[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7314-H7325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES REGULATORY OVERREACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2014
General Leave
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 5078.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 715 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5078.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over
the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1356
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5078) to preserve existing rights and responsibilities with
respect to waters of the United States, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the Congressman from
Florida (Mr. Southerland), who is the original sponsor of H.R. 5078,
the
[[Page H7315]]
Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act.
I think it is a thoughtful piece of legislation.
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the efforts of you and
Ranking Member Rahall, and those efforts, how they have advanced this
bipartisan piece of legislation. I would also like to thank
Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs for giving this issue the urgent attention
that it deserves.
For more than 40 years, America's waters have been made cleaner and
safer by a balanced regulatory partnership between the States and the
Federal Government. The basis for this partnership was a commonsense
understanding that not all waters are subject to Federal jurisdiction
and that the States must have the primary responsibility for regulating
waters within their own boundaries.
But, now, decades of success have been put at risk under the guise of
clarifying the scope of the Federal jurisdiction.
Under its proposed rules, Federal agencies like the EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers would see their regulatory authority under the Clean
Water Act drastically expanded, to the point of covering almost any
body of water throughout America, from ditches to culverts to pipes to
watersheds to farmland ponds.
This would have devastating consequences on virtually every major
section of our economy, including farming, construction, manufacturing,
transportation, and energy development.
That is why I have introduced H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United
States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014. Our bipartisan bill
draws a line in the sand that preserves the critical Federal-State
partnership in place today.
By preventing the EPA and the Corps of Engineers from finalizing or
implementing the proposed rule, we are providing a safeguard against
the Federal Government's overreach into regulatory decisions best made
by officials at the State and local levels.
We are also requiring the EPA and the Corps to consult with the State
and local officials to form a consensus proposal on the scope of the
future water regulations under the Clean Water Act.
This bill is not anti-environment. It is not anti-clean water. Our
bill preserves the partnership we have had in place for years to
strengthen the health of our waterways and manage our water quality,
and it does so in a way that maintains certainty for our job creators.
{time} 1400
For these reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
bipartisan bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5078.
In proposing its latest version of regulations defining ``waters of
the United States,'' the EPA claims to be attempting to provide
clarity. It claims to be attempting to provide certainty for multitudes
of Americans who have been left perplexed by Clean Water Act
jurisdiction for many years.
Without a doubt, confusing and conflicting Supreme Court decisions
have helped to create a regulatory jumble. But the EPA's proposed new
regulations are doing little, if anything, to clear and calm those
murky and roiling regulatory waters.
These proposed regulations have only stirred up more worry,
aggravation, and, frankly, anger. In truth, the only certainty that
these regulations provide is the sure knowledge that, under them,
anyone undertaking nearly any activity involving so much as a ditch in
the United States will have to deal with the bureaucracy known as the
EPA.
I stand here today voicing the sheer dread and utter frustration of
enterprises and individuals across southern West Virginia--from coal
miners and coal mining families to farmers and farming families to
builders and businesses, large and small. We have seen firsthand how
this EPA uses its limited legal authorities to drive a broad and
growing ideological agenda. We have seen this EPA use permits to
threaten our coal industry, browbeat our State, and elbow out other
federal agencies. And we have witnessed this EPA's cold and callous
disregard for how its politically driven agenda is affecting the lives
of hardworking West Virginia families.
The proposed regulations concerning ``waters of the United States''
certainly amount to an expansion of EPA's reach into waters never
before envisioned by the Congress to be subject to the Clean Water Act.
They would stake out Federal Government oversight of areas long
reserved to the States. If implemented, they would entail more than a
power grab; they would result in a land grab, enabling EPA to dictate
to more and more citizens just how they can use their own property.
I stand with our coal miners, our farmers, our builders, and our
manufacturers. Our citizens need--and certainly they are owed--clarity
and certainty. For the EPA to claim that these proposed regulations
answer that need, well, one has to wonder just what is in the water
over at the EPA headquarters.
I support the pending measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 1-1/2 minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), the chairman of the Water
Resources Subcommittee.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5078, the Waters
of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014.
Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns about the administration's
proposal to redefine the scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water
Act and the unilateral approach the agencies took developing this rule.
The agencies' attempt to expand their jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act will have serious consequences for the Nation's economy,
threaten jobs, and restrict landowners from making decisions about
their property.
In my subcommittee hearing earlier this year, we discovered that the
EPA could not identify a single State that supports this rule. Under
the Clean Water Act, the States are supposed to act as coregulators
with the Federal Government, and this partnership has enjoyed much
success over the years. It is unfortunate that the agencies have chosen
to take a closed-door approach to this rulemaking instead of engaging
in a proper and transparent process working with their State
counterparts.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5078 will put an end to the EPA's overreach and
will ensure that any new rule is adopted openly and responsibly, and
takes into consideration the concerns of the State, local governments,
and other stakeholders. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all Members to
support this bipartisan bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored at this time to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), the distinguished
ranking member of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
on our Transportation Committee, although we are not in full agreement
on this measure.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and our
ranking member from West Virginia for yielding and for his leadership
on the T&I Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5078. Last session,
the Republican majority pushed through a rider to the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill to block this administration from using Agency
guidance to clarify how they would interpret two confusing decisions of
the U.S. Supreme Court that called into question the protections of the
Clean Water Act over our Nation's waters.
At that time, the Republican majority claimed that this use of
administration guidance was unprecedented and in violation of the law,
notwithstanding the fact that the previous administration followed the
exact same process in issuing two guidance documents which,
coincidentally, remain in force today. In fact, it is these two Bush-
era guidance documents that have compounded the confusion, uncertainty,
and increased compliance costs faced by our constituents today.
But don't take my word on this. Let me quote from some of the
comments made in opposition to the Bush-era guidance. According to the
American Farm Bureau Federation and others:
With no clear regulatory definitions to guide their
determinations, what has emerged is a hodgepodge of ad hoc
and inconsistent jurisdictional theories.
[[Page H7316]]
Again, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation and others:
The Bush administration guidance is causing confusion and
added delays in an already burdened and strained permit
decisionmaking process, which ultimately will result, and is
resulting, in increased delays and costs to the public at
large.
Finally, according to the Waters Advocacy Coalition:
Until a comprehensive set of rules regarding which water
bodies the agencies will regulate is promulgated, the public
and Agency field staff will be beleaguered by partial
answers, confusing standards, and ad hoc, overbroad, and
arbitrary decisions pertaining to the scope of Federal
jurisdiction.
In April of 2011, over 150 Members of this House wrote to the
Environmental Protection Agency and to the Corps requesting that a
proposed guidance document of the Obama administration be reconsidered.
In that letter, these Members suggested:
If the administration seeks to make regulatory changes to
the Clean Water Act, a notice-and-comment rulemaking is
required.
In the intervening months, this is exactly what the administration
has done. In 2012, the administration chose to withdraw the proposed
2011 guidance document and instead pursued a notice-and-comment
rulemaking to address much of the confusion, uncertainty, and increased
costs surrounding the scope of the Clean Water Act protections.
