[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1221-H1230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
199, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States
Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection
Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United
States' '', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 199, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 27
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the
Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised
Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' (88 Fed. Reg.
3004 (January 18, 2023)), and such rule shall have no force
or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
General Leave
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 27.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.J. Res. 27, which I
introduced, to negate an ill-timed and ill-conceived rule coming out of
the Biden administration which, if Congress fails to act, will go into
effect later this month.
The Clean Water Act is landmark legislation that was signed into law
50 years ago that has greatly improved the health of the Nation's
waters.
Unfortunately, we have consistently seen increasingly expansive
interpretations of the Clean Water Act result in the implementation of
a flawed and overreaching water policy. This has hindered our ability
to achieve the Clean Water Act's true underlying water quality goals.
There is no clearer example of this overreach than the debate over
the definition of waters of the United States, or WOTUS.
Decades of agency interpretation and misinterpretations have created
uncertainty for rural communities, for farmers, for ranchers, for
businesses and industries who rely on clean water.
Although the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule finally provided
long-awaited clarity on the scope of WOTUS, the new administration
decided to unravel the water protection rule and attempt to replace it,
once again, creating confusion and chaos.
The definition of WOTUS matters to the everyday lives of people all
over the country, including in my district.
For instance, I have a constituent who wanted to build a pond on his
property and had received local and State permits to do just that. But
then the Army Corps of Engineers, they stepped in and they said he
would have
[[Page H1222]]
to spend $165,000 in environmental mitigation. This is absolutely
outrageous.
Returning to a more costly, burdensome, and broad WOTUS definition
could have a massive impact on local communities and Americans' ability
to do their jobs and manage their own private property.
I urge support of this joint resolution to stop this burdensome and
overreaching WOTUS rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Clean water is a human right, and the health and safety of our
communities and the success of our economy depend upon it.
House Democrats stand for clean water, and today, I rise to oppose
H.J. Res. 27.
Last Congress, we passed a bipartisan, once-in-a-generation
investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the bipartisan
infrastructure law, investing almost $13 billion in clean water
infrastructure upgrades and creating jobs in communities across this
country.
The BIL showed what Congress can do when we focus on the needs of
American families. Yet, instead of putting people over pollution, this
CRA does the opposite.
Now, my State of Washington is defined by its clean water, including
the health of the Puget Sound and the hundreds of lakes and thousands
of miles of rivers and streams throughout the State.
My constituents know that rivers, streams, and wetlands, are
intrinsically connected. Pollution that starts in one body of water
does not stay put.
House Democrats believe we can protect clean water, while providing
certainty to businesses, to farmers, to Americans who depend upon clean
water for their lives and livelihoods.
This is especially true for the 117 million Americans who depend on
smaller streams as a source of their drinking water at a time when many
States are facing historic droughts.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want clean
water rules that are simple, clear and easy to follow. I want that,
too.
The Biden administration's Clean Water Restoration Rule does exactly
that; following the law and the science of protecting clean water and
providing regulatory certainty and stability to the implementation of
the Clean Water Act.
This resolution does the opposite. This resolution will not bring
back the previous administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule,
which removed Federal protections on roughly half of the Nation's
wetlands and 70 percent of its rivers and streams.
That rule was rightly rejected by a Federal court in 2021, as
``fundamentally flawed'' and likely to cause ``serious environmental
harm'' every day it remained in effect. It is off the table entirely.
This resolution before us today will also not eliminate the use of
the ``significant nexus'' test because that test was mandated by the
U.S. Supreme Court. It has been in effect since the Bush administration
and remains in place today.
{time} 1245
However, this resolution will adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and
developers by creating regulatory chaos and eliminating important
exclusions that have been codified in the new rule to help water-
dependent businesses and farmers to understand and comply with the law.
Now, despite fear-mongering on this issue, the truth is simple. The
Biden proposal will have no impact on the average family farmer in this
country. Why? That is because farmers are, by law, largely exempt from
the Clean Water Act permitting requirements where less than 1 percent
of all annual wetlands permits relate to agricultural activities
nationwide.
Therefore, if your farm is engaged in normal farming, forestry, and
ranching activity, or undertakes the construction or maintenance of a
farm, stock pond, or irrigation ditch, you are exempt from the
permitting requirements of the act, and the current proposal does not
change that exemption.
Finally, for those waiting to see whether the Supreme Court will
somehow fix this issue in the upcoming Sackett case, this resolution
will actually hinder the ability of the Corps and the EPA to respond to
the Supreme Court's potential recommendations later this year.
That is why this resolution before us makes no sense. It would
invalidate the Biden rule and all the clarifications and exceptions for
business it contains in favor of a similarly structured but much less
clear regulatory framework. That is a recipe for uncertainty, legal
battles, and continued gridlock, the opposite of what proponents say
they are looking for. It would also tie the hands of Federal agencies
seeking to help individuals comply with the law, unless Congress acts
again.
This shortsighted action will lessen, not increase, certainty. It is
a big mistake. I support the administration's efforts to efficiently
implement the critical water infrastructure investments included in the
BIL so we can begin to realize the public health, economic, and
environmental benefits that come with clean water.
This resolution represents a giant step backward for clean water,
increases uncertainty for farmers, homebuilders, roadbuilders, and all
American families, and doubles down on the infighting and chaos.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.J. Res. 27 and move
together toward a future with predictability for those that need it and
clean water for communities that cannot survive without it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), the cosponsor of the
resolution.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I will note that you are exempt until you
are not exempt.
I rise in support of H.J. Res. 27. This is a very important and
crucial resolution that we pass. There is no greater example of
bureaucratic overreach under the Clean Water Act than the longstanding
regulatory ordeal of understanding and complying with the definition of
``waters of the United States,'' or WOTUS, as we call it.
Despite the benefits of the Clean Water Act, its history has been
wrought with the tortured past stemming from regulatory headaches and
overreach from bureaucrats, all because Congress never defined what a
``navigable water'' is. Many times, this combination has led to
uncertainty for individuals and the more formally regulated
communities.
The reality is, this resolution is only necessary because of the
Biden administration's decision to publish a new definition of ``waters
of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act. It is very important
that Congress ensures this overreaching definition has no force.
Now, in my mind, regulations should carry out the intent of the law
in a simple, easily understood, and transparent manner, leaving no
wiggle room for any bureaucrat to substitute their own biases and
hijack the process. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this new
WOTUS rule.
Put simply, this rule is the equivalent of a nuclear warhead aimed
right at our farmers, communities, homebuilders, roadbuilders, and
private property owners, among many others. The ramifications of its
implementation will be far and wide, affecting the prosperity and
economic opportunity of all Americans. As of March 20, that nuclear
warhead is going to be launched.
