[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1782-H1788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF 
                 THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 118-26)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Strong). Pursuant to the order of the 
House on April 10, 2023, the unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President on 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' ''.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of April 10, 2023, at 
page H1715.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Larsen), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on the veto message 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 am proud to once again 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.
  I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that since I last 
spoke on the floor of this Chamber in support of H.J. Res. 27, the 
resolution passed both the House and the Senate with bipartisan 
support.
  While the Clean Water Act has greatly improved the health of our 
Nation's waters in the 50 years since it has become law, this 
administration's rule defining a ``water of the United States,'' or 
WOTUS, is just the latest in a string of examples of executive 
overreach beyond the intent of the Clean Water Act.
  Decades of agency interpretations and misinterpretations of WOTUS 
have created a lot of uncertainty for rural communities, farmers, 
businesses, and industries that rely on clean water, and this rule does 
absolutely nothing to provide clarity.
  In his message to the House regarding the veto of this legislation, 
the President claims that H.J. Res. 27 ``would leave Americans without 
a clear definition of `waters of the United States.'''

                              {time}  1415

  This is simply untrue and disingenuous, especially considering it was 
his own administration that decided to get rid of the 2020 Navigable 
Waters Protection Rule, which provided long-awaited clarity on the 
scope of WOTUS, in favor of this new overreaching and unclear 
definition.
  This issue matters to everyday Americans all over the country, and I 
hear about it all the time.
  I am disappointed to see the President favor radical environmental 
activists over America's families, small businesses, farmers, builders, 
and property owners.
  That being said, I am hopeful that the Members of the House and 
Senate can come together to override this veto, terminating this 
ambiguous and burdensome rule in favor of greater economic prosperity 
for Americans nationwide.
  Recently, two Federal courts halted enforcement of the 
administration's rule, granting relief to farmers, homebuilders, and 
landowners in 26 States.
  Every Member today has the opportunity to vote to override the 
President's veto and ensure all 50 States are relieved of the burdens 
this rule has created.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override 
the President's veto of H.J. Res. 27, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, clean water is critical for the health and safety of our 
communities and our families. Our local businesses, farmers, and our 
economy depend on clean water for their success and their prosperity.
  House Democrats have a proud and successful history of supporting 
clean water. House Democrats have championed investments in our 
Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure systems, ensuring that all 
communities can trust in the safety of the water they drink and the 
treatment of the wastewater they produce.
  Last Congress, House Democrats provided historic, bipartisan 
investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. Specifically for clean water, the BIL invests 
almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure and is creating jobs 
in communities across the country.
  The BIL showed what Congress can do when we focus on the needs of 
American families. Today, I would put to you that we are doing the 
opposite and putting polluters over people with this doomed veto 
override attempt.
  In my own State of Washington, we are defined by clean water, 
including the health of the iconic Puget Sound and the hundreds of 
crystal clear lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams that 
run through our 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 know we can protect clean water while providing 
certainty to businesses, farmers, and for everyone who depends 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 drinking water at a time when many 
States continue to face 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. So do we. We 
agree on that.
  The Biden administration's Clean Water Restoration Rule does just 
that, following the law and the science of protecting clean water while 
providing regulatory certainty and stability for everyone.
  Unfortunately, this resolution will do the opposite.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the administration's call for vetoing H.J. 
Res. 27.
  The argument is that they want bright lines in the regulation of 
clean water, yet the only proposal that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle seem to support is the Navigable

[[Page H1783]]

Waters Protection Rule of the previous administration, a proposal that 
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, not by this 
administration, but by a Federal court in 2021, as fundamentally flawed 
and likely to cause serious environmental harm every day that it 
remained in effect.
  Yet, despite their call for certainty, my colleagues have failed to 
recognize that passage of this resolution that is before us today would 
leave Americans without a clear definition of waters of the United 
States.
  By taking away this clarity, this resolution brings back the very 
same uncertainty and ambiguity that supporters claim to be concerned 
about. I know they are concerned about that uncertainty.
  This resolution will adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and 
developers by creating regulatory chaos and eliminating important 
exclusions that have been codified in this administration's rule to 
help water-dependent businesses and farmers understand and comply with 
the law.