However, many of these same Members who asked for a formal rulemaking
are now vehemently opposed to this rulemaking going forward. I have to
ask why? Are these Members opposed to providing greater clarity on the
scope of Federal Clean Water Act protections? Are they opposed to
trying to reduce the confusion and uncertainty facing our regulated
communities while at the same time trying to ensure that our network of
waters and wetlands are protected from pollution or destruction?
Opponents of this rulemaking are trying to portray this as a Federal
attempt to regulate birdbaths, puddles, and driveways, but both common
sense and the testimony of representatives of the EPA and the Corps
before our committee would confirm that these were never subject to
Clean Water Act jurisdiction, nor would they be subject to the act
under the administration's proposed rule.
In short, this is not a debate about the Federal Government trying to
regulate someone's backyard birdbath, but it is about ensuring that
those waters and wetlands that provide hundreds of millions of
Americans with their drinking water, provide vital protection to our
towns and communities, and provide valuable habitat to our native fish
and wildlife are protected.
Mr. Chairman, to be fair, several of my own constituents have
expressed concern with the substance of the proposed rule. I have
listened to their concerns, and I have pressed the Agency witnesses who
have appeared before our subcommittee on several critical areas. I have
questioned the agencies to ensure that the scope of the proposed rule
lives solely within the confines of the two Supreme Court decisions on
this matter; otherwise, such changes would require an act of Congress.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have asked for Agency
assurance that this proposed rule does not expand the scope of the
Clean Water Act jurisdiction over what was covered by prior rulings of
the Supreme Court. Again, I have been assured that this is the case.
I have asked the Agency staff to clarify that these proposed rules do
not eliminate any existing statutory or regulatory exemptions for
agriculture, including activities on prior converted cropland. Again,
we have been assured by the Agency that all of the existing exemptions
for farming, silviculture, and ranching in the current Clean Water Act
and regulations remain in place.
In my view, this is not a perfect proposed rule--few are--but it does
establish a reasonable process for providing additional clarity on
Clean Water Act protections that we desire. To suggest that the
solution is to simply throw out this proposed rule and to forever leave
the regulated community with the current regulatory morass simply makes
no sense.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5078. I thank the ranking
member for his indulgence.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the chair of the House
Administration Committee.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, recently, I met with about 600
farmers at an annual gathering in my district which we call Dinner on
the Farm, where local farmers express their concerns over the negative
impact EPA's proposed regulations would have on their businesses.
The Michigan Farm Bureau actually showed me this map of my district
which shows what could be subject to Federal regulation if the proposed
EPA rule is actually adopted. And highlighted are the water sources
that would be impacted. It actually excludes wetlands because then it
would cover my entire district, including just about anything that
includes moisture.
Mr. Chairman, this is another shocking example of this administration
trying to do an end run around the Congress and the legislative process
with more overreaching regulations that will drive up food prices for
American families.
By stopping the EPA from expanding their scope and requiring the
Agency to coordinate with States, this legislation will help to protect
this Nation's agricultural community from Federal overreach that
threatens their livelihood and ultimately this Nation's economic
success.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a very valued member of our committee. He is also
the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. DeFAZIO. It is unfortunate that we are here today. We have
departed from reality, which would be the districts we represent, where
I just spent 5 weeks, and now we are back inside the Beltway. And we
are doing things in this case that we know will never become law, but
we do have an opportunity actually to do something real and allay the
concerns--legitimate concerns--of farmers, ranchers, and others who
feel that the EPA is either overreaching or has written a somewhat
garbled rule. I would agree with that.
But instead of approaching it in a measured way and saying we want to
be certain that you are not doing this, and we want to be certain that
you are doing this, this would say that anything and everything that
they have considered over the last 2 years in developing this rule is
now ineligible for future consideration. Well, what does that mean?
Well, it means that the determination that certain things are exempt,
well, we probably can't revisit those. Can we use the Court's decision
or any of those documents? Seems not.
So where do we end up if this cockamamy thing passes the House and
becomes law--which it won't? Well, where we end up is back in the
earlier era of the 2003 and 2008 guidances. And many of the groups that
are here today supporting this unbelievably broad overreach are
actually groups who had objected strenuously to what the Bush
administration did in the 2003 guidance and the 2008 guidance.
Here is a quote from the American Farm Bureau, 2003:
No clear regulatory definitions to guide their
determinations. What has emerged is a hodgepodge of ad hoc
and inconsistent jurisdictional theories.
2008, American Farm Bureau:
Guidance is causing confusion, added delays in an already
burdened and strained permit decisionmaking process which
ultimately will result and is resulting in increased delays
and costs to the public at large.
Then, on the other side, groups such as the National Wildlife
Federation and Ducks Unlimited also found the objections of the 2003
and 2008 guidances to be totally inadequate, and, of course, the
Supreme Court itself split 4-1-4 on one of the guiding documents behind
this.
{time} 1415
So instead of wading in, rolling up your sleeves, and acting like
legislators, you are acting like idiot ideologues here today. You are
saying nothing that was considered in developing this rule can ever be
used again
[[Page H7317]]
to develop a future rule. What does that mean? That means you are stuck
with a 2003-2008 guidance, which all these groups found to be
disturbingly inconsistent, expensive, causing unnecessary delays, and
we need new guidance. We do need new guidance. We do need new
definition.
There are some who have the agenda of wanting to repeal the Clean
Water Act altogether. Let's go back to the good old days, when you
could light a match and watch the Cuyahoga River burn or when the
Willamette River in Oregon was an open sewer. Let's go back to those
good old days before the Clean Water Act.
No, I don't think the American people want to go there, and I don't
think a majority in this House want to go there, but instead of fixing
and limiting the problems and the potential defects of this incompetent
rulemaking that is ongoing and is, at this point, only proposed,
perhaps the Agency itself will wake up and withdraw and revise the
rule.
That is what public comment periods are all about; but no, we are
going to preempt it before then and say nothing that went into
developing this rule can ever be considered again in developing another
rule. You are stuck with something that doesn't work, which these same
groups object to.
It is just very sad that we are aren't a legislative body anymore.
You take someone who has got a tough race, you give them a bill, they
go out and rah-rah-rah, they pretend they did something, and they go
home and get reelected, instead of really doing something.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge the gentleman from Oregon to go
back and read the second part of the bill--the last half of the bill.
He may find a little different perspective on it.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia
(Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full
committee and the ranking member as well.
I stand in strong support of H.R. 5078 because it represents another
administration overreach that will impact our entire economy. Under the
vague regulation proposed by the EPA and the Corps, Federal power will
grow and tie up our agriculture, construction, and energy industries in
even more red tape.
Expanding the scope of Federal jurisdiction will require many more
Clean Air permits, which will mean more permitting delays, and more
permitting delays means fewer jobs.
During the August recess, I traveled all across the State of West
Virginia and met with farmers who were particularly concerned,
construction workers, miners, and many others, who are very, very upset
about the EPA's regulatory assault that is costing us West Virginia
jobs.
