[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 50 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H1322-H1340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CREATING CONFIDENCE IN CLEAN WATER PERMITTING ACT
General Leave
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7023.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garbarino). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 7023.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1445
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 7023) to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to codify certain regulatory provisions relating to nationwide
permits for dredged or fill material, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Meuser in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in section 6 of House Resolution 1085 and shall not exceed 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
{time} 1445
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 7023, the
Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act, which will make
permitting processes under the Clean Water Act more efficient,
consistent, and transparent while continuing to protect our Nation's
water quality.
The Clean Water Act became law in 1972 with strong bipartisan support
and an understanding that clean water supports healthy communities, as
well as every industry across the United States, from farming to
fishing to manufacturing.
Unfortunately, we have seen this important law become increasingly
weaponized over the years to delay permits and prevent critical
infrastructure and energy projects from moving forward without
providing any additional environmental protection.
Ultimately, the weaponization harms the health and well-being of our
Nation. This bill will address these problems and greatly benefit
manufacturers, farmers, energy producers, road constructors, home
builders, water treatment plants, and supply chain managers, among
others, by providing clarity under the Clean Water Act.
Every person throughout the country relies on these industries and
will also benefit from the regulatory flexibility and faster completion
of these projects.
I emphasize that this bill does not overhaul or weaken the Clean
Water Act. Instead, the Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting
Act codifies longstanding, effective permitting practices and makes
targeted, commonsense reforms.
Mr. Chairman, I thank all of my colleagues on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee who worked on various aspects of this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this commonsense legislation that is
going
[[Page H1323]]
to provide clarity to the Clean Water Act permitting process, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
7023.
This bill significantly restricts the oversight and regulatory
authorities of the EPA and Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water
Act.
The Clean Water Act, enacted over 50 years ago, is the Nation's
bedrock environmental law for restoring and maintaining the ``chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' and water
resources.
However, the changes in H.R. 7023 defy the act's overarching intent
and gut the independent authority of both agencies to ensure that
projects and activities are carried out with only minimal impacts to
water resources.
This partisan bill weakens clean water protections while providing
exemptions, legal shields, and limited oversight to special interest
polluters and large-scale projects that demand higher scrutiny.
The bill disregards congressional intent in establishing EPA's
independent oversight authority over clean water permits, undermines
permitting requirements, eliminates judicial review and public
engagement, rolls back oversight of mining companies and industrial
polluters, inadvertently slows down permit processing with increased
bureaucracy, and complicates State-determined decisions.
Mr. Chairman, this bill would also significantly reduce remaining
Clean Water Act protections over critical rivers, streams, lakes, and
wetlands that survived last year's Supreme Court ruling.
Not satisfied with the Court's Sackett decision that eliminated
protections for more than 50 percent of the wetlands and up to 70
percent of the streams, this package of anti-clean water proposals
would further hamstring the EPA's and Corps' abilities to operate
independently to protect our Nation's waterways.
These proposals go in the wrong direction by giving even more to
polluters and sacrificing the needs of communities that depend on clean
water.
After Sackett, Congress should be working to restore the protections
of the Clean Water Act that worked for over 50 years and to move H.R.
5983, the Clean Water Act of 2023, a bill that I have cosponsored with
over 130 of my colleagues, to restore clean water protections over our
waters, many of which serve as irreplaceable sources of water for
families, our communities, our farms, our businesses, our industries,
and our quality of life.
We have made too much progress in cleaning up the rivers and streams
for Congress to give up now. Mr. Chairman, that is why I am opposed to
the proposed changes in H.R. 7023 that weaken bedrock Clean Water Act
protections.
The bill will add additional hurdles to EPA's ability to issue water
quality standards. It will reduce, if not eliminate, opportunities for
the public to seek redress when they are harmed by violations of the
Clean Water Act. It would effectively eliminate EPA's ability to
oversee and block dangerous projects.
Communities will not benefit from these changes, but mining
companies, the oil and gas industry, and other toxic polluters will.
My colleagues would like to approve projects faster, but we need to
ensure that projects are built with full consideration of the impacts
to human health and the environment. I support the EPA and the Corps
working with local communities, Tribes, and States to make these
important decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the minority views to
H.R. 7023 that were cosigned by myself, Ranking Member Larsen, and an
overwhelming majority of Democrats on the committee.
Minority Views
H.R. 7023
We oppose H.R. 7023. This bill significantly restricts U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) oversight and regulatory authorities under
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Clean Water Act, enacted over
50 years ago, is the nation's bedrock environmental law for
``restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' and water
resources.
However, the changes in H.R. 7023 defy the overarching
intent of the Clean Water Act and gut the independent
authority of both agencies to ensure that projects and
activities are carried out with only minimal impacts to water
resources. This partisan bill weakens CWA protections while
providing exemptions, legal shields, and limited oversight
for special interests, polluters, and large-scale projects
that demand higher scrutiny.
The bill disregards Congressional intent in establishing
EPA's independent oversight authority over CWA permits;
undermines permitting requirements; eliminates judicial
review and public engagement; rolls back oversight of mining
companies and industrial polluters; inadvertently slows down
permit processing with increased bureaucracy and complicates
state-determined decisions.