  For example, because it prohibits the EPA from issuing substantially 
the same rule, this resolution means the elimination of two 
longstanding exclusions for wastewater treatment systems and prior 
converted crop land--exclusions that have been relied upon by 
communities, developers, industry, and farmers for decades.
  This resolution would also eliminate six new regulatory exclusions 
for features considered generally non-jurisdictional, including certain 
ditches, artificially irrigated areas, and artificial lakes or ponds.
  Ironically, this resolution will result in more uncertainty and more 
bodies of water being regulated than under the administration's 
proposal. You don't have to take my word for it. Just read the 
Congressional Budget Office report accompanying this resolution. It is 
right in there.
  As I mentioned previously on this floor and in another debate on this 
issue, the Biden proposal will not adversely impact family farmers in 
this country, period. Why?
  Because farmers are, by statute, largely exempt from the Clean Water 
Act regulation where less than 1 percent of all wetlands permits relate 
to ag activities nationwide.
  Therefore, if a farm is engaged in normal farming, forestry, and 
ranching activity, that farm is exempt from regulation, and the current 
proposal does not change that exemption.
  In short, this resolution still makes no sense. It invalidates the 
Biden rule and all the clarifications and all of the exceptions for 
business it contains in favor of a similarly structured but much less 
clear regulatory framework.
  It increases uncertainty and the likelihood of continued legal 
battles and gridlock; the opposite of what businesses and farmers are 
looking for.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this administration's efforts on clean water, 
both through implementation of the critical bipartisan infrastructure 
law investments in water infrastructure and its veto of this 
shortsighted resolution.
  This resolution represents a step backward for clean water, increases 
uncertainty for businesses, and doubles down on fighting and on chaos.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to oppose this 
resolution and work toward real predictability for businesses 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 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the chairman of the Highways 
and Transit Subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this. Here we are again. We are here once again to speak against the 
Biden administration's new waters of the United States rule. This is a 
bridge too far. Since this issue last appeared on the House floor, a 
Federal judge blocked the rule, as the chairman mentioned, in 26 
States.
  It seems that even our judicial system is signaling this is a vast 
overstep of Federal jurisdiction. Yet, President Biden is insistent on 
pushing this resolution through. There are already State and local laws 
in place to protect our waterways, and these entities are much better 
equipped to oversee small, isolated bodies of water.
  All this change does is create more red tape for farmers, ranchers, 
and landowners. What it does not do, it doesn't make our waterways any 
cleaner.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and give 
the power back to the States.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the 
following letter from 111 organizations opposed to overriding the veto 
of this Congressional Review Act resolution.
                                                   April 17, 2023.
     Re: Vote NO on the veto override of H.J. Res. 27, the 
         Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval 
         of the Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the United 
         States''.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and 
     supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose 
     the attempt to override President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 
     27, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of 
     disapproval targeting the Revised Definition of the ``Waters 
     of the United States'' rule (Clean Water Restoration Rule). 
     This dangerous legislation would invalidate the Biden 
     administration's recently finalized regulation, which ensures 
     protections for many of the waters that our families and 
     communities value and depend on.
       This Clean Water Restoration Rule ensures that critical 
     waters--from small streams to rivers to wetlands--are 
     protected from unregulated pollution and destruction when 
     they have important downstream effects on water quality. The 
     rule is a return to a familiar approach that the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps 
     of Engineers (USACE) have used to identify waters that 
     qualify as ``waters of the United States'' since President 
     George W. Bush's administration. It also resoundingly rejects 
     the Trump-era approach, which unlawfully and unscientifically 
     rolled back the Clean Water Act's long standing protections 
     and reinstates basic safeguards to ensure big polluters can 
     be stopped from recklessly and indiscriminately bulldozing 
     our wetlands and dumping waste into our streams. The Clean 
     Water Restoration Rule is grounded in science, which 
     demonstrates that the condition of waters often depends on 
     water bodies upstream, and those upstream waters must be 
     protected to safeguard the health of downstream communities 
     and the environment. The rule will more effectively fulfill 
     the purpose of the Clean Water Act: ``to restore and maintain 
     the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
     Nation's waters.''
       By using the Congressional Review Act to attack the Clean 
     Water Restoration Rule, H.J. Res. 27 is employing an 
     incredibly blunt tool in a dangerous attempt to undermine the 
     Clean Water Act itself. When a rule is undone using the CRA 
     process, future administrations are prevented from issuing 
     rules that are ``substantially the same,'' which could 
     undermine future agency action to the benefit of polluters. 