We should support this bill today, reject this proposed rule, and
send Federal officials back to the drawing board to work with State and
local leaders on a jurisdictional water rule that makes sense for our
economy and our environment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy at this time to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a strong
supporter, the cosponsor of this legislation, original cosponsor of it,
and the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United
States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act.
As others have said, H.R. 5078 would prohibit the EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers from redefining waters of the United States under
the Clean Water Act.
The bill would also prohibit implementation of the interpretive rule
for agriculture which, while it probably was meant to provide some
clarity to farmers and ranchers, only creates more confusion and is bad
for agriculture.
This legislation is necessary because, in my view, the EPA does not
seem to understand the real world effects that these regulations will
have on farmers across the country.
We still don't have any clear definition of a wetland in agriculture,
an issue that is dating back to the eighties and nineties. Maps used by
the USDA were unclear then and often mislabeled wetlands. This rule
would not clarify it. It would only add more to the uncertainty that we
are facing in that regard.
In my State, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service has
done a great job working with farmers to encourage voluntary
conservation efforts. This rule would severely disrupt those positive
efforts.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 24\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from West Virginia has 16\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Barletta).
(Mr. BARLETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
For 4 decades, the Clean Water Act has worked as a strong partnership
between the Federal Government and the States. This bill protects that
partnership against the proposed rule from the EPA and the Army Corps
of Engineers.
I have heard from many of my constituents that this rule would force
them to prove that large mud puddles and ditches on their property are
not federally regulated waters.
However, the new definition of Federal waters is so vague that it is
impossible to know what standards you will need to prove. This rule
will cost my constituents time, money, and jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill because sometimes a mud puddle is
just a mud puddle.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4
minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a very powerful lady
on the Committee on Appropriations, the ranking member on Energy and
Water Development.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, for
his great leadership and consider it a privilege to speak today.
Let me inform this House why it should vote down this death bill--
yes, death bill.
This is a jar of algae, toxic to humans and animals. It was just
drawn from Lake Erie, one of our great freshwater lakes, a drinking
source for some 11 million people.
On August 2, this green muck filled with toxic microcystin surrounded
the Toledo drinking water intake, leaving over half a million people
with no safe drinking water for 3 days. It almost seemed surreal. One
of America's biggest cities and regions with no fresh drinking water.
Now, the region that our watershed drains is 85 percent agricultural.
How fortunate we are. In fact, it is the largest watershed in the
entire Great Lakes, but allowing farm field runoff of manures and
fertilizers, applied at four times the rate of 20 years ago, with
excessive phosphorous and nitrogen that feed the growth of this green
muck, is simply no longer acceptable.
The number of people who live in our tristate watershed totals 2
million, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and of course, with Canada even more;
but the number of animals in the watershed is 10 to 15 times the human
population. The manure load of those animals--compared to 20 years
ago--spread on the land, even in the wintertime, contributes, with
increasing rainfall, to the pollution that then drains to places like
Toledo.
Utility rates are going up--what are they going to do? How are they
going to afford the bills to pay to clean up the pollution from a
massive tristate and, indeed, international watershed?
Instead of helping clean up our water for future generations, this
Republican bill takes America backwards. Do you know what I say? Shame
on you. Shame on you.
Today, the United States Environmental Protection Agency recognizes
that harmful algal blooms are a major environmental problem in all 50
States, with severe impacts on human health.
The Toledo water plant and what happened to us is a severe warning
for our country, and we better pay attention. Communities are incurring
massive costs for water treatment as a result of pollution and toxic
algae because our water plants have to somehow clean this mess up and
then send
[[Page H7318]]
fresh drinking water to our citizens. These costs are being paid not by
the polluters, but by the ratepayers downstream at the receiving end of
the muck--how unfair.
I am back here in Washington, fighting for our lake. Our citizens
must turn this green muck back into blue water to sustain life itself.
One of the ways we start is by defeating this bill. It is an
embarrassment to the country at this point in our history.
I can tell you, to the people who still don't know what their future
holds in places like Toledo and along Lake Erie, I urge my colleagues
to oppose this bill. Reject the dead water direction in which it leads
America because it isn't just this generation, but it is those that
follow that we should be voting for here in this House. I urge defeat
of this measure.
I want to thank Congressman Rahall and those who understand what it
takes to build a great nation. Let us do something worthy in our time
and generation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5078.
As you have heard from many Members today, the EPA's proposed rule is
a clear overstep of authority. Back in my home State of Oklahoma,
ranchers and farmers have been very clear that this rule would
significantly limit their operations.
As a rancher myself, I understand and agree with their concerns. The
definition of ``navigable waters,'' as stated and written by the EPA,
would put all farmers and ranchers on notice that they are no longer in
charge of their own land. From now on, they will have to ask permission
to get a permit or to operate their own land the same way they have for
many years.
In summary, this would be an unprecedented land grab by our
government through the EPA and the bureaucrats of Washington, D.C. The
EPA is simply out of touch with rural America.
I stand with our farmers and our ranchers when I say it is time to
stop the EPA's overreach and their redefinition of navigable waters.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is leaving this august
body, but certainly, we will continue to rely upon his wisdom and
friendship, wisdom that is except on this particular bill, the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Interior and Environment on the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from West
Virginia, and I understand where we sit is where we stand. The
gentleman has always been in the forefront of protecting his citizens
in West Virginia and his workforce, including the mine workers of West
Virginia, and I fully understand that, but nevertheless, I rise in
opposition to this regressive legislation.
With very few days remaining before this Chamber adjourns, we are
wasting what limited floor time remains debating a legislative proposal
that this Chamber has already passed and the Senate has rejected.
Today, we will be voting for the 218th time--the 218th time this
session--to weaken existing laws that protect our health and the
environment that we depend upon.
Later this week, we will vote for the 53rd time to weaken the
Affordable Care Act, which the American people are beginning to realize
is actually working on their behalf.
None of these measures that have passed this session or will pass the
House this week will become law. The President has already said if it
passes, he will veto it, and my friend knows that. In fact, he reminded
me. We know he is going to veto that if it were to pass, so you would
think this is kind of a misguided and wasteful use of this institution.
We are planning on only 6 full legislative days before the election,
and we are using one of those days on such a fruitless exercise. How
about addressing the problems at our border or passing an extension of
unemployment benefits or even passing a budget, which is one of our
most basic responsibilities?
Instead of doing something useful and productive that might become
law, we will again vote on a measure to prevent the Corps of Engineers
and the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing their joint
proposed rule clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the
Clean Water Act.
{time} 1430
This is what the Supreme Court instructed us to do. This rule is
necessary. It is our responsibility. EPA and the Corps of Engineers
need to clarify their authority because there is a lot of confusion on
what falls under the protection of the Clean Water Act following two
Supreme Court rulings.
Clarity will also help the States that use the Federal definition to
operate their State water protection programs. Ninety percent of what
the EPA does is in fact carried out by the States.
The proposed rule clarifies that most seasonal and rain-dependent
streams are not affected. Wetlands near rivers and streams are not
included. Other types of waters that may have more uncertain
connections with downstream water will be evaluated through a case-
specific analysis of whether the connection is or is not significant.