This legislation offers these anti-CWA changes as a salve
to specific projects and grievances rather than a sustainable
solution to permitting. Large-scale mining proposals, such as
Pebble Mine in Alaska or Spruce Mine in West Virginia, or
ecologically devastating flood control projects, such as the
Yazoo Pumps in Mississippi, were blocked by bipartisan
presidential administrations under the EPA's Section 404(c)
authority once the impacts were thoroughly evaluated.
Although EPA has utilized this authority very sparingly (only
14 times since its creation in 1972), H.R. 7023 will
effectively eliminate the authority altogether.
H.R. 7023 also seeks to alter the review of ``linear''
projects, which includes oil and gas pipelines, electrical
transmission lines, and similar projects. These projects
often span hundreds of miles and cross multiple state lines;
however, H.R. 7023 will limit the consideration of the
environmental impacts of these projects, in apparent
violation of the Clean Water Act requirement that such
projects have only a minimal cumulative adverse impact on the
environment. The bill also prevents judicial review by vastly
shortening the statute of limitations; limiting standing to
file suit; and limiting the Court's options for recourse. In
short, H.R. 7023 will greenlight large projects with minimal
review while also limiting opportunities for legal challenges
to ecologically damaging permits or projects.
If this sounds familiar, that is because it is. The changes
proposed in H.R. 7023 will remove opportunities for local
communities to review and, where appropriate, challenge the
ecological, economic, and public health effects of projects
with potentially significant local impacts. H.R. 7023 seeks
to allow private industry and development to steamroll
through towns and states, constructing projects with minimal
review and disregard of local perspectives. If H.R. 7023 is
enacted, the potential adverse impacts to waterbodies (such
as reduced water quality or availability); to the environment
(such as increased greenhouse gas emissions or other
contamination); and to residents (such as perpetuating
environmental justice concerns) will be borne by the local
and surrounding communities without a voice or venue to have
their concerns heard.
Lastly, H.R. 7023 contradicts itself by slowing down
permitting processes, sowing uncertainty, and decreasing
flexibility. As one example, Section 2 of H.R. 7023 will add
a formal rulemaking process in place of an existing and more
efficient guidance process. This will slow down the issuance
of water quality standards without increasing transparency or
public participation and remove flexibility for updates. It
will also open the standards to judicial review.
The impacts of the CWA rollbacks in H.R. 7023 are
exacerbated by the context in which this bill is considered.
In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v.
EPA severely restricted the waters that are subject to CWA
protections. It is estimated that the decision removed
protection nationwide from at least 50% of wetlands, and at
least 60% of streams. With a much smaller number of waters
subject to permitting or CWA requirements, additional
limitations, expediting, and loopholes to the process are the
opposite of what Congress needs to be doing to protect our
water resources. Exposing the waters and wetlands that remain
under Clean Water Act protections to additional pollution or
destruction will do nothing to restore and maintain water
quality.
During consideration of H.R. 7023, Committee Democrats
sought to lessen the negative impacts of this legislation and
require EPA to verify that the changes in the bill would not
have negative impacts to water quality and availability
issues that communities currently face nationwide.
Representative Pat Ryan (NY) offered an amendment to delay
the effective date of the bill until the EPA Administrator
determines that the changes will not result in increased
discharges of forever chemicals (such as PFAS) or nutrients
that cause harmful algal blooms. Providing legal cover for
chemicals in waste streams from mines or other industrial
polluters and limiting technologies that could remove
pollution could certainly lead to increased discharges and
pollution levels. The amendment would have ensured that
communities are not left with the environmental and economic
burden of cleaning up and removing such pollutants.
Representative Greg Stanton (AZ) offered an amendment to
prohibit changes made by the bill from taking effect until
the EPA Administrator determines that the bill will not
result in contamination of state-designated drinking water
sources, reduce surface water availability or reduce water
quality in drought-prone areas. Additional fill activities or
pollutants could severely limit public
[[Page H1324]]
drinking water sources for communities in arid or drought-
stricken areas.
Representative Chris Pappas (NH) offered an amendment to
require permittees to conduct proactive monitoring for
emerging contaminants and forever chemicals at wastewater
treatment plants in order to receive the permit shield
offered under the legislation. Industrial polluters should
not be incentivized to hide potential discharges of forever
chemicals, such as PFAS pollution. Instead, we must work to
identify and measure these chemicals in our waste streams.
The Clean Water Act has been an effective tool for
improving the health of our rivers, streams, lakes, and
wetlands. Unfortunately, progress restoring impaired
waterbodies has slowed and, in some areas, reversed.
Communities face new challenges from emerging contaminants,
impacts of climate change, and declines in Federal
assistance. Waterbodies subject to the CWA have already
shrunk significantly. H.R. 7023 ignores all these realities
and provides additional loopholes for polluters, industry,
and developers.
In our view, this legislation is unnecessary, unwarranted,
and a further attack on clean water nationwide. For these
reasons, we oppose H.R. 7023.
Rick Larsen, Ranking Member.
Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment.
Jared Huffman, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Valerie
Foushee, Frederica S. Wilson, Andre Carson, Julia Brownley,
Dina Titus, Mark DeSaulnier, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Jesus
``Chuy'' Garcia, Rob Menendez, Steve Cohen, Val Hoyle,
Hillary Scholten, Pat Ryan, Seth Moulton, Marilyn Strickland,
Salud O. Carbajal, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chris Pappas.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides to
vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On March 21, 2024, page H1324, in the first column, the
following appeared: Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3
minutes to the gen-
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. GRAVES of
Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gen-
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, our permitting system is a great burden to
our Nation. It delays infrastructure projects indefinitely, stops us
from bringing energy sources online, and deters investments in our
communities. Let's make no mistake, permitting is holding back America.