     Despite rhetoric that this bill is being promoted to provide 
     certainty for businesses and other stakeholders, it would 
     actually do the opposite. For instance, should H.J. Res. 27 
     become law, both protections and exemptions codified in the 
     Clean Water Restoration Rule, including ones for the 
     agriculture industry, could be called into question in future 
     efforts designed to define ``waters of the United States.'' 
     The only stakeholders who benefit from this attack on our 
     clean water protections are big polluters who dump waste into 
     our waterways and burden our families and communities with 
     the health and environmental costs.
       Again, we ask you to oppose the veto override of H.J. Res. 
     27, the CRA joint resolution disapproving of the Biden-Harris 
     administration's Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the 
     United States.'' This harmful bill is simply a polluter-
     driven effort to undermine the Clean Water Act and the 
     critical safeguards that it provides for our waters. Congress 
     should be doing more, not less, to protect our waterways and 
     to ensure that everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or 
     income, has access to clean, safe water.
           Sincerely,
       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; Asociacion de Residentes de La 
     Margaita, Inc; Atchafalaya Basinkeeper; Black Millennials 
     4 Flint; Cahaba River Society; California Environmental 
     Voters; Center for a Sustainable Coast; 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; 
     Endangered Habitats League;

[[Page H1784]]

     Environment America; Environment Maine; Environment Michigan; 
     Environment Minnesota; Environment Montana; Environment 
     Nevada.
       Environment New Hampshire; Environment New York; 
     Environment Ohio; Environment Rhode Island; Environment 
     Texas; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental 
     Working Group; Food & Water Watch; 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; 
     Green Latinos; Groundswell Charleston SC; Gullah/Geechee Sea 
     Island Coalition; Harpeth Conservancy.
       Healthy Gulf; Hispanic Federation; Idaho Rivers United; 
     Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; Kentucky Waterways 
     Alliance; Izaak Walton League of America; Lake Erie 
     Waterkeeper; 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 Vote; Milton's Concerned 
     Citizens; Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Mississippi River 
     Collaborative; Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper; Montana 
     Conservation Voters; MS Communities United for Prosperity 
     (MCUP).
       National Wildlife Federation; Natural Heritage Institute; 
     Natural Resources Defense Council; NC Conservation Network; 
     NC League of Conservation Voters; New Mexico Climate Justice; 
     New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New York League of 
     Conservation Voters; Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition; 
     Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness; Ohio Environmental 
     Council; Ohio River Foundation; Our Children's Earth 
     Foundation; Park Watershed; 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 Greater New Orleans; Tookany/
     Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership; Virginia League of 
     Conservation Voters; Washington Conservation Action; 
     Waterkeepers Chesapeake; Weequahic Park Association; Winyah 
     Rivers Alliance.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), the cosponsor of the 
resolution and the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the override of 
President Biden's veto of this resolution, which I was proud to 
introduce alongside and with Chairman Sam Graves. Of course, this 
repeals the EPA's new waters of the U.S. rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize that this administration has never 
seen an onerous rule it didn't like, but the President's veto of this 
resolution reversing one of the Federal Government's most egregious 
rules to date really takes the cake.
  This resolution passed in both Chambers with a bipartisan vote, yet 
the President and his administration refuse to even consider the 
devastation this new WOTUS rule, if ultimately left intact by the 
courts, will cause.
  This new rule, with all its ambiguity, and therefore subjectivity, 
was issued mere months before the Supreme Court is anticipated to 
decide in Sackett v. EPA, a decision all but guaranteed to update the 
definition of the WOTUS once again, making this mud puddle of 
complexity even muddier.
  While this is clear to many Members on both sides of the aisle here 
in Congress, this administration continues to bow down to the demands 
of radical environmentalists while ignoring the commonsense calls to 
revoke this misguided rule.
  Unfortunately, the inconsistencies so many of us have said would 
result from this rule has already begun. Last week, a U.S. district 
court judge issued a preliminary injunction on the rule after 24 
attorneys general filed suit. However, this only applies in those 24 
States, as well as Texas and Idaho following action within their own 
courts. This means half of the country is currently subject to the rule 
and the other half is not.