EPA and the Corps have encouraged recommendations from the public for
how best to determine whether a water body has a significant connection
to downstream waters.
My colleagues, an estimated 59 percent of all stream miles in the
lower 48 States fall into the category of intermittent or ephemeral--
they don't exist for part of the year--yet they receive 40 percent of
all individual wastewater discharges. That is what the problem is. More
than 117 million Americans get some of their drinking water from these
very streams that don't flow year-round. Shouldn't their drinking water
be safe from toxic elements?
If this measure were to be enacted, it would only ensure that the
confusion continues and that these sources of drinking water remain a
serious risk to the public's health. That is why I urge my colleagues
to oppose this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today against an unlawful expansion of Federal
power. The EPA's attempt at an unprecedented power grab will ultimately
saddle hardworking Americans, small businesses, and farmers with new,
onerous regulatory burdens.
Under this proposed new rule, the EPA will be able to claim
jurisdiction over almost all bodies of water in the U.S. So, along with
the bays and rivers, EPA's hand will extend over streams, ponds,
ditches, and even storm water runoff. Beyond sounding ridiculous, this
rule will impact farmers, energy producers, and any private citizens
that use their land for economic or recreational purposes. It is
harmful and unnecessary.
I live in the West. The West is burdened right now with the drought.
Some of that drought is based upon excess regulations that choose fish
over people, and that water will run out to the ocean because of a
regulation and a lawsuit.
I have seen where regulatory effects and burdens have gone before. I
have a town in my community called Taft. It is a hardworking town like
many of you have. The EPA has been a part of it before. It is a town
that could be anywhere in America.
Taft had a waterway, the EPA said, called Sandy Creek. The only
challenge, though, in Sandy Creek is it was a dry ditch. It had been
dry for 30 years. So when they came to me and they wanted to be able to
move forward, they found that the Federal Government was trying to
impose a permitting regulation of excess regulation on this private
land. I had to personally call them, and they said: No, you cannot do
it because of the creek. I had to drive an individual all the way out
to the dry dirt and sit them in the dry creekbed until finally they
said ``yes.''
Under the new bill, Sandy Creek will not be dry anymore because that
burdensome regulation can possibly be back on them. It could be
redesignated, and we will not be able to grow again.
Mr. Chairman, we are struggling with job creation in America. We are
struggling with small businesses trying to make ends meet. Milk prices
are at an alltime high. Why would we burden
[[Page H7319]]
America with more regulation? Why would we not unshackle what holds us
back and let us be able to grow and let people keep their private land
and protect our water, but do it in a sense that has common sense?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart), who is on the Agriculture
Committee and an original sponsor of the legislation. He has been of
tremendous help in moving this forward.
Mr. ENYART. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this legislation and to
share my concern about overreaching jurisdiction in the proposed
rulemaking expanding the reach of the EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers.
I have spent the last 5 weeks talking to constituents in my district,
meeting with landowners, and discussing legislation with my agriculture
advisory committing, talking to leaders from small communities and
large cities alike.
Again and again, I hear the same thing: southern Illinoisans believe
the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA went too far rewriting the
Federal Government's jurisdiction over waters of the United States. The
Federal Government is claiming to have jurisdiction over small private
property waterways.
The biggest concerns voiced by constituents were over the new areas
that would become waters of the U.S. Under the proposed rule, many
ditches, small ponds, and low spots in fields could be considered
within the purview of the Federal Government.
Farmers and growers already protect their waters. They need it for
livestock, orchards, soybean fields, and cornfields. Our Nation's
farmers are the first conservationists of our time.
Additionally, I am further concerned about the lack of scientific
analysis and economic outlook used to determine the scope of
jurisdiction. Our farmers, land owners, communities, and our country's
waterways deserve better planning than this. They deserve detailed
studies and thoughtful execution. Our constituents sent us to
Washington to keep their best interests in mind, not to pile on more
red tape in a blanket fashion.
I urge you to join me and take into consideration those who will be
affected by the proposed expansion of the EPA and the Corps' power.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the EPA is at it again,
this time with an overly burdensome rule that would expand their reach
and power to regulate under the Clean Water Act.
I have heard from roadbuilders, homebuilders, and small businesses
who are concerned about this overreach. In particular, farmers in my
district are very concerned that this rule could add new permitting
requirements for farming activities like irrigation ponds and drainage
ditches.
That is right. The EPA, which is the same Agency that inexplicably
released the personal information of livestock producers, is now
telling farmers ``just trust us'' when it comes to this new rule. There
is a trust gap between the EPA and the agricultural community. One of
my priorities is trying to bridge that gap.
Instead of this proposed rule, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers
should engage with States and local governments to produce a more
commonsense approach to regulating our waterways.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, the WOTUS Regulatory
Overreach Protection Act.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Jolly).
Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and in
opposition to the EPA's Waters of the U.S. Act.
I represent Pinellas County, Florida, a district that lies between
the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay, surrounded by water and prone to
flooding and storm runoff. So, like many coastal communities, this is
an important issue to us.
EPA issues can be divisive--we know that--but they need not be. My
message today is not one of anger. It is simple common sense. We can do
better. The EPA can do better and the Corps can do better.
This is not a debate over clean water. Everybody in this body
supports clean water. But this is a debate over the expanded
jurisdiction of a Federal Agency and the current overreach of that
Agency. In this case, this legislation is opposed by a variety of
interests, from agriculture, shopping centers, chambers, homebuilders,
manufacturers, transportation interests, but very importantly, by
counties and mayors like many in my district who spoke to me in August.
We are called as Members of this body to represent our communities.
Let's do that today. Let's represent the interests of our communities.
This is not a moment for ``Washington knows best,'' because Washington
does not know best in this case.
Mr. Chairman, we can do better. In this case, let's send it back and
insist on a better rule.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5078, the
Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency is once again seeking to overstep
its authority, and we are here to remind them of the balance of powers.
This year, EPA proposed a rule to redefine the waters of the United
States under the Clean Water Act. This rule expands Federal control of
land and water resources across the Nation. This rule would trigger an
onslaught of additional permitting and regulatory requirements to
protect not our great natural resources but, rather, our backyard ponds
and agricultural ditches.
These requirements would extend to every landowner, farmer, and
rancher. What this means for farmers and ranchers is that their normal
business activities for the production of food would be subject to even
more permitting requirements or faced with penalties. Traditional
conservation guidelines which were once voluntary will become mandatory
or the farmer will be subject to fines and vulnerable to lawsuits.
In this rulemaking, EPA assumes discretion never intended or granted
by Congress through which Federal agencies would be empowered to make
decisions, and those decisions could be made in an arbitrary fashion.
H.R. 5078 blocks the Agency from finalizing, implementing, and
enforcing this rule. It preserves States' rights, ensures the Obama
administration consults States and local officials on any future
proposal to regulate and protect our Nation's waters under the Clean
Water Act.