H.R. 7023, the Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act,
seeks to unleash the American economy. It is a package of commonsense
reforms that will reduce regulatory burdens, establish certainty, and
increase transparency in our permitting system.
This bill will, in turn, create opportunities for home builders,
farmers, loggers, and small business owners alike, enticing them to
invest in projects that help our local economies grow and our rural
communities flourish.
I highlight section 5 of H.R. 7023. Section 5 is the language of my
bill, the Reducing Permitting Uncertainty Act.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to veto a dredge
and fill permit. However, the EPA has taken it upon itself to
proactively reject the permits and retroactively take away permits.
In a country of due process, it seems absurd that a Federal agency
can dictate whether a project is good or bad before an application is
even filed.
If we reject ideas before they mature, we crush any chance of
ingenuity, growth, and progress in this country. Do innovators no
longer deserve the opportunity to make their case and share their
creative solutions?
Further, the ability to take away permits when projects are well
underway is outrageous, a constant threat that the government will
waltz in and shut down years of hard work--talk about creating an
unwelcoming atmosphere for our job creators.
This section of H.R. 7023 is not a dramatic departure from the status
quo. It is clarifying a timeframe.
When an application is pending, the EPA can make a determination
whether or not to veto. It does not change the process, nor does it
take away the EPA's right to veto. It just makes things clearer for
those who want to bring projects online and help unleash the American
economy. It returns our process to one that is science-and fact-based,
rather than politically motivated.
Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Rouzer for his work on this package of
reforms.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the
Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to H.R. 7023, which
states that this legislation will ``weaken the Clean Water Act, remove
protections for waterways that are vital to the well-being of American
families, and undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes.''
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 7023--Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act--Rep.
Rouzer, R-NC
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7023, which would
weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways
that are vital to the well-being of American families, and
undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting
processes. The Administration is making historic investments
and taking unprecedented action to modernize and accelerate
permitting to ensure that infrastructure projects get
designed and built swiftly and in a way that reflects
community input and protects clean air, clean water, and
public health. H.R. 7023 would create uncertainty, confusion,
and conflict in permitting processes by: restricting
community input and environmental analysis and information
that is needed to inform Federal decisions to protect the
public; curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency's
ability to keep pollutants out of water supplies upon which
communities rely; and, weakening bedrock environmental
protections. H.R. 7023 is out of step with the type of
bipartisan permitting reforms that the Administration
supports and that Congress should pass.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, our predecessors in Congress
worked in a bipartisan manner to enact the Clean Water Act, one of the
Nation's bedrock environmental laws. The legislation before us today
was not developed in that same bipartisan manner, and it undermines the
Clean Water Act. I oppose this bill.
The pro-clean water bipartisan consensus has held firm for decades,
allowing communities to enjoy cleaner water and giving businesses the
certainty they need to create jobs and spur economic growth.
Thanks to historic investments like the bipartisan infrastructure law
and the Inflation Reduction Act, our economy is on the move. We have
added nearly 15 million jobs since President Biden took office, and
unemployment has been under 4 percent for the longest stretch in more
than 50 years.
Wages are up; inflation is coming down; and we are growing the
economy from the middle out and the bottom up. That is the context in
which our colleagues are proposing to shatter this bipartisan consensus
around clean water since the passage of the Clean Water Act.
This bill will not improve Clean Water Act project permitting or
create certainty. In fact, it does the opposite.
According to the Statement of Administration Policy, this bill will
``undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes.''
The SAP further confirms the bill will ``create uncertainty,
confusion, and conflict in permitting processes.''
What will this bill achieve? It weakens clean water protections. It
provides exemptions and legal shields for permit holders. It limits
oversight for projects that demand higher scrutiny.
What does this bill do for communities? It closes the door for local
communities seeking review of projects that are running through their
neighborhoods and gives private developers the green light to ignore
local perspectives on large-scale projects.
This legislation prioritizes the needs of polluters who want to fast-
track questionable projects over the public's interest and concern.
What does this bill do for the permitting process? In some cases, it
slows down the process. The bill adds bureaucratic steps to the process
of establishing water quality standards that will slow the
implementation of these standards while exposing them to increased
litigation.
What does it do for clean water? Nothing good. The legislation
eliminates EPA's oversight of ecologically devastating projects and
makes it easier for industrial polluters to discharge potentially
harmful or toxic chemicals into our rivers and streams with no
accountability.
For example, my colleagues have criticized EPA's use of its Clean
Water Act review or veto authority. Yet, the record shows EPA's use of
this authority has been consistent with congressional intent. I see no
reason for removing this authority.
[[Page H1325]]
Since enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, EPA has only
exercised this authority 14 times--most recently in relation to large-
scale mining proposals in Alaska and West Virginia. EPA's use of this
authority has, in fact, been bipartisan. EPA used it 2 times during
Democratic administrations and 12 times during Republican
administrations.
Moving this legislation now is an assault on water quality. The
adverse impacts of the provisions in this bill will be substantial on
their own.