  I am disappointed North Carolina's attorney general did not join that 
effort. In North Carolina's Seventh Congressional District that I have 
the honor to represent, storms can bring very heavy rains, and with 
creeks, streams, and rivers everywhere throughout the landscape, water 
lingering for short periods of time could easily be classified as a 
WOTUS, depending on the viewpoint of the bureaucrat making the 
judgment. Heavy fines, litigation, and even prosecution can and does 
result.
  Further, the overregulation and broad scope of interpretations of 
this rule have grave implications for cattle, poultry, and hog farmers 
in North Carolina. These farmers are often victims of environmentalists 
and trial lawyers looking for a gotcha moment in their quest to upend 
the efficiency and sustainability of our food system. This WOTUS rule 
puts a target on their backs, and it is why my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle that also represent strong agricultural communities 
supported this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote today is an opportunity for our legislative 
body to exercise one of its most basic but fundamental 
responsibilities, to serve as a check on the executive branch when it 
goes against the will and interests of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, this WOTUS rule clearly does that. I urge my colleagues 
to support this override of the President's veto.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member for the time, and I also thank the managers who are on the floor 
today.
  Let me clarify the reason for my being present as a member of the 
Homeland Security Committee, and one who has dealt with the issues by 
way of national security issues of water chemical contamination.
  I rise with great opposition to H.J. Res. 27.
  Let me call the roll: Flint, Michigan; Jackson, Mississippi; East 
Palestine, which it is known that the derailment also contaminated 
water; and cancer clusters in Houston where runoffs were contaminating 
the water.
  Let me give you the basis of what this is about. The rule that we are 
trying to oppose reestablishes critical protections for the Nation's 
vital water resources by returning to the longstanding 1986 regulations 
with appropriate updates, exclusions, and streamlining clarifications.
  In fact, the plain statement is that H.J. Res. 27 would leave 
Americans without a clear waters of the United States definition, which 
deals with the overall question of clean water.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose it because it does clarify the categories of 
water bodies and wetlands that would be subject to government 
protection under the Clean Water Act. People are suffering across 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, to my good friend with the lawsuit by 24 States--we have 
50 States. It is very clear that my good friends in the red States, the 
AGs, thought that they would undermine the President's direction on 
clean water.
  H.J. Res. 27 would carelessly bind the hands of Federal agencies 
working to protect our country's water supply and quality while 
creating instability for farmers and developers. This does not work.
  If H.J. Res. 27 was to become law, it may have a detrimental effect 
on the Clean Water Act, a law that prohibits the discharge of 
pollutants into our country's rivers and safeguards the quality of our 
water resources.
  We are a smart and big country. We can definitely find ways to help 
our farmers. We are getting ready to do the farm bill. We definitely 
can find ways to help those who engage in economic development.
  It is important to prevent this joint resolution in order to maintain 
the Clear Water Act because the CWA places restrictions on the number 
of pollutants that can be emitted and mandates that any plant that 
releases pollutants into U.S. waters acquire a permit.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, is that too onerous?
  I heard someone use that term ``to save lives'' and to prevent babies 
from having an impact by drinking this water and having distorted 
growth.
  The Clean Water Act also permits the use of Federal funding to 
support the construction and maintenance of water treatment facilities 
by local governments and other organizations. I can tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, Houston, Texas, needs those resources, and so do other

[[Page H1785]]

cities. I would hate to undermine those resources.
  The Clean Water Act has been an essential tool for preserving the 
health of U.S. water resources and for ensuring that Americans have 
access to clean, safe water.
  By establishing standards, funding infrastructure projects, and 
promoting monitoring research activities, the Clean Water Act has been 
a significant factor in preserving and enhancing Houston's water 
quality.
  I have worked with the Army Corps of Engineers. They listen. If they 
speak up and say that this is the framework which we need and the EPA, 
as well, that has been on front lines of contamination, that seems to 
be the call of the day because our good friends in corporate America, 
trains, and otherwise, seemingly don't listen.
  Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I just rode in on a train. I believe in that 
mode of opportunity and transportation. Let's have everyone be fair and 
responsible to what we have to do to protect the water of this Nation.
  The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. According to the EPA, the 
number of water bodies in the U.S. that were safe for fishing and 
swimming has increased from 36 percent to over 60 percent.
