[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.
____________________