However, enacting rollbacks is an extreme choice in the wake of the
2023 Sackett ruling by the Supreme Court that restricted the waters
subject to the Clean Water Act protections. It is estimated the Sackett
ruling removed protection nationwide from at least 50 percent of
wetlands and up to 70 percent of streams.
With a much smaller number of waters subject to the Clean Water Act,
additional loopholes to the process like those proposed in the bill are
the opposite of what Congress needs to do to protect our water
resources.
Clean water is not an abstract concept. What is at stake in this
legislation is whether people have reliable, drinkable, clean water
with which to conduct business, recreate, carry out daily tasks, and
sustain life.
During committee consideration of this bill, Democrats sought to
lessen the negative impacts of this legislation and require the EPA to
verify that the changes from this bill would not have negative impacts
on water quality or availability. Unfortunately, those amendments were
rejected on mostly a party-line vote.
Similarly, several Democrats offered amendments to the Rules
Committee to ensure the bill did not harm local fisheries, rural and
disadvantaged communities, multistate drinking water sources, or
infants and children. Again, those amendments were blocked from
consideration.
If thoughtful oversight of our Nation's waters and the permitting
process that protects these waters is still a bipartisan goal, the
House of Representatives can do far better than take up H.R. 7023.
Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 7023, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
{time} 1500
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Duarte).
Mr. DUARTE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 7023, the
Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act.
This bill provides relief to farmers, small businesses, and energy
producers across the Central Valley and throughout the United States by
cutting red tape, streamlining reviews, and providing greater
regulatory certainty under the Clean Water Act.
I am proud that H.R. 7023 includes my initiative taking much-needed
steps to fix inconsistencies in the permitting process under the Clean
Water Act. In particular, this bill ensures that EPA permit writers do
their jobs in a clear and reliable manner, including clear, objective,
concrete limits on specific pollutants or water body conditions that
permittees can rely on.
Currently, the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit writers often include language in permits that provide loopholes
for antidevelopment groups to sue and block permits needed for critical
energy and other infrastructure improvements. My provision closes those
loopholes and limits opportunities for unwarranted lawsuits.
This bill doesn't roll back the Clean Water Act. It codifies decades-
old EPA policy to shield permit holders from activist lawsuits as long
as they acted in good faith and according to the specific terms of
their permit.
This type of regulatory certainty and legal protection for permit
holders is necessary for improving our Nation's infrastructure,
especially California's Central Valley water infrastructure.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, a commonsense
reform that will strengthen the permitting process for permit seekers
and holders, as well as provide greater clarity for permitting
agencies.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in
opposition to H.R. 7023, including a letter from 49 organizations
expressing concern that legislation containing several misguided
attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Act puts polluter profits
ahead of public health and would jeopardize the water that our
families, communities, businesses, and wildlife depend on.
March 18, 2024.
Re Oppose H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water
protections.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and
supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose
H.R. 7023, the misleadingly named ``Creating Confidence in
Clean Water Permitting Act.'' This bill contains several
misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act,
puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would
jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and
wildlife depend on.
Numerous provisions of H.R. 7023 shield industrial
dischargers that would pollute or destroy our streams, lakes,
wetlands, and other waters from responsibility, thereby
imposing on downstream communities the burden of increased
pollution and flooding, to say nothing of the costs of
remedying those threats. In particular:
Section 2 would give polluters new ways to slow down the
Environmental Protection Agency's process for updating water
quality criteria. Criteria reflect EPA's assessment of the
scientific evidence about how pollutants in our waterways
adversely affect human health and aquatic life, and include
non-binding recommendations for water quality standards that
states can adopt to prevent those harmful effects. By
subjecting EPA's issuance of criteria to additional
administrative processes and opening them up to industry
lawsuits, this bill could delay improved protections
reflective of scientific developments--which is particularly
concerning for emerging contaminants.
Section 3 would authorize EPA to issue ``general'' permits
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
program for industrial and municipal polluters. This new
authority lacks safeguards that Congress included in the
parallel general permitting program for ``dredge and fill''
activities, namely that the activities must have minimal
adverse environmental impacts. It also would greatly limit
EPA's ability to terminate such a permit if the agency
determined it was causing unacceptable harm to the
environment.
Section 4 would make it easier for industrial operations to
dump PFAS, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' and other
emerging contaminants into the nation's waters without
accountability. Specifically, the bill would shield
dischargers from Clean Water Act liability even if they are
aware of certain pollutants in their waste streams but do not
disclose it to pollution control officials who do not have
reason to expect such contaminants.
Section 5 would virtually eliminate EPA's ability to stop
mammoth polluting projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska's
Bristol Bay watershed. This rarely-used authority (invoked
only 14 times in the Act's history) is crucial to prevent the
most egregious projects from destroying precious fisheries,
drinking water supplies, and other resources.
Section 6 would require the Army Corps of Engineers to
permanently retain a fast-track permit for highly destructive
and polluting oil and gas pipelines and greatly weaken the
Corps' nationwide permitting program--a program that is
already far too lax in preventing and mitigating the harm
caused by projects that fill in the nation's waters. The bill
would double the duration of general permits, such that
advancements in best practices for the dozens of activities
covered by such permits would not be required promptly. And
it would excuse the Army Corps of Engineers from considering
the full environmental consequences of permitted activities,
as well as the effects of such activities on endangered
species.