  When you have something that is working, Mr. Speaker, why are you 
undermining it?
  So I am clearly in the position to say that in 2019 the EPA awarded 
$4.2 million to the city of Houston to fund projects aimed at improving 
water quality and storm water management.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, we advocated for that management. We have hurricanes. 
And when we have hurricanes, we are always subject to the system not 
being able to hold the water and contamination is a possibility.
  According to the Houston Public Works Department, the city's 
wastewater treatment plant treats an average of 304 million gallons of 
wastewater per day. These treatment plants are required to meet strict 
standards.
  I will say that all cities and counties we are all working to 
maintain clean water. We have a situation that we are working on in my 
local community of Houston, wastewater and sewage.
  What do you think we would do, Mr. Speaker, without the Clean Water 
Act?
  Please don't undermine us. Don't undermine us and the local people. 
Listen to the roll call: Flint; Jackson, Mississippi; East Palestine; 
and many others.
  Let us oppose this particular H.J. Res. and let us recognize that we 
have the responsibility. If we are doing nothing else, we have got to 
be responsible with H.J. Res. 27, opposing it, so that we can stand up 
for the children of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 27.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of 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' ''.
  H.J. Res. 27 is specifically intended to oppose the ``Revised 
Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' rule, which clarifies 
and broadens the categories of water bodies and wetlands that would be 
subject to government protection under the Clean Water Act.
  In 2019, the EPA awarded over $4.2 million to the city of Houston to 
fund projects aimed at improving water quality and stormwater 
management.
  According to the Houston Public Works department, the city's 
wastewater treatment plants treat an average of 304 million gallons of 
wastewater per day.
  These treatment plants are required to meet strict standards set by 
the Clean Water Act, which helps ensure that the water discharged from 
the plants is safe for the environment and public health.
  The EPA has identified several bodies of water in the Houston area as 
``impaired'' due to pollution, including parts of the Buffalo Bayou and 
Galveston Bay. However, thanks in part to the Clean Water Act, the 
overall water quality in the area has improved over the past few 
decades.
  According to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
Clean Water Act has helped prevent an estimated 230,000 cases of 
childhood gastrointestinal illness in Texas each year by reducing water 
pollution.
  It is important to oppose this resolution because H.J. Res. 27 will 
be the sixth attempt at weakening the Clean Water Act.
  Over many years, Republicans in Congress and industry groups argued 
that the restrictions were overly broad and would have negatively 
impacted farmers, ranchers, and other businesses by subjecting more 
waters to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act.
  H.J. Res 27 will carelessly bind the hands of federal agencies 
working to protect our country's water supply and quality. We need to 
help farmers have clean water with effective oversight.
  If H.J. Res. 27 were to become law, it may have a detrimental effect 
on the Clean Water Act (CWA), a law that prohibits the discharge of 
pollutants into our country's rivers and safeguards the quality of our 
water resources.
  It's important to prevent this joint resolution in order to maintain 
the Clean Water Act because the CWA places restrictions on the number 
of pollutants that can be emitted and mandates that any plant that 
releases pollutants into US waters acquire a permit.
  The Clean Water Act also permits the use of federal funding to 
support the construction and maintenance of water treatment facilities 
by local governments and other organizations.
  The Clean Water Act has been an essential tool for preserving the 
health of US water resources and for ensuring that Americans have 
access to clean, safe water.
  By establishing standards, funding infrastructure projects, and 
promoting monitoring and research activities, the Clean Water Act has 
been a significant factor in preserving and enhancing Houston's water 
quality.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since the 
Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, the number of water bodies in the 
U.S. that are safe for fishing and swimming has increased from 36 
percent to over 60 percent.
  However because to statutory exclusions for routine farming, 
forestry, and ranching activities as well as for the building and 
upkeep of farm and stock ponds and irrigation ditches, farmers are 
mainly exempt from the Clean Water Act's regulatory requirements.
  Less than 1 percent of all permits issued under Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act are for agricultural purposes.
  Yet, this resolution will abolish elements of the Biden rule intended 
to provide farmers further advantages, such as the recodification of 
the previous converted cropland exclusion and new regulatory exclusions 
for specific ditches, irrigated regions, such as rice fields and 
erosional features.
  Eliminating these agricultural exclusions will increase uncertainty 
rather than decrease it.
