, homebuilders, small business people, 
Realtors, coal miners, small property owners, and others. These rules 
and regulations do not hurt the big giants in business--in fact, they 
help them by driving out competition--but they are sure hurting the 
little guy, and they are hurting poor and lower income people by 
driving up the cost of houses, the cost of food and everything else, 
and are destroying jobs. Simply put, the EPA is out of control.
  A few years ago, when I chaired the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, we heard testimony from a cranberry farmer in 
Massachusetts. During his testimony, he broke down into tears over the 
way he was treated by the EPA. The EPA claimed he filled 46 acres of 
wetlands that the farmer said never existed. The farmer, a Mr. Johnson, 
spent $2 million over two decades in fighting this case. At the end of 
it, Mr. Johnson said he was ``disgusted'' by all the millions of 
dollars the government spent on a small section of his 400-acre farm.
  He said, ``For the money they spent, they could have bought all of 
our property with half of it.''
  Several years ago, in one of the most famous wetland cases, the trial 
judge in a Federal court said, ``I don't know if it's just a 
coincidence that I just sentenced Mr. Gonzales, a person selling dope 
on the streets of the United States. He is an illegal person here. He's 
not an American citizen. He has a prior criminal record. So here we 
have a person who comes to the United States and commits crimes of 
selling dope, and the government asks me to put him in prison for 10 
months; and then we have an American citizen who buys land, pays for it 
with his own money, and he moves some sand from one end to the other, 
and the government wants me to give him 63 months in prison.'' The 
judge said, ``Now, if that isn't our system gone crazy, I don't know 
what is.''
  That's what this bill is all about. We've had so many of these 
bureaucratic rulings that have just gone crazy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be a 
Federal system in which our Founding Fathers felt more power should be 
given to the States than to the national government. They certainly 
didn't envision a Federal dictatorship, with the States being dictated 
to by unelected Federal bureaucrats.
  This bill does not go very far, but it at least tries to put a little 
more balance and fairness back into our system so that we can have both 
clean water and a stronger economy.
  Mr. POLIS. I have no further requests for time, and am prepared to 
close.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Utah if he has any remaining 
speakers.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have no further requests for time, and I am 
ready to close as well.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, from a purely self-interested perspective as 
a Coloradan--and perhaps we have very little to lose as we're a 
headwaters State--snow that falls in my district on the continental 
divide will either end up in the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers, 
flowing toward the Gulf of Mexico, or will end up in the Colorado

[[Page H4962]]