Section 7 would prevent effective judicial review of
projects that fill in and destroy wetlands, streams, and
other waters. The bill would impose an impractically short
statute of limitations on court review of ``dredge and fill''
permits, which would likely force concerned citizens to file
suit on more permits in order to preserve their rights, in
many instances before the impacts of the permitted project
are fully understood. The bill would also severely hamstring
courts' authority to provide a remedy for illegal permits
because permits found unlawful would ordinarily remain in
effect and allow continued harm to water resources while the
Army Corps of Engineers reexamines them.
In contrast to these provisions, polling continues to show
that people actually want stronger federal protections for
our nation's waters. Too many communities, especially
Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low wealth
communities, still lack clean water. Congress should be
focused on putting people before polluters and working to
ensure everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income,
has access to clean water, rather than attempting to
undermine our critical clean water protections.
Again, we urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 7023, an attack on
our clean water safeguards that would endanger the waters our
families and communities depend on and work against the Clean
Water Act's objective ``to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''
Sincerely,
Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alliance for the Great Lakes;
American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Appalachian Trail
Conservancy; Bayou
[[Page H1326]]
City Waterkeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for
Food Safety; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean
Water Action; Clean Wisconsin; Committee on the Middle Fork
Vermiliom River; Community Water Center; Earthjustice;
Environmental Justice Health Alliance; Environment America.
Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Protection
Network; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW);
Freshwater Future; GreenLatinos; Izaak Walton League of
America; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Latino Farmers &
Ranchers International, Inc.; Lawyers for Good Government;
League of Conservation Voters; Maryland Pesticide Education
Network; Massachusetts Pollinator Network; Massachusetts
Rivers Alliance; Mississippi River Collaborative; National
Audubon Society.
National Wildlife Federation; National Resources Defense
Council; New Mexico Wild; Northwest Center for Alternatives
to Pesticides; Ohio River Foundation; People and Pollinators
Action Network; PolicyLink; River Network; Sierra Club;
Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The
Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans; Toxic Free North
Carolina; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; WE
ACT for Environmental Justice; We the People of Detroit.
____
National Parks Conservation
Association,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2024.
Re Vote no on bills that could result in harm to national
parks
Dear Representative: Since 1919, the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of
the American people in protecting and enhancing our National
Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and
supporters nationwide, I write to share NPCA's thoughts on
select legislation being considered by the House of
Representatives the week of March 18, 2024.
H.R. 6009--Restoring American Energy Dominance Act: NPCA
opposes this legislation, which stops the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) from updating its onshore oil and gas
program for the first time in 35 years. Not only does this
legislation halt a public regulatory process partway through,
it prohibits BLM from proposing any substantially similar
rules. This effectively prohibits BLM from updating this
program in the future, making it harder for the agency to
oversee the federal onshore leasing program.
The proposed rule follows recommendations by the Government
Accountability Office and implements reforms already passed
into law. In the rule, BLM makes the leasing process more
straightforward and streamlines paperwork and filing
requirements for industry, making the leasing and auction
processes more consistent while updating it for the 21st
century. The proposed rule also ensures that BLM considers
proximity to national parks and other special places during
the parcel selection process. By taking a holistic approach
to parcel selection, BLM can avoid conflicts later in the
leasing process and costly and time-consuming lawsuits while
protecting irreplaceable cultural and natural treasures. This
approach also ensures that lands used for conservation and
recreation purposes by millions of Americans are not impeded
by oil and gas development.
During the comment period for the proposed rule, over 99%
of all comments were supportive. The current leasing system
and onshore oil and gas program is antiquated and does not
offer proper oversight or ensure protections and fair returns
to American taxpayers. We urge a No vote on H.R. 6009.
H.R. 1023--the Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act: NPCA
opposes this legislation, which repeals implementation of the
Methane Emissions Reduction Program (MERP). MERP is critical
to ensuring the successful and efficient reduction of oil and
gas methane emissions and spurring economic innovation in
methane mitigation. Methane is a greenhouse gas that traps
over 80 times more heat on our planet than carbon dioxide in
the short term. Methane is often leaked and vented during oil
and gas operations, degrading air quality around national
parks, driving climate change, threatening public health, and
harming unique resources that national parks protect, like
dark night skies. We urge a No vote on H.R. 1023 to protect
national parks, visitors and communities and our climate from
harmful and wasteful methane emissions.
H.R. 7023--the Creating Confidence in Clean Water
Permitting Act: NPCA opposes this legislation, which weakens
or delays the protection of our waterways under the Clean
Water Act. Over 220 national park units do not meet water
quality standards for visitor health and park resources.
Instead of creating more protections that help clean up park
waterways, this bill slows down EPA's ability to set and
revise water quality standards. It also creates new general
permits for discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System without the safeguards of a similar
program. The bill essentially eliminates EPA's ability to
apply a rarely used, but necessary authority under Sec.
404(c) to stop large, polluting projects like the Pebble Mine
near Lake Clark National Park and Preserve in Alaska's
Bristol Bay watershed. Finally, the bill prevents effective
judicial review of projects that fill in wetlands, streams
and other waters. We urge a No vote on H.R. 7023 to prevent
rolling back clean water protections for our parks and
communities.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Kristen Brengel,
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).
Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Chair, as the vice chair of the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I
rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7023.
This bill is a combination of attacks on the Clean Water Act that,
all together, will threaten access to the clean, safe water our
communities rely on.