Once the Federal Government has complete control over the definition
of a ``water,'' because of an arbitrary and ambiguous definition, it
will then have control over everything else that is applied to the
land, whether it be application of pesticides or herbicides or the
building of a fence or a shed or anything else.
A farmer, homeowner, or any other property owner could be prosecuted
for these simple and customary actions because a bureaucrat decides
that what they have done affects a ``navigable water.''
So let's be clear. Ambiguity and subjectivity enshrined by an
environmental rule are no friends of freedom, the production of food or
other goods, or prosperity.
Despite what supporters of the Biden WOTUS rule say, it will do
nothing to
[[Page H1223]]
bring forth certainty and consistency, except for the trial lawyers and
radical environmentalists who are most certainly consistent and
persistent in their work to use the executive and judicial branches of
government to essentially halt the work of, and extort from, those who
produce.
I am proud to cosponsor and support this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I
encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud daughter of New
Mexico, as a water resources professional, and as a defender of the
most basic element that we need to survive, which is water.
In New Mexico, water is life, water is sacred, water is culture, and
water is fundamental to everything that we do and everything that we
are.
For years, our State and our country and our communities have ridden
the roller coaster of regulatory rollbacks on the Clean Water Act, but
I never could have imagined that in the year 2023, we would be voting
on a bill to gut the rule that protects our streams and rivers and our
right to have clean water.
In 2023, just weeks ago, a train derailment in East Palestine sent
toxic smoke into the atmosphere, and people were afraid to turn on
their taps and drink the water. The American people want clean water.
Yet, here we are, weeks later, being forced to take a vote on a bill
that would gut a fundamental rule in how the Clean Water Act actually
saves our lives.
Water is the most basic element for how we survive as a species. The
Clean Water Act was passed because rivers were on fire. In fact, in
some of the districts of our Members--who are actually sponsoring this
bill--toxic waste and sewage was filling the waterways of these very
districts, where children were being poisoned by toxins that were being
put in the rivers. Yet, here we are voting for a measure that would
leave massive swaths of our waterways exposed, particularly in New
Mexico. We are talking about raw sewage, farm waste, and chemicals
being dumped in our arroyos and our wetlands.
Let me ask the American people: Is this what you want this body to be
working on, gutting the most basic foundation of the protection of our
public health and our environment? No, the American people want clean
water. They want us to protect our streams and rivers. They want us to
protect our farmers and ranchers. They want us to protect their
families and their children.
We cannot go back decades, as this measure would take us back, and we
cannot gut this fundamental, underlying environmental law that protects
the health and safety of our communities.
So wherever you live, whoever you represent, whatever you fight for,
know what this bill is actually about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote with clean water and vote
against this measure.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the chairman of the Small Business
Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
resolution to repeal the Biden administration's waters of the United
States rule.
Since President Biden was sworn into office, the regulatory actions
of his administration have cost the private sector nearly $360 billion
in compliance costs and an estimated 220 million man-hours in new
paperwork requirements. Later this month, when this rule is finalized,
these numbers will get even higher.
Yesterday, the Committee on Small Business held a hearing to speak
directly with the people who are going to be affected by this damaging
regulation. We heard from Ms. Katherine English of Florida, who became
a water attorney to ensure her family farm that has been in operation
for over 100 years, could continue to thrive. She told us that this
rule is so complicated that she will not know if even simple land
adjustments on her own private property would open her up to fines from
the Federal Government.
We also heard from Mr. Frank Murphy, from the great State of Texas,
who develops real estate. He shared that this new rule will cause him
to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in redundant environmental
reviews and could delay many projects indefinitely.
For any business, certainty is key, and unfortunately, this rule is
leaving many people in the dark on if they will be in compliance with
the new regulations.
I support this resolution because it is giving a voice to the small
businesses that have been ignored by the unelected bureaucrats at the
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers. That is why this resolution is
supported by over 100 business groups. Congress must act and listen to
the voices of Main Street America on how this regulation will kill jobs
and damage the American economy.
In God we trust.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list
of 91 organizations in opposition to H.J. Res. 27 and an open letter to
Congress from the Environmental Protection Network in opposition to
H.J. Res. 27.
Organizations in Opposition to H.J. Res. 27, Resolution of Disapproval
of Biden Clean Water Restoration Rule
350.org, A Community Voice, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Alaska
Community Action on Toxics, Alliance for the Great Lakes,
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American
Geophysical Union, American Public Health Association,
American Rivers, American Sustainable Business Network,
Amigos Bravos, Anthropocene Alliance, Appalachian Trail
Conservancy, Associacion de Residentes de La Margaita, Inc.,
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Black Millennials 4 Flint, Cahaba
River Society, California Environmental Voters, Center for
Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental
Transformation, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Children's
Environmental Health Network, Clean Water Action.
Clean, Healthy, Educated, Safe & Sustainable Community,
Inc., Coalition for Wetlands and Forests, Committee on the
Middle Fork Vermilion River, Community In-Power and
Development Association Inc. (CIDA Inc.), Concerned Citizens
for Nuclear Safety, Concerned Citizens of Cook County
(Georgia), Conservation Alabama, Earthjustice, Environment
America, Environment Texas, Environmental Law & Policy
Center, Environmental Working Group, For Love of Water
(FLOW), FreshWater Accountability Project, Freshwater Future,
Friends of Buckingham, Friends of the Mississippi River, Gila
Resources Information Project, Greater Edwards Aquifer
Alliance, Greater Neighborhood Alliance of Jersey City, NJ,
GreenLatinos, Groundswell Charleston SC.
Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition, Healthy Gulf, Hispanic
Federation, Idaho Rivers United, Illinois Council of Trout
Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, Lake Pepin Legacy
Alliance, Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), League of
Conservation Voters, Lynn Canal Conservation, Maine
Conservation Voters, Malach Consulting, Michigan League of
Conservation Voters, Milton's Concerned Citizens, Mississippi
River Collaborative, Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper, Montana
Conservation Voters, MS Communities United for Prosperity
(MCUP), National Parks Conservation Association, National
Wildlife Federation, Natural Heritage Institute, Natural
Resources Defense Council, NC League of Conservation Voters.
New Mexico Climate Justice, New Mexico Environmental Law
Center, New York League of Conservation Voters, Northeastern
Minnesotans for Wilderness, Ohio River Foundation, Patagonia
Area Resource Alliance, PES, Rapid Creek Watershed Action,
Renewal of Life Trust, River Network, Save the Illinois
River, Inc., STIR, Serene Wildlife Sanctuary LLC, Sierra
Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider
Foundation, The Clinch Coalition, The Water Collaborative of
Greater New Orleans, Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watershed
Partnership, Virginia League of Conservation Voters,
Washington Conservation Action, Waterkeepers Chesapeake,
Weequahic Park Association, Winyah Rivers Alliance.