River, supplying my friend from Utah's State as well as Arizona, Nevada 
and California. The continental divide runs right through my district 
in the State of Colorado. If Colorado, for example, opened its doors to 
unregulated uranium mining, it's Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and 
California which would have to pay that price.
  Regardless of self-interest, clean water is an interstate issue that 
deserves an interstate solution. I can't think of anything that better 
fits the description of interstate commerce, which is enshrined in our 
Constitution, itself. Truly, how we deal with our interstate waterways 
is at the very base of interstate commerce.
  Safe drinking water is critical to economic growth, to the survival 
of all communities nationally and to all people in the entire world. 
While States appropriately have led the role in implementing clean 
water safeguards, the law does not function effectively without a 
backstop and a floor provided by the Federal Government which ensures 
that people have clean water and safe drinking water regardless of the 
State in which they live.
  Mr. Speaker, you've heard today the call from the right of Federal 
overreach, of an out-of-control EPA and that kind of rhetoric. Again, 
these are valid discussions about the degree of regulation from the 
EPA, how to deal with mountaintop coal mining--all important policy 
discussions--but they're simply avoided and punted in the wrong way by 
saying that these aren't legitimate interstate issues that have their 
nexuses here at the Federal level.
  This bill is truly about a handout to special interests. A vote for 
this bill is a vote for a few well-lobbied companies and a vote against 
the health and environment of downstream States and downstream 
residents, which, as I noted above, include just about every person in 
the country. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from 
Colorado and the way he has conducted the debate so far in this rule.
  I have to admit, in closing on this particular bill, that as someone 
who as a State legislator worked on a complex that dealt with the 
largest undeveloped river in my district that went through and crossed 
six different State boundaries before it found its way to the Great 
Salt Lake, the idea that only the Federal Government can actually solve 
issues that happen between States or across State boundaries is 
somewhat almost insulting to the idea of the States.
  It may be true that in every issue there is always some catalyst that 
brings it about. The issue in Florida and West Virginia--to which I 
responded--was a catalyst, but it is not the only situation that has 
provided the basis for this particular bill. We have a letter from the 
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, which has written in 
support of this bill simply because Louisiana is currently facing a 
similar threat from the EPA.
  The Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes several amendments to this 
piece of legislation, but they also wrote: ``The Clean Water Act grants 
States the primary responsibility for protecting water quality. 
However, recent actions by the EPA upset and supplant this partnership 
with arbitrary Federal power that is being exercised even over States 
with effective delegated regulatory programs. Individuals and firms 
that meet the requirements of, and obtain permits from, State 
regulators ought not to be left exposed to the enforcement whims and 
caprice of the Federal Government,'' which is the reality.
  Finally, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 
also talk about this bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses the 
Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing regulatory overreach, and 
that it allows the basis, if we pass this bill, for States and the 
Federal Government once again to be able to work together.
  I have stated repeatedly that one of the problems we do have with the 
provisions of the Clean Water Act is the concept of accountability. 
Where is someone allowed to kind of comprehend against what the Federal 
Government does when it overreaches? Let me give you one specific 
example, since the gentleman from Tennessee did, and it states the same 
concept that happens to be there. I will call this guy Gene, because 
that's his first name. But he was a farmer on a family farm, a sugar 
beet farmer--which I would remind you is a root crop. You try to have a 
sugar beet crop in a wetland and you come up with just rotted 
vegetables. But one Federal bureaucrat from these agencies, driving by 
his property one day, seeing it flooded, declared it to be a wetland, 
even though the farmer said the only reason the water is here is 
because we have a pipe from the creek that goes over to the land. And 
when the farmer removed the pipe from the creek to show that the water 
was not naturally flowing into that area, he was threatened with a jail 
term if he actually moved that pipe one more time.
  Now even though they took core samples from the water conservancy 
district to prove there was too much clay in that land to ever have any 
kind of water bubble up from the underground aquifers, this one 
bureaucrat from these agencies still maintained this was a wetland. 
When asked how long would it take to determine--even though the science 
is against him--that he is wrong in his determination, his response 
was, well, 6 to 7 years because I want to go through a wet and dry 
cycle to see if maybe per chance water may not come up again on this 
person.
  Now the issue, and why I'm so passionate about this is because, for 
Gene, this farm was his heritage. More importantly, it was his 
retirement, and it was his legacy for his kids. And what one 
bureaucrat, using the broad powers given under the Clean Water Act, was 
able to do is basically impose a taking on this person's property 
without ever compensating him for it, because they didn't take the land 
away; they just told him what he could do with it and--more 
importantly, because of that regulation now on his property--for what 
he could sell. He was able to finally unload his property at a quarter 
of the value that a neighbor, which this one bureaucrat did not see, 
was able to sell his exact same lot on the exact same road with the 
exact same type of land. That is the unfairness that has developed with 
a bill that is so loosely written.
  Two Supreme Court decisions have criticized the bill and implored 
Congress to go back there and do our jobs and to tighten it up so that 
you don't have conflicting strategies and conflicting patterns and 
conflicting rules and regulations in different parts of the country. 
That's what we're attempting to do here.
  There is a pattern of abuse. It hurts people. It is time to respect 
the idea that States care as much about their own States as the Federal 
Government would care about their States. And you can make the 
presumption that they probably care more. That's why this is a good 
bill, and that's why this is an issue of Federalism.
  This is going back to what the original Clean Water Act was supposed 
to do, to encourage and indeed control and ensure that there would be 
bipartisan cooperation between States and the Federal Government. And 
unfortunately, as the years have progressed, the role of the States 
have been diminished by arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of 
the Federal Government. That can no longer be. That is the status quo 
that is unacceptable. That needs to be changed. That is exactly what 
this bill is attempting to do.
  In closing, I would like to reiterate the fairness of this structured 
rule and urge its adoption, as well as urging the adoption of the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page H4963]]



                          ____________________