This bill would protect polluters and make it easier for dangerous
pollutants like lead, mercury, and arsenic to enter our waterways. The
more pollutants that enter our source waters, the greater the cost to
clean them up. The greater the cost it is to clean up our water, the
more expensive it is for our constituents.
In my district, we have seen the rising costs of water, and plenty of
communities are also struggling to afford their water bills. While I
have been working throughout this Congress to improve access to
affordable, quality water in my district and beyond, the majority has
been undermining my efforts and others with bills like this.
For example, in committee, I offered an amendment that would have
protected our drinking water from pesticides and prevented water rate
increases by passing the cleanup costs to the polluters. My Republican
colleagues voted down this commonsense amendment and preferred to have
my constituents and their constituents pay for bad actors.
Water is an essential resource, and people in Ohio's 13th
Congressional District depend upon access to clean water for their
lives and livelihoods.
We must protect our waters from dangerous pollutants and also prevent
working people and families from having to foot the bill for pollution
and discharges.
Finally, I would also like to discuss how this bill relates to last
year's disaster in East Palestine, Ohio, which occurred just miles away
from my district, and the ongoing issues we are seeing as a result.
Changes within H.R. 7023 would allow large projects like railways or
pipelines to go forward without any consideration for the broader
impact that they will have on the communities that they are constructed
in.
The bill limits what is considered an impact, so when used for a new
rail line, the Corps will not be able to consider a rail spill, toxic
materials that may be transported on the railroad, or other disastrous
scenarios, just like we saw in Ohio.
These secondary impacts can be huge for the nearby environment and
the communities, and with the East Palestine derailment, they certainly
were.
Worse yet, other parts of this bill will limit the ability to review,
taking away the ability of a community to advocate for itself and be
involved in the process of a major project in their own neighborhoods.
I will continue, Mr. Chair, advocating for sensible permitting reform
that allows businesses to grow and considers the health and safety of
consumers in adjacent communities, but, Mr. Chair, this bill is not it.
I firmly believe H.R. 7023 will only make ongoing issues worse in my
State and district, as well as yours. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues
to oppose this bill.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, I am speaking today in support of H.R. 7023.
This bill includes language from my legislation, the Water Quality
Criteria Development and Transparency Act.
As a Member of Congress, I value input from my constituents. The EPA,
however, sees input from stakeholders differently, at least with regard
to water quality criteria for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits.
EPA claims that these criteria are just guidance, not a final agency
action that should require a proper regulatory review process. States
can technically adopt different criteria, but the EPA makes this
process so burdensome that most States are forced to adopt the
[[Page H1327]]
EPA guidances. In other words, guidances become regulations, and that
is the goal and endgame of the EPA.
The EPA then voluntarily takes comments and feedback on these
criteria. They have a body that reviews the criteria, an internal
science board comprised of bureaucrats. An internal review from its own
board is not a real robust review.
The language from my bill, the Water Quality Criteria Development and
Transparency Act, ensures the development of these criteria would be
treated with the same respect as any other regulations--that is,
listening to stakeholder feedback. The stakeholders are constantly
dealing with the new burdens from the EPA. As the true experts, they
deserve consideration by the EPA.
Additionally, in the most limited way possible, the EPA needs to be
held accountable through the judicial system. Activists have abused the
judicial system for decades. Our stakeholders should have an
opportunity to keep the EPA accountable. Personally, I would prefer no
new onerous criteria, but career bureaucrats being solely in charge of
this criteria should frighten everyone.
Feedback from stakeholders ensures that the criteria remain relevant,
and the EPA must consider the opinions of industry pros and
stakeholders in making these criteria relevant. All new criteria and
new regulations should incorporate their input and expertise.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters
expressing opposition to H.R. 7023 and its efforts to reopen Federal
protections of pristine salmon habitat within and around Bristol Bay,
Alaska, including a letter from the Bristol Bay Defense Fund and the
United Tribes of Bristol Bay.
January 30, 2024.
Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation
Hon. Sam Graves,
Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
To the Honorable Members of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee: On behalf of the Bristol Bay
Defense Fund, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing
Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of
the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict,
deny, or withdraw permits for destructive projects that would
pollute our nation's water resources. These changes to
Section 404(c) are a direct attack on the nation's clean
water, Clean Water Act, and the EPA. While purporting to
streamline the permitting process for development projects,
these changes to Section 404(c) would threaten the very
foundation of environmental protection for our nation's
wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, compromising their
ecological integrity and ultimately impacting water quality,
public health, and economic stability.
The provisions of H.R. 7206, Amendment to H.R. 7023, or any
similar anti-404(c) language would gut the EPA's ability
under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to stop giant
polluting projects that would have an unacceptable adverse
effect on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and
recreational areas like the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol
Bay, Alaska. By limiting the EPA to as little as 30 days to
invoke its 404(c) authority, H.R. 7206 would eliminate any
meaningful opportunity for review by the public (including
the project proponent) and would preclude the EPA from
conducting the type of careful analyses that have supported
previous 404(c) determinations. H.R. 7023 would similarly
eviscerate the EPA's authority.
These anti-404(c) provisions ignore the EPA's rare and
judicious use of Section 404(c), invoked only 14 times in the
Clean Water Act's 52-year history. They represent a blatant
attempt to green light and fast track even the most egregious
projects that would destroy our Nation's water resources.
The Clean Water Act stands as a testament to our Nation's
commitment to protecting our precious water resources.