____
Environmental Protection Network,
March 2, 2023.
Open Letter to Congress on Congressional Review of the Waters of the
United States Rule
Dear Member of Congress: As alumni of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), we are writing to share our
perspectives on congressional review of the Clean Water Act
``Waters of the United States'' rule. The Environmental
Protection Network (EPN) taps the bipartisan expertise of
more than 550 former EPA staff who volunteer their unique
perspectives as scientists and former regulators, permit
issuers, and grant providers with decades of historical
knowledge and subject matter expertise.
A Constructive Framework for Assessing EPA Rules Using the
Congressional Review Act
Congress has an important responsibility to ensure that EPA
and other federal agencies are faithful to congressional
intent
[[Page H1224]]
when issuing rules. Congress' congressional review
responsibilities are laid out in law, commonly referred to as
the ``Congressional Review Act'' (CRA).
Rulemaking, when done appropriately, is a methodical
process built upon deep understanding of complex and
technical information and informed by a wide range of
stakeholders with different perspectives. The bipartisan
drafters of the CRA recognized the vital roles agencies play
in implementing laws, and they strove to strike a balance
between ``reclaiming for Congress some of its policymaking
authority, without at the same time requiring Congress to
become a super regulatory agency.''
The drafters of the CRA shined a light on how to navigate
this balance, recommending that Congress intervene where
rules are ``surprisingly different from the expectations of
Congress or the public.''
In addition to avoiding taking on the role of ``super
regulatory agency,'' Congress must consider the full
ramifications of a resolution of disapproval, which prohibits
agencies from taking substantially similar action. The CRA
acts like a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. A CRA disapproval
resolution can leave a chaotic tangle of regulatory
uncertainty and confusion in its wake, resulting in
significant harm to the public, regulated entities, and the
environment. According to the Congressional Research Service,
Congressional disapproval:
``creates uncertainty and could restrict the agency's
ability to act going forward. This can potentially create a
difficult situation for an agency if Congress uses the CRA to
disapprove rules that were specifically required by law . .
.''
Historically, members of Congress from both parties have
cited the ``bluntness'' of the CRA tool as the reason they
rejected congressional disapproval even when they did not
agree with the underlying rule.
EPN suggests a constructive framework of four key questions
that Congress should consider when determining whether a rule
is ``surprisingly different from the expectations of
Congress,'' without venturing into the territory of becoming
a ``super regulatory agency'':
1. Follow the Law: Did the agency follow the law, as
directed by Congress and the courts?
2. Follow the Science: Did the agency follow the science,
including adequately explaining its factual basis and
reasoning?
3. Listen to Stakeholders: Did the agency meaningfully
engage with and respond to all major stakeholders, taking
different perspectives meaningfully into account?
4. Do No Harm: Would congressional disapproval worsen or
improve outcomes for public health, the environment, and
stakeholders, including regulated entities?
In pursuing this framework, members of Congress can provide
meaningful oversight of actions, while minimizing the harm
created by the CRA. In today's climate, with cyclical swings
of the political pendulum, there is already significant
regulatory whiplash and chaos. Congress should do everything
in its power to lessen this confusion, not add to it.
Applying the Framework to the Waters of the United States Rule
EPN believes that Congress should support the ``Revised
Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' rule published
by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers on January 18, 2023.
This rule protects waters that are critical to the health and
welfare of the American people. The rule is not
``surprisingly different from the expectations of Congress or
the public.'' In fact, the rule conforms to the Supreme
Court's instructions and largely reverts to the long-existing
rule that pre-dates the regulatory confusion that has
prevailed for too long.
Further, a congressional resolution of disapproval in this
case risks a prolonged and perhaps permanent state of
regulatory confusion that will create more uncertainty for
landowners and others who deserve clear answers on how to
comply with the Clean Water Act.
A thoughtful exploration of the four framing CRA questions
we pose above will demonstrate that EPA has in fact done its
job and done it well.
(1) EPA Followed the Law: The rule is consistent with the
objectives of the federal Clean Water Act to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the nation's waters,'' which are largely interconnected and
which flow over and between state lines. The agencies are
interpreting ``waters of the United States'' to mean the
waters defined by the familiar pre-2015 regulations, with
amendments to reflect the agencies' determination of the
statutory limits on the scope informed by Supreme Court
precedent, the best available science, and the agencies'
experience and technical expertise. In response to both the
case law and the science, the 2023 rule only includes
upstream waters and wetlands as waters of the U.S. when they
significantly affect the integrity of waters for which
federal interest is indisputable (traditional navigable
waters, territorial seas, and interstate waters).
EPA has also clearly recognized Supreme Court precedent,
which, of course, could change with the expected decision in
Sackett v. United States.
(2) EPA Followed the Science: The agency incorporates well-
established science and protects waters that are critical to
the health and welfare of the American people, particularly
given the extreme weather challenges from climate change and
the disproportionate impact on environmental justice
communities. For the first time, the 2023 rule provides a
detailed definition of the functions that must be assessed
and the specific factors that must be considered in
determining whether a water has a significant nexus to a
water for which federal interest is indisputable. This
definition is well supported by scientific evidence and is
consistent with the factors the Supreme Court recently
identified as critical for determining whether a discharge is
jurisdictional in Country of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife
Fund.
(3) EPA Responded to Stakeholders Concerns: EPA is to be
commended on a particularly thorough and far-reaching
stakeholder engagement process, ultimately choosing a middle
road that supports public health, environmental protection,
agricultural activity, and economic growth. It covers less
than the Obama administration proposed in 2015 but more than
the Trump administration's rule. The agency conducted
regional roundtables throughout the country, as well as
solicited input from small businesses, tribes, and the public
through multiple channels. In response to farmers concerns,
the 2023 rule expands the number of waters exempted from CWA
jurisdiction, exempting certain types of ditches, irrigated
areas, farm ponds, and water-filled depressions in dry land,
and erosional features such as gullies and rills.
(4) Congressional Disapproval Would Create a Chaotic Mess:
A congressional vote of disapproval would create prolonged
uncertainty and confusion for stakeholders that need to know
what waters are protected by the Clean Water Act. Such an
action would also endanger the drinking water, fisheries, and
flood control for communities throughout the nation.
Congress should support this rulemaking process as it moves
through the courts, and refrain from adding more confusion to
the situation. Allowing EPA and the Army Corps to complete
their job as defined in the law and overseen by the courts
will create the kind of clarity stakeholders need.