  In addition, The Biden regulation reinstates the same scientifically 
based standards that have been used for decades by every presidential 
administration, including originally the Trump administration.
  I would like to thank Biden Administration for keeping those rules in 
place that helps the resident of Houston to have a better water quality 
and help farmers to maintain the productivity of their land and support 
sustainable agricultural practices.
  As a Senior member of the Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res 27 so we may keep defending the 
water's purity and the health of our citizens.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte), who is somebody who personally 
knows how disruptive this rule can be.
  Mr. DUARTE. Mr. Speaker, I wish we were here talking about clean 
water. We can all agree, as we did back in 1974 when we passed the 
Clean Water Act and we gave the government all it needed to deliver 
clean water to America, the rivers no longer burn. Trains do fall in 
rivers, but that is a jurisdictional river. That is not what we are 
talking about today.
  What we are talking about today is how much dry land, how much 
farmland, and how much rolling hills and grassy fields with no frogs, 
no fish, and no water most of the year are going to be regulated by 
this administration.
  Back when we passed the Clean Water Act, it was bipartisan. 
Republicans and Democrats got together, and we gave the government 
jurisdiction to protect our clean drinking water. Our harbors, our 
rivers, and our streams are protected. Our lakes are protected. Our 
drinking water is protected. Nothing here today will have any impact on 
whether we have safe drinking water or not.
  As a farmer, I was prosecuted under the Clean Water Act for planting 
wheat in a wheat field that had been planted

[[Page H1786]]

to wheat with the same practices many times before. What we are talking 
about here today is expanding the authorities of the Clean Water Act to 
regulate almost every activity--construction, farm production, energy 
exploration--that can happen on open fields that might from one time or 
another pocket a little bit of water.
  When I went through delineation on my property, it took 2 years just 
to get enough rain to be able to tell where the wetlands were under the 
previous clean water rule.
  So let's not pretend this is about clean water. This is about 
government control of land, it is about affordable food, and it is 
about affordable housing. It is about use of our lands by private 
landowners for economic purposes.
  What we are doing today here is telling the President that he didn't 
have authority to do this back in 1974, and he doesn't have authority 
to do it today.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 27, the 
Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval targeting the 
clean water restoration rule.
  Our waterways, like the mighty Hudson and Mohawk Rivers that flow 
through my district in New York's capital region, are key economic 
engines as drivers of heritage tourism and outdoor recreation, as well 
as cherished gathering spaces for our communities, if we indeed care 
for them.
  The Biden administration's clean water restoration rule restores 
protections for the rivers, the streams, and the wetlands that 
constituents in all of our district areas rely upon.
  I will reinstate key safeguards to stop big polluters from recklessly 
dumping waste into our water systems and damaging the fragile wetlands 
that are so crucial for the resilience of our coasts.
  Importantly, the rule is grounded in science. An important fact. It 
restores the same science-based approach that Presidential 
administrations have utilized for decades to assess the conditions of 
upstream waters to protect the health of downstream ecosystems and 
communities.
  Our water systems are fragile and interconnected. As an engineer, I 
know the importance of using a science and data-driven approach to 
achieve the very best results for our communities.
  The dangerous legislation before us today is an attempt to overturn 
these finalized regulations. This is an attack on the clean water that 
is critical to the health of our communities, our Nation's economy, and 
particularly our agricultural and energy sectors.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose it.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).
  Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman and his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding President Biden's veto 
of H.J. Res. 27. Overriding the veto would get rid of a Biden 
administration rule that hurts American landowners, small business 
owners, and farmers.
  Back in 2020, the EPA addressed a longstanding problem. It got rid of 
a broad and confusing definition of waters of the United States, also 
known as WOTUS, and replaced it with a definition that was much more 
specific and easier to understand. But no good deed is left unpunished.
  Mr. Speaker, landowners need to know if their body of water meets the 
definition of a WOTUS, because if it does, then it is subject to much, 
much stricter environmental regulations.
  Of course, the Biden administration is doing what it does best, and 
it is messing up the situation.
  It is like my dad used to say about education: The problem we have 
with education is we called in the people who created the problem to 
fix it.
  That is what they are doing.
  It repealed that clear definition of a WOTUS from 2020 and replaced 
it with a more confusing and ambiguous one. This means a lot more 
landowners, small business owners, and farmers will need to hire 
expensive lawyers and consultants just to figure out if their body of 
water now qualifies as a WOTUS. This is another example of bringing in 
the bureaucrats to fix a problem that they have created.