Weakening Section 404(c) would be a detrimental step
backward, compromising environmental health, public well-
being, and economic stability. We urge you to oppose these
provisions or any similar language that would hobble the
EPA's ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most
devastating projects from destroying our nation's fisheries,
drinking water, and other natural resources.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward
to working with you to safeguard our precious water resources
for the benefit of all Americans.
Sincerely,
Bristol Bay Defense Fund.
United Tribes of Bristol Bay.
Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay.
Businesses for Bristol Bay.
SalmonState.
Wild Salmon Center.
Native American Rights Fund.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
____
Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation
Hon. Sam Graves,
Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen: On behalf
of Trout Unlimited, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing
Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of
the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict,
deny, or withdraw permits that are exceptionally destructive
to our nation's water, fish and recreational resources. These
changes to Section 404(c) undermine our country's ability to
maintain and protect clean for fish, wildlife, communities
and businesses. The proposed changes to Section 404(c) would
jeopardize important public resources critical to fish,
wildlife, public health and recreation and while favoring
private industries that often don't have the best interests
of the public in mind.
The provisions of H.R. 7026, which is offered as an
amendment to H.R. 7008, or any similar anti-404(c) language
would restrict the EPA's ability under Section 404(c) of the
Clean Water Act to restrict, prohibit or limit projects that
would have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water
supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and recreational areas like
the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. The 404(c)
authority has only been used 14 times in the 52-history of
the Clean Water Act, most often by Republican
Administrations. The Clean Water Act 404(c) tool requires
significant scientific, legal and public input and processes
and cannot be considered a tool that is currently wielded
injudiciously.
On behalf of our more than 130,000 members and supporters
in Alaska and across the country, we urge you to oppose these
provisions or any similar language that would weaken EPA's
ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most egregious
projects from destroying our nation's fisheries, drinking
water, and other natural resources.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward
to working with you to safeguard our clean water resources
for the benefit of all Americans.
Sincerely,
Nelli Williams,
Alaska Director, Trout Unlimited.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Scholten).
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7023.
Mr. Chair, despite meeting every stipulated requirement, my amendment
to this dangerous bill to protect our children from pollutants in their
water was not ruled in order.
Something is not right. This is unacceptable as a matter of
parliamentary process, and it is unacceptable because our children's
health is at risk.
Infants and children are among the most vulnerable to the negative
health effects of pollutants in their water. They are often the closest
to the source. They crawl on the floor and in the grass, and they put
anything they find in their mouths, including their hands, which puts
them at greater risk of exposure to toxins.
Their immune systems are the least prepared to handle this exposure.
Children's internal organs are still developing and maturing. According
to the National Institutes of Health, kids' immune systems may provide
less natural protection against toxins than adults. Infants and
children face more critical periods when exposure to toxic chemicals
may alter their health for the rest of their lives.
The Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act would increase
the risk to our children by limiting the tools and processes that the
EPA utilizes for monitoring the health of our water, improving water
quality, and limiting pollutants from entering our waters in the first
place.
The amendment I submitted was simple. It would have paused the
changes within the bill until the EPA could certify that they would not
lead to increased discharges of pollutants that have adverse effects on
infants and children from increased exposure.
Some of these pollutants we may see more of are linked to
neurological disorders, behavioral changes, and certain forms of
cancer, including breast cancer, leukemia, and brain tumors.
My colleagues and I across the aisle may not agree on the merits of
the
[[Page H1328]]
Clean Water Act or the importance of protecting our local waters from
contamination and degradation, but surely we can all agree that
protecting our Nation's infants and children from toxic chemicals is
our shared responsibility and that we simply need to know where there
is poison in our water and whether we are giving it to our children.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time I will offer my
amendment as a motion to recommit because I will never stop fighting
for our children.
This is not just a bad bill. It is dangerous for our kids.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment, and I
hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this motion to recommit
for our children.
Ms. Scholten moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7023 to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith,
with the following amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. DETERMINATION ON ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE HEALTH OF
CHILDREN AND INFANTS.
This Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall
not take effect until the date on which the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency issues a determination
that the implementation of this Act, including the amendments
made by this Act, will not result in discharges (within the
meaning of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) that may
have adverse effects on the health of children or infants,
including birth defects, learning disabilities, asthma, and
cancer.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Burlison).
Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Creating Confidence
in Clean Water Permitting Act, a bill that pushes back against the out-
of-control EPA and ensures that important projects are approved in a
timely manner.
The EPA has used the Clean Water Act to delay or block projects and
ensure a radical climate agenda is fulfilled, all at the cost of
projects that are critical for the United States.
The EPA is often inconsistent, not transparent, and unfair in its
decisions to approve projects, even when those projects have no
negative impact on the environment.
This bill will cut red tape, strengthen the permitting process in
favor of those seeking the permits, provide clarity to the EPA to
ensure that they are following what the law intends, and, most
importantly, fight back against the militant climate agenda.
Look, we all know that the EPA can be a bad actor in the permitting
process, but they are not the only ones that are standing in the way.
We also have to deal with these environmental groups that continually
sue to delay these projects from going through, claiming that the costs
outweigh the benefits. Of course, we know what they really mean--these
projects don't further their climate agenda, so they must be stopped.