We are happy to make EPN experts available to you to
discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Michelle Roos,
Executive Director,
Environmental Protection Network.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of
the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to
this resolution of disapproval.
Clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no issue has more
support among American families than the protection of our Nation's
waters. Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean
water as over half of the United States is experiencing drought
conditions. Even though we have had rain, we are still in drought
conditions. We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our
businesses, and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable
supplies of water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our
quality-of-life needs, and our day-to-day survival.
This is especially true in my home State of California. As the
Metropolitan Water District, the biggest in the area, commented at our
subcommittee last month, the definition of WOTUS is central to the
Clean Water Act's implementation and has significant implications for
water agencies' day-to-day operations and for water source protection
efforts.
That is why I support the efforts of the Biden administration to
permanently repeal the previous administration's dirty water rule, a
rule that eliminated Federal protections on a minimum of 75 percent of
streams and wetlands that have been protected by the act since its
inception.
These waters and the wetlands are critical to capturing and storing
rain and snowmelt to ensure the long-term supply of water and recharge
our underground water aquifers.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how this resolution, which seeks to
undermine and confuse agency efforts to protect our clean water, makes
any sense to my constituents who are already making sacrifices to
protect our local waters.
This resolution would increase levels of pollution in our
waterbodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and make it harder
for communities like mine to maintain sustainable sources of drinking
water.
Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the
horrible impacts of this resolution. The Biden rule provided the best
available
[[Page H1225]]
option to balance the need for protection of waters with the desire for
familiarity and workability within the constraints of the law and
interpretations of the Supreme Court. This resolution achieves none of
those outcomes and is only more likely to make it worse, not better.
Mr. Speaker, I very strongly oppose the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration
Policy from the Executive Office of the President on H.J. Res. 27,
providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5,
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the
United States.' ''
Statement of Administration Policy
H.J. Res. 27--Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8
of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department
of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the
Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of
`Waters of the United States' ''--Rep. Graves, R-MO, and 170 cosponsors
The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.J. Res.
27, a joint resolution to disapprove ``Revised Definition of
`Waters of the United States' '' (``final rule''). The final
rule's definition of ``waters of the United States''
carefully sets the bounds for what activities are regulated
by the federal government under the Clean Water Act. The
final rule provides clear rules of the road that will help
advance infrastructure projects, economic investments, and
agricultural activities--all while protecting water quality.
The rule reestablishes critical protections for the nation's
vital water resources by returning to the longstanding 1986
regulations with appropriate updates, exclusions, and
streamlining clarifications. This pre-2015 approach to
``waters of the United States'' provides regulatory certainty
and reflects the agencies' long experience, the best
available science, and extensive stakeholder engagement. In
comparison, H.J. Res. 27 would leave Americans without a
clear ``waters of the United States'' definition. The
increased uncertainty would threaten economic growth,
including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream
communities. Farmers would be left wondering whether
artificially irrigated areas remain exempt or not.
Construction crews would be left wondering whether their
waterfilled gravel pits remain exempt or not. Compared to the
kind of uncertain, fragmented, and watered-down regulatory
system that H.J. Res. 27 might compel, the final rule will
secure substantial and valuable benefits each year in
critical flood protections, enhanced water quality, and the
treasured recreational activities--fishing, swimming,
boating, and more--that fill the lives and livelihoods of
tens of millions of U.S. households that depend on healthy
wetlands and streams.
If Congress were to pass H.J. Res. 27, the President would
veto it.
{time} 1300
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the Biden
administration's extreme overreach with the confusing new waters of the
United States rule published by the EPA. This rule removes protections
put in place by the previous administration that would protect farmers,
ranchers, and small business owners from potential fines and even jail
time for carrying out common practices they have done for years.
The men and women who feed America should not have to apply for
permits to simply remove debris from a ditch on their property or
change the types of crops that they grow in a field. Yet, this is what
people in my district in Arkansas and around the country will face
under the new WOTUS rule.
To top it all off, this rule is unclear, forcing landowners to hire
additional help just to ensure that they are complying with this ill-
conceived rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up to the EPA and vote to
block this burdensome rule.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).
Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J.
Res. 27, which would nullify the rule titled: ``Revised Definition of
`Waters of the United States.' ''
As the vice ranking member of the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, I am extremely aware of the crucial role clean water
plays in the success of our Nation's economy, including agriculture and
energy development, as well as the health of our communities.
This resolution is the latest attempt to attack longstanding critical
safeguards for clean water with an utter disregard for the devastating
impact this will have on hardworking American families.
In Ohio, we have had to bear the brunt of the reckless disregard for
safeguards that has contaminated water supplies and caused irreversible
harm, some of which we can't even begin to quantify.
My colleague aptly identified multiple issues and examples from Ohio
that explain why it is necessary to protect our water, whether it is
toxic chemicals from a train derailment; a burning lake--imagine that;
or compromised drinking water due to algal blooms, which happened in
northeast Ohio in our Great Lake, Lake Erie, which is a significant
resource for us in our Ohio community. A good clean water source has
been impacted, and many others across the country could be as well.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation unquestionably undermines the Clean
Water Act, and it is unnecessary and a glaring attack on future
attempts to protect our Nation's water quality.
When a rule is undone using the Congressional Review Act process,
future administrations are prevented from issuing rules that are
substantially the same, which could and very likely will undermine
agencies in their activities to stop bad actors who pollute our
waterways.
I understand the need for regulatory certainty, and I certainly want
to help us achieve that. Whether it is to provide certainty for
businesses, local governments, State governments, farmers, hunters,
fishers, or builders, Americans deserve that certainty.
Mr. Speaker, isn't it important to ensure that our constituents,
including my constituents in Ohio's 13th District, have certainty when
they turn on the tap that they are sure they are not drinking toxic
water that may be a carcinogen that will impact their health in the
future?
It is important that all people, regardless of where they live, or
their economic standing, creed, or color, have access to clean water.
It is how we put people above politics.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
``no'' emphatically.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of today's waters of the United
States, WOTUS, joint resolution of disapproval, and I stand in
opposition to the Biden WOTUS, which is an attack on the Clean Water
Act, an attack on States' rights to have oversight over non-navigable
waters, and an attack on private property rights.
As the chairman and former ranking member of the House Agriculture
Committee, I have spent the last 2 years traveling to more than 40
States to hear directly from producers about the challenges they face.
I was proud to be with Chairman Graves in his district, where we had a
gathering and a hearing, a listening session on this very topic--
burdensome regulations, record inflation, high input costs, the
politicization of crop protection tools, supply chain disruptions, and
now you can add an egregious government land grab to the list.