Protecting our natural resources is a noble cause and one that the
agricultural community stands solidly behind, but this proposal is an
underhanded way to harm American agriculture and threaten America's
food security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this bill and against the
EPA's ditch rule.
If this rule were to go forward, two things would assuredly occur:
less clarity of what waters are jurisdictional under the Clean Water
Act for our farmers and ranchers, and more overreach of jurisdiction by
the EPA.
This rule joins a long list of initiatives undertaken by the Agency
which would increase the regulatory burden on Nebraska's farmers,
ranchers, businesses, and everyday citizens.
In my State, multiple organizations banded together to fight this
rule. The group calls itself Common Sense Nebraska Coalition. It
includes folks that you would expect, such as farmers and ranchers, but
what is interesting is that so many others have heard about this and
joined in the fight, including the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce,
Nebraska Bankers Association, county officials, resource districts, the
Water Resources Association, homebuilders, general contractors, and the
Rural Electric Association. They have all joined in this cause because
of its uncertainty and massive jurisdiction under the EPA.
[[Page H7320]]
My State supports this bill, and I stand proudly with them.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and
now a member of the Science and Technology Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. First of all, let me thank the chairman of the
Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, Science Committee investigations revealed that the EPA
prepared State maps that show the widespread impact of their proposed
regulations. As you can see by the colored areas on this map, the EPA
plans to regulate nearly every square inch on the map. More detailed
maps of every State can be found on our Science Committee's Web site,
science.house.gov.
The EPA's rewriting of the law is an unprecedented expansion of
Federal control over Americans' private property, and these maps make
that clear. The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach
Protection Acts stops the EPA and protects Americans from the
President's drive to regulate private property.
{time} 1445
I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland) for taking the
initiative on this bill, and I thank the chairman again for yielding me
time. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 16 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of New York. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, expanding the scope of ``waters of the United States''
is a dangerous expansion of authority strongly opposed by the farmers
in my western New York district.
In May, I led a bipartisan letter with Mr. Schrader of Oregon,
supported by a majority of this House, asking the EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers to withdraw this overreaching rule.
EPA officials have testified that they realize this rule, as drafted,
is confusing and needs modification, but they have refused to withdraw
the rule and start over.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5078, the
bipartisan legislation that will address this problem.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend and
colleague, Steve Southerland, for crafting the Waters of the United
States bill, this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard from farmers, ranchers, contractors and
even homeowners across my district and across this country. They have
had enough of regulatory overreach by the administration and the EPA.
As many of my colleagues have already stated, this bill will stop
this administration from using a pen and a phone to unfairly target
those who are our greatest stewards of our land, the farming and
ranching families of this country.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Government
should facilitate businesses, not hinder them.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank Chairman Shuster for bringing the Waters of the
United States Regulatory Overreach and Protection Act to this body.
Mr. Chairman, this administration has continually tried to expand the
role of the Federal Government in the everyday lives of American
families, and now the EPA wants to regulate almost all bodies of water
throughout the country, including ditches, pipes, and even farmland
ponds.
After meeting with many of my constituents back home throughout the
month of August, I know that my fellow farmers, whom I sat with in
Indiana, and those of any other State don't want or need more
regulatory overreach from Washington, D.C.
From irrigation for crops to water for livestock, farmers feed us and
the world with this precious resource. This legislation is an
opportunity to maintain the relationship between local and Federal
officials already established in the Clean Water Act.
I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and
the rest of Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their
hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this very
important bill for rural America.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate the chairman yielding me time here today on
this very important measure.
We have seen the EPA now trying to claim jurisdiction over virtually
every body of water in the United States, puddle or not, navigable or
not, manmade or natural, year-round or just even seasonal. In order to
protect these waters, the EPA claims it needs to control vast amounts
of land surrounding these waters.
Now, the residents of my district in northern California are already
familiar with this type of regulatory act. In California, the EPA is
already ignoring clear exemptions for farming activities that have been
going on for years and years and are even in the law as exempt; this,
in order to pursue massive fines against family farmers simply for
changing crops or maintaining their already manmade irrigation systems,
thus, in the process paralyzing farmers who are waiting months and
months or even years for EPA or their cohorts in the Army Corps to
decide these legal activities can continue to go on, otherwise they
will be subject to huge fines.
This is form of tyranny that is a gigantic overreach and needs to be
stopped. That is why I support H.R. 5078 as a way to limit EPA back to
the proper role of actually watching out for clean waters, not
regulating to the last drop every water drop in the United States.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this regulatory
overreach protection act. I believe that it is safe to say that no one
has a greater interest in protecting our water resources than our
Nation's farmers, farmers who depend on clean water for their
livelihood.
Just last month, I met with many farmers across Virginia's Fifth
District who expressed their grave concern about the Federal
Government's unilateral expansion of the Clean Water Act far beyond
that intended by Congress. This overreach will add huge costs for our
farmers and the millions of American families that depend upon them.
That is why I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting this
commonsense, bipartisan bill to stop this administration's sweeping
overreach on American farms.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first commend the chairman of our
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster, for bringing
this legislation forward and commend the staff on both sides of the
aisle for the work in producing this bill. I commend the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Southerland) as well.
This legislation is truly about giving the American people and giving
our States a say in what is theirs and in the direction that they wish
for the people within their borders.
Much has been said about the homebuilders' support for this bill, the
contractors' support for this bill, and many, many, many other
organizations. But I have two quotes here from the National Association
of Home Builders and the Associated General Contractors.
These individuals are on the ground. They know what the effect is,
the day-to-day effect of policy that emanates or regulations that are
promulgated from our Nation's Capital.
These are the individuals that provide jobs for our people. As I
said, they are on the ground, on the front lines every day trying to
provide those jobs for our people, and in an environmentally sound way,
I might add, as well.
[[Page H7321]]
Mr. James Tobin has written Members of Congress on behalf of the
National Association of Home Builders, and he says, and I quote:
For home builders, this proposed rule adds confusion and
increases the cost and time needed to obtain a Federal
wetlands permit prior to home construction. The costs of this
rule will increase the price of a home at a time when home
construction is beginning to recover from the devastating
effects of the economic downturn. Many American families will
be priced out of the housing market if this rule is finalized
in its current form.
That hits home. That hits home to the young people of this Nation
seeking to buy their first-time home. It speaks to those seeking to
refinance their homes. It speaks to a key sector of our economy that
provides jobs and provides a future for this country that many of our
young people are looking to improve.
The Associated General Contractors has written Members of Congress.
Their senior executive director, Mr. Jeff Shoaf, has said that we must
find ``a more predictable definition to clearly differentiate those
waters that are regulated by the Federal Government from those that
fall under the jurisdiction of State and local governments.''
In my opinion, it is time that this EPA recognize that our States do
have a say in the future of regulations that affect people within their
borders.
Unfortunately, we have seen too many instances, as I said in my
opening comments, where this EPA has overreached. It has reached beyond
what its legal authority is in trying to promote an ideological agenda
that is not good for the heartland of America, the true areas that have
built this country and provided jobs for our people in the past, and
can provide jobs to a very talented and available workforce that is
available, if only given a chance to work without further intrusion
from the EPA.