  A lot of my constituents are farmers and landowners, of course. Many 
are both of those. It is hard enough for them to take care of their 
land and follow these crazy environmental regulations without adding 
the burden of trying to figure out what these regulations are in the 
first place.
  Basically what we have done is we have taken this away from the mom 
and pop farmers, the people who have inherited the land and who respect 
the land. No one respects the land more than a farmer, Mr. Speaker. We 
are replacing it with multinational globalist corporations who control 
politicians like the puppet masters that they are.
  This administration needs to stop throwing bureaucracies at every 
situation it can get its hands on.
  Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't work. This time it will hurt Americans 
who work hard to take care of their land and their businesses.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I 
want to state, again, for the record, that the Federal courts blocked 
the implementation of the previous administration's navigable waters 
protection rule. It wasn't this administration.
  In response to that, the administration developed a new rule, this 
particular one that we are debating today. So it needs to be said for 
the record that the Federal courts made a decision about the previous 
administration's rule, not this particular administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams).
  Mr. WILLIAMS of New York. Mr. Speaker, the redefinition of these 
waters of the United States rules is really only about one thing, and 
that is Government overreach.
  When faced with a crisis, the Government is given a broad mandate and 
loves very vague rules.
  Just recently, we remember the incredible rules of the COVID crisis 
and the extraordinary powers granted to Government to effect this 
crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, if you remember the definition of essential businesses, 
essential personnel, essential services, then you have some idea really 
of what the waters of the United States redefinition desired by 
activist courts and desired by current administration means.
  You can imagine the effect it will have on our lives, Mr. Speaker.
  The Clean Water Act was a broad power given in 1974 to clean up 
polluted waterways.
  Guess what, Mr. Speaker?
  It worked. We have clean waters and clean rivers. It has been an 
extraordinary success since the high point of pollution in the 1970s. 
With a government that is hungry for power, as we learned most recently 
in COVID, bureaucrats remembered that vague rules allow for 
extraordinary powers. You are not a farmer; you are a polluter. You are 
not a homeowner; you are a polluter. You are not a home builder; you 
are a polluter. You are guilty until proven innocent.
  My colleagues across the aisle say that this provides clarity, and it 
does.
  But clarity for whom?
  This rule provides clarity only to EPA regulators who will have 
extraordinary authority. It doesn't provide clarity to homeowners, 
farmers, and home builders.
  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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), who is the chairman of the 
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. We are not talking about the Clean Water 
Act. We are talking about the waters of the United States of America, 
Mr. Speaker, and definitionally what has happened here is the 
administration didn't like what was in the rule and the regulations, 
and it has changed the definition.
  They didn't like it, so they changed the definition such that under 
this rule, nearly every single property

[[Page H1787]]

across the entire United States that is subject to one drop of rain is 
now open to enforcement by the Federal Government--not your State 
government, and not your local government--the Federal Government 
coming in to tell you that you are a polluter and that you are misusing 
your land because a drop of rain landed on it.
  People say: Oh, you don't really mean a drop of rain.
  Yes, I do mean a drop of rain. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is the EPA 
that will determine the definition on a case-by-case basis arbitrarily, 
which is what they want.
  That is why it is important that we override the President's veto.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, he didn't veto on behalf of the United States 
of America. The United States of America sent the people to this 
Chamber to vote on what they wanted, and we passed the Congressional 
Review Act to say that we don't want the definition changed.
  The President doesn't like that.
  Half of the bureaucrats who work in Washington, D.C., probably don't 
even have a yard. They probably live in a high-rise. They don't even 
have grass, but yet they are going to tell you how you are going to 
live your life and how you are going to use your land based on the 
Federal Government's rule.
  Threats of imprisonment under ambiguous terminology and threats of 
financial ruin is what belies this bill and the American people if we 
allow this to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption. We must override the President's veto. 
We must stand for the American people and individual property rights 
which are the bedrock and the foundation of the United States of 
America.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just 
to clarify that if this passes and we override the veto message, the 
end result will be reverting to a rule that was created around 2007, 
2008, not the last administration's rule but another rule that I don't 
think either side likes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
  Mrs. BICE. Mr. Speaker, President Biden's waters of the United States 
rule seeks to insert the Federal Government into every stream, pond, 
and ditch in America, even those on private property.