Make no mistake about it, this rule isn't about clean water. It is
about the Biden EPA's appetite for power.
America's farmers, ranchers, and landowners deserve a WOTUS
definition that is fair to agriculture and maintains the historical
reach of the Clean Water Act, neither of which is accomplished by the
Biden administration's flawed rule.
Simply recognizing longstanding agriculture exemptions that have been
too narrowly applied for decades does not make up for once again
plunging our rural communities into regulatory ambiguity.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Chairman Sam Graves and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee
Chairman David Rouzer for leading this important effort, and I urge a
``yes'' vote.
[[Page H1226]]
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
``no'' on this effort to undo the EPA's waters of the U.S. rule.
EPA's rulemaking will simply restore the basics of what was protected
by law for nearly 50 years before Trump's rule went into effect. It is
an important protection to restore smart clean water protections.
We need to step forward for clean water because over half of our
rivers and lakes in our country are too polluted for swimming, fishing,
or drinking. I grew up near the Potomac River, where it was dangerous
to get into something that was so incredibly dirty.
Americans are speaking up, and they say they want to swim and fish in
their streams.
This EPA rule is also a step forward to protect wetlands. Last month,
Stanford scientists showed that our country is responsible for more
wetland loss and degradation than any other country.
We need to protect the wetlands that we still have left. Wetlands
sequester carbon, which helps us in our climate change goals. Wetlands
are a habitat that will help us stop the biodiversity crisis.
There is also a lot of talk about stakeholders wanting certainty in
what waters are covered. I am on board with that certainty, and the new
rulemaking provides just that, certainty for the Americans who want
swimmable, fishable, drinkable waters and who want a safe climate and
thriving biodiversity.
I had the honor of serving on the Science Committee for 8 years, and
we heard again and again that virtually all scientists believe that
water is the absolutely most essential requirement for life. Yet, we
want to gut the most important rule to protect our water.
Undoing the waters of the U.S. rule is a step backward. For all
Americans who want the certainty of a safe climate and clean water for
the future, I have to vote ``no.''
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Missouri for yielding
and for his leadership on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 27, providing for
congressional disapproval of the Army Corps of Engineers' and the EPA's
rule expanding the definition of waters of the United States.
This rule is one of the latest examples of regulatory overreach that
the Biden administration has chosen to pursue, ignoring Congress' role
in making policy decisions and vastly increasing Federal authority over
private lands.
Expanding the WOTUS definition creates harmful uncertainty and
increased administrative burdens for many parts of our economy,
especially our farmers and agriculture sector.
On top of having to endure the effects of high inflation, supply
chain disruptions, and labor shortages, farmers in my district and
across the country now have to invest more time and money on compliance
costs to protect themselves against potentially crippling legal
penalties.
Between President Biden's attempts to repeal stepped-up basis, the
SEC's onerous ESG proposal, and now this WOTUS rule issued by the Army
Corps of Engineers and EPA, it is clear that family farms and small
businesses are not being prioritized or heard by this administration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of one of the largest
corn- and soybean-producing districts in the country, I understand the
importance our farmers have in feeding our Nation and the world. Our
farm economy is the lifeblood of rural communities, and this resolution
is a necessary first step in supporting our farmers and small
businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
resolution.
For 50 years, the Clean Water Act has safeguarded our rivers,
streams, and wetlands from pollution and degradation. Before the
passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, New York City dumped millions
of gallons of raw sewage and trash into the East River every day.
Today, thanks to the CWA, we have made significant progress cleaning up
the East River and the Hudson, so much so that marine life, like the
humpback whale and dolphins, have been spotted in recent years.
This environmental progress is not unique to New York. Communities
across the country have experienced the benefits of cleaner water, but
the advantages of the CWA aren't limited to the environment. The law
has also helped our economy.
Yesterday, during a Small Business Committee hearing on this topic,
the owner of a South Carolina seafood company testified on the
fundamental importance of clean water to his business. Robust Federal
protection for clean water is a prerequisite for the success of
businesses in a range of industries all across our country.
Despite this, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to
allow industries to pollute our waters while shifting the cost of
pollution to families, businesses, and communities downstream. They
want to continue Trump administration policies that significantly
limited Federal protections for clean water by excluding safeguards for
many wetlands and streams.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
resolution.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Biden administration's rule defining the waters of the United States,
or WOTUS.
I am not going to mince words. These proposed changes would be more
aptly named ``WOKEUS,'' as they are confusing, partially nonsensical,
not based in science, and will cause many unintended consequences that
the Biden administration has clearly not contemplated.
Under this new rule, over 85 percent of the waterways in Wisconsin's
Third District would be subject to EPA regulation. In many places,
these rule changes will actually harm the environment, as many of the
farmers in my district are pioneers in environmental stewardship.
They have dug retention ponds that collect agricultural runoff, and
then the nitrates and phosphates settle to the bottom. They recycle the
water and these important nutrients, which actually lowers the costs
and prevents them from entering the watersheds in the Mississippi
River.
If this ``WOKEUS'' goes into effect, these revolutionary farming
practices will stop and these agricultural byproducts will wind up in
our actual navigable waterways. Then what will the Biden administration
propose doing? Fining our farmers, putting them out of business, and
increasing the food costs that are already out of control due to the
out-of-control spending of the Biden administration.
Mr. Speaker, I stand with the farmers, and they stand in support of
the CRA. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with
them.
{time} 1315
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 20 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the House resolution.
As a water attorney and a natural resource attorney, I have fought
for over 25 years to protect water and property rights and to stop the
unlawful rules enacted by our Federal Government. In Congress I am
continuing that fight.
The Feds have far exceeded their authority under the Clean Water Act
and have expanded on the scope and intent of the original law by
redefining what is a navigable water of the United
[[Page H1227]]
States. This rescinds the recent changes made under the Trump
administration that actually carried out the intent of the Clean Water
Act, and the increasing regulation of both land and waters must be
stopped.
In many instances, these new and punitive regulations are a de facto
taking of private property. Wyoming farmers, ranchers, builders, energy
producers, and small business owners, among others across the State,
would suffer significantly if these changes to the navigable waters of
the United States definition were enacted.
This is just one more example of an out-of-control and unelected
Washington bureaucracy intruding into our personal lives and seeking to
destroy our property rights.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's disapproval vote
and protect Americans from the ridiculous government overreach these
WOTUS revisions would enable.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Graves for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a case of no good deed goes unpunished.
Now, the ranking member, a good gentleman, and I can agree that we
all want clean water. But this is just simply a Federal Government
overreach. That is all it is. And, oh, by the way, I will remind
everybody that it is only 2 months ago my friends on the other side of
the aisle controlled this body, the other body, and the Presidency.