So I conclude, and, again, commend my chairman for bringing this bill
forward, and urge all Members to support the pending legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude and yield myself the
balance of my time, first, by thanking Mr. Rahall for working with us
to come forward with a commonsense approach to stopping another grab by
the executive branch.
I also want to thank Congressman Steve Southerland from Florida, who
introduced H.R. 5078. Mr. Southerland has been a leader on the water
issue since he arrived in Congress.
As we have been talking about here, and as Mr. Rahall agrees, this
proposed rule would significantly increase the geographic scope of the
Federal Government's authority under the act and is outside the bounds
of what can legitimately be done by the rulemaking.
It also is going to create great uncertainty within the many
industries in this country. The rulemaking proposed by the
administration is yet another example of the disturbing pattern as this
Presidency seeks to use brute force to expand executive action while
ignoring Congress and the Supreme Court.
I would urge all the Members, all 435 Members of this body, to look
seriously at this piece of legislation and what this administration is
trying to do. The President tries to grab Congress' legitimate
constitutional authority. And if you have any doubts on that, the
Supreme Court, twice, rejected a rulemaking by the EPA.
I think all 435 of us ought to be looking closely, whether it is a
Republican or a Democrat administration, at these power grabs by the
executive branch. It has gone on for far too long, and Congress needs
to stand up and maintain its constitutional authority.
This is a massive Federal jurisdiction grab. In the 110th and the
111th Congresses, there were attempts through various committees and
through various amendments which were rejected on a bipartisan basis to
stop this.
H.R. 5078, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Southerland, simply
prevents the EPA and the Corps from finalizing the ill-conceived
proposed rule, and directs the agencies to consult with the States and
local officials. That is the way forward, going back to our States and
our local governments.
They care as much or more about the waters in Pennsylvania and West
Virginia and California and Oregon than the EPA does. This notion in
Washington that Washington has the greater concern, that Washington has
the better idea, the one-size-fits-all, just doesn't work, and it has
been proven time and time again.
So again, this stops the administration proceeding. It has a path
forward. I would urge my colleagues to read all nine pages of this
bill. If you get to the end, you will see there is a way forward, and
that is to consult with the States and the locals to come up with a
consensus rule that can result in reasonable regulatory process that
protects our waters.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation. I urge all
Members to vote in favor of H.R. 5078, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach
Protection Act of 2014. I commend Chairman Shuster and the members of
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their work on
this important legislation.
For over forty years, the quality of our nation's waters has been
managed through a partnership between individual States and the Federal
Government. This relationship, established by the Clean Water Act
(CWA), recognizes that some waters are more effectively regulated by
local stakeholders and state officials than the Federal Government in
Washington, DC. This partnership has led to less pollution and cleaner
water for Eastern Washington and our nation. Despite decades of
success, the Obama Administration has recently proposed a rule that
would significantly alter this partnership by increasing Federal
oversight of our nation's waters.
The Administration's proposal would dramatically expand the
definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the CWA,
potentially placing ditches, drainages, creeks, and even seasonally wet
areas under Federal jurisdiction. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
an interpretative rule that would increase regulation of our nation's
farms by narrowing an exemption under the CWA for certain agricultural
practices. As such, this proposed interpretative rule will negatively
impact farmers and growers in Eastern Washington and throughout the
nation.
I support the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach
Protection Act of 2014 because it seeks to rein in the Administration's
overreach into our nation's waters. First, this bill prohibits
finalization and implementation of the proposed rule expanding Federal
regulatory authority over bodies of water currently managed by or
jointly with the States. Additionally, this bill prohibits the
interpretative rule which expands Federal regulation of our nation's
agricultural communities. The legislation also requires the EPA and the
Corps to engage in a ``federalism consultation'' with State and local
governments to help identify which bodies of water should be federally
regulated and which should be left to the states. In short, H.R. 5078
restores the Federal-State partnership envisioned by Congress when it
passed the CWA.
I believe regulation of our nation's waters must be done in a manner
that balances the need to responsibly protect the environment with the
economic needs of our communities. To that end, I support H.R. 5078
because it ensures that we can continue to protect our waters without
unreasonable and burdensome regulation. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach
Protection Act of 2014.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5078
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Waters of the United States
Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. RULES AND GUIDANCE.
(a) Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water
Act.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Administrator are
prohibited from--
(A) developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing,
applying, administering, or enforcing--
(i) the proposed rule described in the notice of proposed
rule published in the Federal Register entitled ``Definition
of `Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act''
(79 Fed. Reg. 22188 (April 21, 2014)); or
(ii) the proposed guidance submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget for regulatory review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ``Guidance on Identifying
[[Page H7322]]
Waters Protected By the Clean Water Act'' and dated February
17, 2012 (referred to as ``Clean Water Protection Guidance'',
Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 2040-ZA11, received
February 21, 2012); or
(B) using the proposed rule or proposed guidance described
in subparagraph (A), any successor document, or any
substantially similar proposed rule or guidance, as the basis
for any rulemaking or decision regarding the scope or
enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
(2) Use of rules and guidance.--The use of the proposed
rule or proposed guidance described in paragraph (1)(A), any
successor document, or any substantially similar proposed
rule or guidance, as the basis for any rulemaking or decision
regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act shall be grounds for vacating the final
rule, decision, or enforcement action.
(b) Exemption for Certain Agricultural Conservation
Practices.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Administrator are
prohibited from developing, finalizing, adopting,
implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the
interpretive rule described in the notice of availability
published in the Federal Register entitled ``Notice of
Availability Regarding the Exemption from Permitting Under
Section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act to Certain
Agricultural Conservation Practices'' (79 Fed. Reg. 22276
(April 21, 2014)).
(2) Withdrawal.--The Secretary and the Administrator shall
withdraw the interpretive rule described in paragraph (1),
and such interpretive rule shall have no force or effect.
(3) Application.--Section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)(1)(A)) shall be
applied without regard to the interpretive rule described in
paragraph (1).
SEC. 3. FEDERALISM CONSULTATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Administrator shall
jointly consult with relevant State and local officials to
develop recommendations for a regulatory proposal that would,
consistent with applicable rulings of the United States
Supreme Court, identify--
(1) the scope of waters covered under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act; and
(2) the scope of waters not covered under such Act.
(b) Consultation Requirements.--In developing the
recommendations under subsection (a), the Secretary and the
Administrator shall--
(1) provide relevant State and local officials with notice
and an opportunity to participate in the consultation process
under subsection (a);
(2) seek to consult State and local officials that
represent a broad cross-section of regional, economic, and
geographic perspectives in the United States;
(3) emphasize the importance of collaboration with and
among the relevant State and local officials;
(4) allow for meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials;
(5) be respectful of maintaining the Federal-State
partnership in implementing the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act;
(6) take into consideration the input of State and local
officials regarding matters involving differences in State
and local geography, hydrology, climate, legal frameworks,
economies, priorities, and needs;
(7) promote transparency in the consultation process under
subsection (a); and
(8) explore with State and local officials whether Federal
objectives under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act can
be attained by means other than through a new regulatory
proposal.