  When I am back in Oklahoma, I regularly hear from farmers, ranchers, 
energy producers, and small businesses about their concerns with the 
Biden administration's WOTUS rule.
  For my constituents, it is absolutely unthinkable that a Federal 
bureaucrat from Washington would come on their private property to 
regulate an intermittent stream that may only have water in it for a 
few days a year. This is a huge overreach.
  It is also worth noting that regulations such as WOTUS, along with 
others from Federal, State, and local governments, account for up to 25 
percent of the price of a new single-family home and over 40 percent 
for a multifamily development.
  Under WOTUS, the significant nexus test would result in increased 
regulatory uncertainty for Oklahomans. Furthermore, the ambiguous 
nature of its policies will further delay vital projects on strict 
timelines.
  Despite bipartisan opposition to the WOTUS rule, President Biden 
still elected to veto the resolution.
  American families, farmers, and small businesses are suffering under 
the economic crises caused by President Biden's policies. The last 
thing they need is more burdensome regulations.
  Today's vote to overturn Biden's veto would empower local landowners 
instead of giving power to unelected Federal bureaucrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).
  Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the farmers, 
ranchers, agricultural producers, and independent oil and gas producers 
that have been forced to operate their businesses under three different 
definitions of the word ``water'' in the past 10 years alone.
  Congress has spoken clearly on this issue. President Biden received a 
bicameral, bipartisan joint resolution of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act on his administration's flawed and burdensome 
waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule. He vetoed it, and that is 
inexplicable. Congress, not the executive branch, was created to 
legislate, and it is sad that this particular example of legislating 
from the executive branch serves as an outrageous instance of 
government overreach.
  While President Biden would like to federally regulate every small 
stream, ditch, and puddle from sea to shining 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 own water 
resources.
  How we vote today will speak volumes. By overriding President Biden's 
veto, Congress has the opportunity to stand up not only for the people 
who feed, fuel, and clothe us all, but also for all Americans whose 
businesses and private lives would be affected by this Big Government 
encroachment onto their property.
  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. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have a long, proud, and successful 
history of supporting clean water. Last year, House Democrats 
successfully made 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 are helping everyday Americans with 
safe, reliable, and sustainable water and wastewater services while 
providing good-paying jobs that cannot be sent overseas and 
reinvigorating our State and local economies.
  Every day, more and more Americans are realizing the public health, 
economic, and environmental benefits of this transformative law, 
benefits that will continue as additional resources are implemented 
across the country.
  The bipartisan infrastructure law was what Congress can do at its 
best. This resolution is the opposite. Again, I support President Biden 
for his decision to veto this resolution.
  My colleagues say they want certainty, and we agree, but that 
certainty that we support also ensures the health and safety of our 
environment for current and future generations. This resolution, 
though, provides no certainty.
  I argue that it is a playbook for how to create confusion, more 
litigation, and continued gridlock.
  This resolution provides no benefits to public health. It seeks to 
eliminate protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands, many of which 
provide drinking water for millions of Americans.
  This resolution provides no benefits for our economy. It not only 
casts aside a time-tested, scientifically based tool to implement the 
Clean Water Act, but it also blocks any provision of additional clarity 
for businesses, farmers, and homebuilders going forward.
  In short, this resolution is a step backward for clean water, and it 
is a step backward for certainty.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto by 
voting ``no'' and to reject this attack on our clean water future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration's definition of ``waters of the 
United States'' under the Clean Water Act is an onerous, burdensome, 
and ambiguous rule that is going to create even more issues for 
hardworking farmers, builders, small businesses, and property owners 
throughout the Nation.

[[Page H1788]]

  While the President claims that the rule is going to help advance 
infrastructure projects, economic investment, and agricultural 
activities in his veto message, this simply is not the case. Instead, 
this costly, overreaching rule favors radical environmentalists at the 
expense of infrastructure, agriculture, and economic growth and those 
who depend on these activities.
  Last month, Members from both parties in the House and Senate came 
together to stand up for everyday Americans by rejecting this flawed 
rule. Today, we have the opportunity to do so again.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto 
and vote in support of H.J. Res. 27, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________