If they wanted to pass a law, then why didn't they?
It is because they can't pass a law.
This isn't about the Clean Water Act because the Clean Water Act
still exists. This is about a rule made by bureaucrats down the street
to control the water in your backyard.
Mr. Speaker, if you have a child's swing set where they have hollowed
out underneath the swing set, don't you dare fill it in, otherwise
severe penalties--criminal imprisonment--can be imposed on you.
This is absolutely outrageous, unnecessary, and must be stopped.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I just want to make a note that the argument that this is like a
taking does not hold any water--excuse the pun--because a 1992 case in
the Supreme Court determined that rules like this actually do not
qualify as a taking under the U.S. Constitution or under U.S. law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte).
Mr. DUARTE. We need to protect wetlands, and we need to protect the
clean water supply we enjoy here in America.
The Supreme Court has been dealing with this for years, and if we
don't get it right here and keep the agencies honest, we are going to
have real food shortages on our hands.
I am a farmer who was prosecuted under the Clean Water Act for
growing wheat in a wheat field where I had planted wheat many times
before.
This right here--I want to make sure the whole Chamber can see it--
look hard. This little light spot in the field is a jurisdictional
wetland under some definitions of the Clean Water Act. That is not a
navigable water. There are no frogs, no fish, no storks, no egrets, and
no water.
Under the Biden rule, the surrounding grasslands--all the surrounding
grasslands there, not the electrical tower in the back, that has other
regulatory problems--those are jurisdictional wetlands under the Biden
rule.
They prosecuted me as a farmer for farming wheat in a wheat field
which had been farmed many, many times before, and they threatened to
fine me $28 to $40 million for tilling through 22 acres of wetlands
such as this across a 450-acre wheat field.
This is what we are talking about. We don't have to talk about
burning rivers or poisonous water. This is the land grab, this is the
authority, and this is the threat to the American food system that we
are talking about.
Right over there, that is a government expert team paid for by your
Department of Justice--our Department of Justice--sitting in a 3-foot
hole investigating my 4- to 7-inch tillage through a vernal pool. Ten
government investigators were on my property for 10 days producing over
a $1-million report.
The smallest of these wetlands--of these vernal pools--was 16 square
feet. Think of the card table you may have sat at as a kid during
Thanksgiving, Mr. Speaker. That was deemed a jurisdictional wetland.
This is a direct attack on our farming and our food supply. Please
don't understand it as anything different.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume just to go back to an argument a previous speaker made
about the Democrats having the majority in the House, the Senate, and
the Presidency.
It also should be on the Record that the other side of the aisle had
the majority in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in 2017 and
2018 and also did nothing on this rule. It wasn't important enough for
them to do anything.
Then the President's rule at the time moved forward, and it was
tossed by two different courts. It was rejected by the courts, which
leaves us in this position where we are today of playing ping-pong with
the waters of the U.S. rule.
Our argument today is: Let's bring certainty to the Clean Water Act,
bring certainty to the waters of the U.S., reject H.J. Res. 27, and
move forward with the existing rule from the current administration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
My colleagues again are here to talk about something that has been
over and over again changed with the whim of every administration it
seems. I have been here 10 years, and every new Congress there is a
different enforcement. The law keeps getting changed. There is no
certainty.
So how are we supposed to farm and grow the crops that people depend
on in this country?
I am glad I got to follow Mr. Duarte because his operation is
actually in my district up there where that went on. We tried to
convince them at EPA and Army Corps of Engineers that farming is a
normal activity.
I get my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they start
talking about rivers on fire and things like that.
This is normal farming. The way we are going here, we will not have
these crops that Americans depend on, especially coming from
California.
So the definition that is being put forward by the Biden
administration is something that is undoing what the Trump
administration had trying to bring it back to reasonable.
The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 and signed by President Nixon
with bipartisan effort. Every 50 years or so we have to go back and see
what is going on with oversight, and this isn't working. It is not
working at all because it was never intended by Congress to limit
farming and to take away the farming of food, which is what is going on
with this act.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).
Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Graves for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, agricultural producers have been forced to operate their
businesses under three different definitions of water in the last 10
years, and this most recent rule removes longstanding bipartisan
exemptions for common water features like ponds and streams found on
family farms and other private property.
With this vote, Congress has a golden opportunity to stand up not
only for people who feed, fuel, and clothe us all, but also for all
Americans whose businesses and private lives will be affected by this
Big Government encroachment onto their property.
While President Biden would like to federally regulate every small
stream, ditch, and puddle from sea to shining
[[Page H1228]]
sea, American producers have been the careful custodians of their own
resources for centuries. They are the original conservationists, and
their livelihoods already depend on their voluntary efforts to care for
their water resources.
How we vote today will speak volumes. We can either tell Americans
that we believe the Federal Government knows best, or we can tell them
that the Federal Government should get out of their way and let them do
what they do best. I know where I stand.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I do agree with some of the
comments made by the previous speaker that this has been a ping-pong
match among administrations over the last 10 years where all Americans
have lived under various definitions of this rule.
I, too, want to end that ping-pong match which is why I am calling on
the House of Representatives to vote ``no'' on this resolution and get
on with the certainty that the current administration's rule provides.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams).
Mr. WILLIAMS of New York. Mr. Speaker, this picture accurately
captures the administration's definition of a navigable waterway. This
child playing with a paper boat in a puddle created by a rainstorm
would be subject to the almost comical definition of navigable
waterways this bill would amend.
This child's family--if they had saved enough money to build their
first home on this site with this rain puddle--could find themselves at
the mercy of the impersonal, bureaucratic, and deliberately ambiguous
rules of the EPA. Very quickly, this child's family would be drowned by
the costs, paperwork, and Byzantine rules of a faceless bureaucracy.
Stop using EPA bureaucrats as agents against the American people:
homeowners, small business owners, farmers, rural communities, and many
others. These WOTUS rules are designed to give nearly unlimited power
to EPA field agents to further control our delicate economy.
Nobel Prize-winner humanitarian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a victim of
the cruel Soviet system, warned us with these words: ``Unlimited power
in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.''
Protect American families and support this bill.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is the chairman of the
Congressional Western Caucus.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I am a third-generation hop and grape
farmer from the State of Washington. Being a good steward of the
environment has always been important to me, my family, and my
neighbors.
For generations, farmers and ranchers across the United States have
understood that in order to continue their important job of feeding the
world, we must work together to protect our clean water and conserve
our most precious natural resources.
And it has been to the great success. Our Nation's agricultural
community has voluntarily innovated over the years, finding ways to use
significantly less pesticides and fertilizers to grow even more food.