(c) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a draft
report describing the recommendations developed under
subsection (a).
(2) Consensus requirement.--The Secretary and the
Administrator may include a recommendation in the draft
report only if consensus has been reached with regard to the
recommendation among the Secretary, the Administrator, and
the State and local officials consulted under subsection (a).
(3) Failure to reach consensus.--If the Secretary, the
Administrator, and the State and local officials consulted
under subsection (a) fail to reach consensus on a regulatory
proposal, the draft report shall identify that consensus was
not reached and describe--
(A) the areas and issues where consensus was reached;
(B) the areas and issues of continuing disagreement that
resulted in the failure to reach consensus; and
(C) the reasons for the continuing disagreements.
(4) Duration of review.--The Secretary and the
Administrator shall provide not fewer than 180 days for the
public review and comment of the draft report.
(5) Final report.--The Secretary and the Administrator
shall, in consultation with the relevant State and local
officials, address any comments received under paragraph (4)
and prepare a final report describing the final results of
the consultation process under subsection (a).
(d) Submission of Report to Congress.--Not later than 24
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
and the Administrator shall jointly submit to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate and make publicly available the final
report prepared under subsection (c)(5).
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(3) State and local officials.--The term ``State and local
officials'' means elected or professional State and local
government officials or their representative regional or
national organizations.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those printed
in House Report 113-581. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered 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.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 will not be offered.
{time} 1500
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 113-581.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 3, strike line 7 and all that follows
through page 4, line 20, and insert the following:
(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Administrator are
prohibited from implementing any final rule that is based on
the proposed rule described in the notice of proposed rule
published in the Federal Register entitled ``Definition of
`Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act'' (79
Fed. Reg. 22188 (April 21, 2014)) if such final rule--
(1) expands the scope of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.) beyond those
waterbodies covered prior to the decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)) and
Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. 715 (2006));
(2) is inconsistent with the judicial opinions of Justice
Scalia or Justice Kennedy in the Rapanos decision;
(3) increases the regulation of ditches when compared to
existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act regulations or
guidance;
(4) eliminates historical statutory or regulatory
exemptions for agriculture;
(5) increases the scope of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act with respect to groundwater;
(6) requires Federal Water Pollution Control Act regulation
of erosional features;
(7) requires Federal Water Pollution Control Act permits
for land-use activities;
(8) requires Federal Water Pollution Control Act regulation
of farm ponds, puddles, water on driveways, birdbaths, or
playgrounds;
(9) is inconsistent with the latest peer-reviewed studies;
or
(10) was promulgated without public notice or comment.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 715, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment gets to the heart
of the debate on this proposed rule.
For months, opponents of the proposed rule have made numerous claims
about its impacts. Yet, despite numerous efforts by representatives of
the administration's to answer these claims and to point out how many
of these claims are simply false, we seem to go around and around,
again and again, on these allegations. My amendment simply addresses
these concerns and claims, saying that, if any of them prove to be
true, then the Secretary and the Administrator are prohibited from
issuing any final rule that would bring about these occurrences.
For example, opponents of the proposed rule have claimed that this
rule expands the scope of the Clean Water Act authority. When asked
this direct question during our subcommittee hearing, the
administration's witness stated clearly that the proposed rule ``would
not assert jurisdiction over any type of waters not previously
protected over the past 40 years.'' Under my
[[Page H7323]]
amendment, if the administration is proven incorrect, the final rule
could not be implemented.
Similarly, opponents have suggested that the rule is inconsistent
with the rulings and jurisdictional tests outlined by the Supreme
Court. The administration's witness has testified that this rule is
consistent with the tests outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court. If my
amendment is adopted and if the administration is wrong about this
assertion, then the final rule could not be implemented.
Opponents of the proposed rule have claimed that the proposed rule
increases the regulation of ditches. The administration has testified
that, in fact, it would reduce the scope of jurisdictional ditches that
are covered by the Bush administration guidance. If my amendment is
adopted and if the administration is incorrect in this assertion, the
rule cannot be implemented.
Opponents contend that, under this rule, individuals would be
required to have Federal Clean Water Act permits for draining farm
ponds or for activities in the water on your driveways or your
birdbaths or puddles in your backyard. The administration has asserted,
obviously, that these types of waters have never been subject to the
Clean Water Act, nor would they be under this rulemaking. If somehow
the administration is wrong about this, under my amendment, the final
rule could not be implemented.
Lastly, opponents contend that the rule would eliminate existing
statutory and regulatory exemptions for agriculture or increase the
regulation of groundwater or require Federal Clean Water Act permits
for land-use activities. Yet the administration has time and time again
testified that these assertions are simply inaccurate. Again, if my
amendment is adopted and if the administration is incorrect, the final
rule cannot go forward.
In my view, this administration has put forward a good faith effort
to provide additional clarity on the scope of Clean Water Act
protections for our Nation's waters that are consistent with current
scientific information as well as the precedent of the Supreme Court.
While it is not perfect, this rule is far better than the current
regulatory process that has led to numerous delays, significant
increases in compliance costs, and greater difficulty in protecting our
Nation's water resources.
I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I must strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment because it seeks to gut this legislation.
This amendment would allow the administration to go forward and
finalize its flawed rule, expanding Federal jurisdiction over the Clean
Water Act if they determine entirely of their own discretion that the
rule is consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and other factors
listed in this amendment. Basically, the EPA can self-certify that they
are ready to move forward.
This amendment is misleading. The administration has already stated
that they believe the proposed rule is consistent with the Supreme
Court decisions and with other factors listed in this amendment. The
effect of this amendment is to allow the agencies to finalize their
flawed rule that many believe is not consistent with the Supreme Court
decisions and other listed factors.
This amendment would put the U.S. EPA solely in charge of America's
waters, and it would take away the Federal-State partnership that H.R.
5078 seeks to preserve. It would allow the EPA to finalize and
implement the rule without consulting with the States. Let me repeat
that. It would allow the U.S. EPA to move forward without consulting
with their counterpart State EPAs.
In contrast, H.R. 5078 preserves the Federal-State partnership that
was set up under the Clean Water Act in 1972. This important
legislation recognizes that the proposed administration rule has
created controversy, confusion, and discord in the clean water
regulatory programs. H.R. 5078 calls for a timeout to stop the final
development of this ill-conceived rule. In addition, it requires that
the agencies consult with State and local governments to develop a
consensus rule that will work and protect our water resources.
As I said during the general debate in our subcommittee, they were
not able to identify any State regulatory agency that supports this
proposed rule. That ought to be a red flag to all American people and
to all of the stakeholders involved.
As my friend on the other side talked about expansion and
jurisdiction, I would argue of the proposed rule, if it is not
necessary, why does the Secretary of Agriculture have to put together
an interpretive rule when it has been said that agriculture is exempt
from these practices? Why move forward?