Yet, the administration has ignored all those facts and instead is
coming after our private property rights with their waters of the
United States rule.
WOTUS is nothing more than a power grab which would impose tighter
controls over the waters the Clean Water Act never intended to
regulate.
Let's be clear: WOTUS isn't just a logistical nightmare that has
plagued landowners, businesses, farmers, ranchers, and rural
communities across the country for years; it controls what people can
build or plant in and around streams, ponds, and irrigation ditches in
the middle of cropland giving the EPA unprecedented say over what
people can do or can't do with their land, and it calls into question
whether farmers could even begin to work their land.
This impacts our food supply, our housing industry, and many aspects
that have already been severely challenged by the administration's
overreaching policies.
This rule is not about clean water. Rural communities in the West and
across the country like central Washington are dedicated to clean
water, and they are the ones being punished by the continuing legal
uncertainty that this new final rule brings.
As chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, a bipartisan group
of nearly 100 Members who advocate for property rights and clean water,
I have consistently called on the administration to provide that
certainty that we all want.
In fact, we have led over 200 Members in a letter urging the
administration to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution,
push back on this administration's egregious overreach, and fight for
our food supply.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This debate we are having today is only about clean water, and we
need to put people and clean water above pollution. The administration
has a rule that provides certainty, and we should move forward on that.
But this debate is about clean water.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of not belaboring the great
points already made by my colleagues here today, I will keep this
brief.
The Biden administration's WOTUS rule creates a regulatory headache
for economic drivers like farmers, ranchers, small business owners,
manufacturers, miners, and more. Similar to the old Obama
administration WOTUS rule, this new rule is a gift to lawyers and
activists.
All this rule does is give D.C. bureaucrats a chance to trade in
their dress shoes for their never-worn cowboy boots, step over a few
puddles and call them navigable waters, and upend the lives of rural
Americans.
Time and time again, the Biden administration creates hardships for
the constituents I represent. Unfortunately, I expect no less from this
activist administration. It is clear that they do not consider rural
America a priority.
Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this CRA to nullify the
``sumbumcheous,'' devastating Biden administration WOTUS rule.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do have to address the comment about who cares about
rural America. I am not making an argument today that any one party or
any one person cares more about rural America.
However, if we are going to support rural America, keep implementing
the bipartisan infrastructure law, which puts $65 billion into
broadband, including billions of dollars to expand broadband into rural
areas--something happening in my State and States around the country.
Pass comprehensive immigration reform so there is a supply of workers
in this country, including farmworkers.
Open up trade agreements. Open up trade for agriculture, including ag
in my State, in my own district for the milk producers, the potato
producers, the raspberry and blueberry producers, who are exporting
product all over the country.
That is what it means--at least on my side of the State--to support
rural America.
I support rural America, and a lot of folks in this Chamber on both
sides support our farmers and rural America. Let's take action to do
just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.J. Res. 27. This
resolution will overturn Joe Biden's latest attempt to expand the
Federal Government's jurisdiction and regulate every aspect of our
lives.
[[Page H1229]]
The decision to return to the 2015 WOTUS rule puts burdensome
regulations that will devastate small businesses, manufacturers,
farmers, home and infrastructure builders, local communities, water
districts, and everyday Americans across my district in Colorado and
the entire country.
In short, the EPA's job-killing WOTUS regulation expands Washington
bureaucrats' jurisdiction over ditches and navigable waters,
threatening property rights and water rights for our communities. Rural
Colorado runs on water, and this unconstitutional regulation will harm
our way of life.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and chairman of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Sam Graves, for his great
work to protect private water rights. We all want clean air, we all
want clean water, and we know that we do it right without bureaucrats
getting in our way. I support this legislation.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison).
Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Graves for his amazing
leadership on this important topic.
The arrogance of liberal bureaucrats knows no bounds. When we think
that they cannot go any further, they decide that they can regulate the
rain that falls from the sky.
The waters of the U.S. regulation will cost our citizens, especially
farmers in my State of Missouri, who, on average, own 300 acres, which
is mostly small farms, it will saddle them with red tape.
Of course, we know why the Biden administration is imposing this on
our citizens and our farmers. The administration is not at all
interested in helping the average American farmer or supporting them.
They are more interested in appealing to the radical environmentalists
that want to control our lives.
Farmers have been hit hard with fuel costs, fertilizer costs, and
supply chain challenges recently. The last thing they need is this. The
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers should rescind this rule and leave
our farmers alone.
Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this resolution, I fully support it
and urge my colleagues to pass it.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing about the issues that farmers
face. I have 8,000 farmers in my district. Workforce, we hear about
comprehensive illegal immigration reform, yes, indeed. But, Mr.
Speaker, border security first. Border security first, then we can help
our farmers and others with comprehensive illegal immigration reform.
That never seems to be on the table. Rural broadband, absolutely. We
have been talking about it for far too long, and it is way late in
coming.
Mr. Speaker, this WOTUS, waters of the U.S., never have I heard such
a clamor from my farmers. This is such an insult, and it shows just
simply how out of touch those that would propose something like this
are when it is related to my farmers and the farmers throughout the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, we know that every day farmers live in an uncertain
climate, to say the least, to say it literally. The Biden
administration's proposal here is a far, far more burdensome regulation
that will create a higher level of uncertainty, increase compliance
costs for farmers during a time that costs are escalating.
This rule will literally lead to puddles and ditches on farmers'
property being regulated under the Clean Water Act. Temporary puddles,
temporary wetlands that evaporate in a few days they could be
responsible for, very often when it is miles away from navigable
waters.
If this rule goes into effect, small businesses--and landowners as
well--will be forced to spend thousands of dollars on consultants and
lawyers to determine if they need a Federal permit on their own land or
risk expensive penalties or even jail time.
The Supreme Court will be hearing this case soon. They will certainly
reverse any rule made. No WOTUS before SCOTUS.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will note that in the current administration's rule
the agencies added six additional exclusions to the regulatory text for
generally nonjurisdictional features under the pre-2015 regulatory
effort and continues the agencies' two longstanding exclusions for
wastewater treatment systems and prior converted farmland.
In addition, the final rule continues the agencies' longstanding
regulatory definition of wetlands, as well. Now, that changed a
longstanding definition of wetlands, something that again adds to the
certainty of the rule as well as with the six additional exclusions
creates more exclusions than in the Bush-era rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen).
Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Speaker, Article I, Section 1 of the United States
Constitution says that all legislative powers are to be vested in the
Congress. In the Congress, not the President.
The Biden administration's WOTUS rule is a perfect example of the
administration usurping the authority, the supremacy of the United
States Constitution.
This rule impacts private property, small business, farmers,
ranchers, including Jess Kane--I just got off the phone with him 20
minutes ago. Jess has a ranch south of Bartlesville, and he has about a
thousand acres in a floodplain. He is concerned about his ranch and how
this rule of the President will impact his ability to do what he has
always done and be able to manage a cow-calf operation.
Regulatory costs are a hidden tax and are now expected to be at least
$2 trillion, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. If you
think of regulation as a tax, it comes out to more than $14,000 per
family. It is a hidden tax, $14,000 per family, because of the
regulatory state.
Congress has the authority and duty to rein this in. We must inject
common sense, horse sense for our farmers, ranchers, small businesses,
and private property owners when the Presidency is going the opposite
direction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 27 and
overturn the WOTUS rule.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time to close.
Last year, this Congress came together to provide historic
investments in our Nation's infrastructure through the bipartisan
infrastructure law, providing communities with almost $13 billion in
clean water infrastructure upgrades and creating jobs.
These clean water investments help areas like Skagit County, where I
am from, which has used the Clean Water State Revolving Fund money to
protect the water quality of Gilligan Creek, the drinking water source
for many in that county.
Every day, more and more American families are realizing the public
health, economic, and environmental benefits of the bipartisan
infrastructure law, benefits that will continue as additional BIL
resources are made available and implemented across the country.
The BIL is what Congress can do at its best. This resolution is not.
This resolution provides no benefits to public health. It seeks to
eliminate protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands, many of which
serve as a source of drinking water for hundreds of millions of
Americans.
This resolution provides no benefits to our economy as a whole. It
not only casts aside a time-tested, scientifically based tool to
implement the Clean Water Act, but then further blocks the Corps of
Engineers and the EPA from providing any additional clarity to
businesses, farmers, and homebuilders going forward.
In short, this resolution is a recipe for uncertainty, for
litigation, for continued gridlock, the very things that my friends on
the other side of the aisle are really trying to avoid, as we are as
well.
[[Page H1230]]
This resolution is a step backward for clean water. It is a step
backward for certainty. I urge my colleagues to see this resolution for
what it is. It is not for clean water. It is an attack on our clean
water future. It fails to provide clarity. It fails to provide
consistency for our businesses, our farmers, and for many in our
communities who rely on clean water who are not businesses, who are not
farmers, who are not ranchers. Many of those folks look to Congress to
ensure clean water, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res.
27, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, while the Clean Water Act has greatly
improved the health of our Nation's waters, expansive interpretations
of it have also led to a whole lot of uncertainty in the 50 years since
it was passed, specifically when it comes to the definition of WOTUS.
Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration may think that they can get
away with this overbearing WOTUS rule and dramatic, dramatic expansion
of Federal authority, but we have to ensure that everyday Americans are
not subject to this outrageous government power grab, and that is what
it is.
Let's keep flawed Federal overreach out of the government by passing
H.J. Res. 27.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, serving in Ohio's 9th district, and as the
leading Democrat and Ranking Member on the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development, I am keenly aware that clean and
abundant water resources are vital for the success of our nation's
economy and the health of our communities. The Great Lakes region which
I proudly represent and champion provides drinking water for more than
40 million people and supports a $6 trillion economy. Before us is H.J.
Res. 27, another desperate attempt to weaken the Clean Water Act. After
decades of reckless pollution, a fire on the Cuyahoga River in
Cleveland, OH helped spark an environmental movement that brought us to
the passage of the visionary Clean Water Act in 1972. The 50-year
legacy of the CWA is a testament to the power of bipartisan legislation
that prioritizes people and communities. If successful, H.J. Res. 27.
would return us to a patchwork strategy of water management that
existed prior to 1972.
H.J. Res. 27 is yet another example of partisan politics that do
nothing for constituents in my district in Toledo and along Lake Erie--
or our neighbors throughout the Great Lakes region. Instead, this
resolution undermines long-standing guidance that protects our waters.
This resolution eliminates existing clarity and certainty that
businesses, developers, and farmers rely on, and it creates the
opportunity for our waterways to return to serving only as waste
receptacles. Even with a strong Clean Water Act, much remains to be
done to ensure clean drinking water for all; the 2014 Toledo water
crisis was the direct result of toxins in the water. Further eroding
our ability to protect our waters is a disservice to everyone. Today, I
will vote no on H.J. Res. 27 because protecting our Great Lakes is a
priority, and I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to do the same, so that our waterways can be protected for future
generations to come.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 27,
which would roll back important clean water protections.
Colleagues, for over 50 years, the Clean Water Act has served as an
essential pollution prevention tool and helped us clean up our nation's
streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands.
Clean water is a human right. And it is our shared responsibility to
ensure we protect human health and our environment for future
generations. Whether you live in the heartland near the Great Lakes, or
out west near the incredible Colorado River, we all benefit from the
federal protections of our waters. As one of the architects of the
Clean Water Act, John Dingell, wrote and made clear the intent was to
protect ``all the `waters of the United States.' ''
Wetlands, rivers, lakes, and streams must be protected and due to the
2019 repeal of this rule, there have been hundreds of development
projects that were able to move forward with limited regulation,
putting our water systems at risk. I would like to thank the Biden
administration for their leadership on its rule to establish a revised
definition of the ``Waters of the United States'' to protect our most
vital natural resource--water.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this resolution and
protect clean water for all Americans.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 27,
which would overturn a recent Biden Administration regulation
clarifying protection of America's waters under the Clean Water Act.
Communities in Minnesota and across our Nation need reliable access
to clean water. Without clean water our communities don't have access
to safe drinking water, farmers can't grow the food we eat, and our
nurses and doctors can't clean their hands before a procedure. Clean
water touches every facet of our daily lives, and our communities
cannot thrive without it.
If passed, H.J. Res. 27 would block the latest waters of the United
States (WOTUS) rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Army Corps of Engineers. The rule that the Biden Administration
is proposing would broaden definitions of waterways subject to
protection under the Clean Water Act to include connected waterways
such as wetlands. The new rule also seeks to provide clarity and
predictability for famers and developers while protecting our nation's
water quality and supply. H.J. Res. 27 would block this clarified rule.
For over 50 years, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to
protect and restore America's waters using the authorities granted in
the Clean Water Act. Members of Congress today have a responsibility to
protect this important legacy. Preserving the health of America's
wetlands and streams is essential to Minnesota, a state with more than
10,000 lakes and over 69,000 miles of river. Clean water touches every
aspect of our daily lives, and Americans cannot survive without it.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, H.J. Res. 27 is an attack on clean
water in communities all around the country.
It should be rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 199, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. 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.
____________________