We don't need this rule. I urge the Members to oppose this amendment
and support the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time I have
remaining to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, remember, should this bill pass and become law, which
it never will, it will tie us to the 2003-2008 guidance, which the Farm
Bureau has described as a hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent
jurisdictional theories, and will result in and is resulting in
increased delays and costs to the public at large. That is why we are
here today.
Everybody agrees that we need clarification, but you are excluding
them from using the judicial decisions and any document that was used
in coming up with this problematic rule, and you are saying you can't
use any of that. So, basically, we are stuck with the 2003-2008
guidance, which, prior to this grandstanding over here, everybody
agreed needed to be fixed. Now we are going to be stuck with it
forever.
Instead of using a legislative scalpel, you pulled out the giant
sledgehammer here. Sometimes it is harder to be a legislator and to
actually get into the guts of something and figure out what is wrong
and what isn't wrong, and Mr. Bishop has done that.
They cannot expand the scope beyond those water bodies covered prior
to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in those two cases, and it
cannot be inconsistent with the judicial opinions of Scalia's and
Kennedy's in Rapanos. This is not judgmental stuff. These are clear
legislative restrictions. This would be taking and putting walls around
their rulemaking and saying, no, you're staying inside those rules. In
addition to that, they can't increase the regulation of ditches. They
can't eliminate any historical statutory or regulatory exemptions for
agriculture, which do not exist under the 2003-2008 rules. There are
questions about ditches under the 2003-2008 rules, and they are
interpreted differently in all parts of the country.
You are going to bind us to something that doesn't work because you
want to grandstand and pretend you are doing something for people who
have legitimate concerns. Sometimes it is harder to say to them that
this is a difficult and complicated question, because Americans want to
preserve the clean waters of the United States. We don't want to go
back in time, but we also want you people to farm and to ranch and to
do other productive activities. That is hard to do, and that isn't what
this bill before us today will do. It will bind us to the problems of
the past.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 113-581.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
[[Page H7324]]
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY.
None of the provisions in this Act shall apply if the
Administrator determines that the implementation of such
provisions is likely--
(1) to increase the interstate movement of pollutants
through surface waters;
(2) to increase the costs to be incurred by a State to
maintain or achieve approved water quality standards for the
State; or
(3) to cause or contribute to the impairment of surface or
coastal waters of a State.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 715, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would address one
of the fundamental flaws I see in this legislation. The enactment of
H.R. 5078 would almost certainly block current and future efforts to
clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act.
Unfortunately, this would lock in place the interpretive guidance of
the Bush administration, which took the narrowest and most cumbersome
and confusing interpretation of the two recent Supreme Court decisions,
and it has been uniformly criticized by the stakeholder community as
well as by the conservation and environmental community.
I think it is important to remember that, under the current Bush
administration's guidance, traditional Clean Water Act protections over
a significant percentage of waters has been called into question or
have simply been lost. These are Clean Water Act protections that
existed for over 30 years prior to the issuance of the first Bush-era
guidance in 2003 and are now all but lost, making it harder and more
costly for individual States to protect their own waters should their
upstream neighbors be unwilling or unable to fill in the gap in
protecting water quality.
As we all know, if pollution is allowed to increase due to the
competing financial and political interests of States, that pollution
needs to go somewhere, and since pollution does not respect State
boundaries when it travels downstream, it will have an adverse impact
on the quality of life and the quality of the environment of those
downstream States. As highlighted in my amendment, the end result of
this will be that downstream States will become responsible for
treating the pollution of their upstream neighbors, which, at a
minimum, will increase the compliance costs of downstream States and,
at a maximum, may destroy the ecological or economic health of these
States.
As I have noted before, my district in New York is separated from
Connecticut by the Long Island Sound. Over time, the number of
polluters in the area has increased exponentially, killing fish,
lobsters, and imperiling the $5 billion of economic output that the
region depends upon. Fortunately, the State has decided that the Sound
was impaired, and it proposed a more restrictive water quality standard
for nitrogen. A $5 billion crisis has been averted. However, under the
current Bush-era guidance, questions have arisen as to whether the
Clean Water Act protection continues to apply to the upper reaches of
watersheds, streams, and wetlands which feed the rivers that eventually
flow into the Sound.
Under H.R. 5078, the EPA would be prohibited from ensuring that
polluters in Connecticut continue to reduce excessive amounts of
nitrogen in the Sound, leaving my constituents in the State of New York
without any recourse under the Clean Water Act to stop them.
If this bill were to pass, individual States would decide that
collective efforts to address the water quality impairments of the
Chesapeake Bay, the Puget Sound, the Great Lakes, or the Gulf of Mexico
were unnecessarily restrictive or burdensome, and they would refuse to
participate in a meaningful way towards the restoration of these
regional water bodies. This go-it-alone approach flies in the face of
science, of common sense, and of decades of experience in implementing
the Clean Water Act.
My amendment would limit the impact of this legislation if the
administration determines that this bill were likely to, one, increase
the interstate movement of pollutants through surface waters; two,
increase the costs incurred by a downstream State to maintain or
achieve approved water quality standards for that State; or three, to
cause or contribute to the impairment of the surface or coastal waters
of another State.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure created the Clean
Water Act over 40 years ago as a response to burning rivers, to Great
Lakes that were pronounced dead, and to an understanding that a State-
by-State approach to protecting water simply didn't work.
Let's not repeat the sins of the past but commit to moving forward in
our efforts to protect the Nation's waters. Support my amendment, and
allow the Agency to put back in place reasonable, comprehensive
protections of our Nation's waters.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I most strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment because it seeks to undermine the intent of this legislation.
There is a great deal of controversy over what the EPA's proposed
rule would do or would not do. Added to that, they have a subsequent
proposal of the interpretive rule from the Department of Agriculture.
What H.R. 5078 says is, ``Stop. Time out.'' The bill says, ``Stop
this rule process. Go back to the States and back to the stakeholders
and local governments and work together,'' which was the intent of the
Clean Water Act. Let's have these agencies work together to develop a
consensus rule that will actually provide clarity and allow the Federal
and State governments to work as partners in protecting America's
waters. This amendment would give the EPA unfettered discretion in
making determinations regarding State water quality standards, taking
away the Federal-State partnership that this legislation is seeking to
preserve.
I need to remind everybody what this bill does. This bill says,
``Time out. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, go back to the drawing
board. Go back to the States. Work with the States. Work with your
counterparts in the States, and develop a consensus to the rule that
you need. Go back to the partnership.''
Let's have a cooperative relationship between the States and the
Federal U.S. EPA.
{time} 1515
Let's have commonsense proposals to protect our Nation's waters and
not a one-size-fits-all policy coming out of Washington, D.C. Because
when it comes to water bodies, streams, and so on, one-size-fits-all
policies don't always work. We need to be working with those local
governments and the States to develop the policies to protect and
enhance our environment at the local level.
So let's send it back, support H.R. 5078, and make sure that our U.S.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will work with their counterparts
to seek commonsense policies that protect and enhance our water quality
and our safe drinking water here in the United States. I urge all
Members to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
[[Page H7325]]
state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 5078) to preserve existing rights and
responsibilities with respect to waters of the United States, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________