That is why this bill includes my legislation, the Judicial Review
Timeline Clarity Act. The Judicial Review Timeline Clarity Act ensures
that any lawsuit seeking judicial review of a section 404 general or
individual permit must be filed within the first 60 days of the
permit's issuance.
If the court decides that the Army Corps did not comply with the law
in approving projects, it will be remanded back to the Secretary, where
they have 180 days to take action that the court has ordered.
{time} 1515
Businesses are busy. They are already buried under regulation after
regulation which takes obscene amounts of time and resources to comply
with. In this case, they already have to demonstrate that these
projects will have basically no impact on the health of water or show
that they have exhausted all alternatives to discharging.
Even with these strict regulations, environmental groups sue to stall
these projects, claiming that they will have a negative impact on the
environment. The goal is to keep them held up in court.
Our court system is already being attacked from every angle. Let's
not let the environmentalists continue to manipulate the courts to push
their climate religion. It should be an efficient and speedy process so
businesses can build the infrastructure that our country depends on.
The Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act will bring
needed reforms to litigation and ensure any challenge to these permits
are efficient, fast, and fair.
In closing, I thank the work of Chairman Graves and Subcommittee
Chairman David Rouzer.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7023, another
example of team extreme's polluters over people agenda.
Folks may be wondering why we are talking about a bill that tries to
gut the Clean Water Act in what is supposed to be energy week for House
Republicans. The answer is pretty straightforward. This week actually
has nothing to do with energy policy. It certainly has nothing to do
with clean water policy.
The common thread is team extreme's bromance with polluting
industries who want to dismantle our environmental laws so they can
poison our air, water, and climate without any accountability. That is
why we are debating this terrible bill that will roll back 50 years of
clean water protections.
Now, in the Sackett decision, the Supreme Court severely limited
Clean Water Act protection for tributaries and headwaters. The decision
was a disaster, and it is why Congress right now should be trying to
move legislation that builds up and protects the Clean Water Act. We
should be giving the EPA further tools to hold industry accountable, to
safeguard the power of States and Tribes so that they can protect
sensitive ecological areas and embolden our communities to have an
active role in the permitting process for projects that will impact
their livelihoods.
Republicans are doing the exact opposite here. In the aftermath of
Sackett, they are trying to gut the Clean Water Act even further by
removing the EPA's ability to deny Clean Water Act permits, by removing
NEPA and ESA protections, as well as State consultation. Republicans
are trying to eliminate judicial review, making it virtually impossible
for a community to challenge a project that has been hastily approved
through this new permitting process.
The bottom line: This makes it a lot easier for polluting industries
to wreck our lakes and rivers and streams. It puts polluters over
people.
It is worth remembering, in the face of these constant attacks on our
environmental protections, why we created the Clean Water Act in the
first place. The purpose was to protect communities and the
environment.
Just 50 years ago, we had lakes and streams that you couldn't wade
into, much less fish in. There were rivers that caught fire and
couldn't be put out. Team extreme wants to take us back to that. In
typical fashion, they try to hide the effects of this bill behind a
euphemistic title: The Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting
Act.
If Congress had a truth-in-labeling requirement for bills around
here, this would be called the dirty water permitting act. Enough of
the gaslighting. Enough of putting polluters over people.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Graves and
Chairman Rouzer for working on this legislation.
Mr. Chair, the reality is that America has been wrapped in a
bureaucratic morass. We have been wrapped in red tape. It is impossible
to do things like build roads. It is impossible to deploy things like
transmission that are critical to help to renew and update the
electrical grid. This is because of what we have seen as an extreme
agenda out of this White House.
Just yesterday we talked about the fact that the average American
family is now spending an additional $1,000 a month just complying with
rules and regulations out of this administration.
Mr. Chair, I remind you, this is the administration that said they
would
[[Page H1329]]
not impose additional costs upon any family making less than $400,000 a
year. That is exactly what their agenda is doing, whether it is
blocking energy production and driving up energy costs or whether it is
the shrinkflation you have seen with smaller products at the grocery
store or higher utility bills. Every American family is facing this new
hidden tax.
What Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer have done is they have
brought together a bill that brings common sense to the Clean Water Act
process.
I represent south Louisiana. We live at the bottom of one of the
largest watersheds in the world and certainly the largest watershed in
the United States. We go from Montana to New York to Canada and drain
all of this area. Everybody's discharge, everybody's runoff, comes to
our State.
Do you really think I would have an interest in dirtier water being
at the bottom of the watershed, being in the area that has the greatest
commercial fisheries in the continental United States and one of the
biggest recreational fishing destinations in this country?
No, it doesn't make any sense.
What this legislation does is help to streamline the process. I thank
the chairman for working with us to include a provision that codifies
the general NPDES permits that would simply require notice if the
general permit is not going to be revised. It simply lets the applicant
know or the existing permit holder know if it is not going to be
reissued or renewed. This is another one that helps to improve the
legal process.
Mr. Chairman, I actually met with John Kerry and Brian Deese, White
House officials under the Biden administration who have both left now,
but who brought up to me, while they were working for the White House,
they said that we have got to fix this judicial review thing. This bill
does it.
What it does is something very simple that applies common sense to
the situation. It says that it is fine, you can file a lawsuit if you
have a problem with the decision that was made. However, first you have
to try to participate and resolve your issue in the public comment
process, in the public participation process, rather than waiting for
the record of decision, by standing out there on the outside filing a
lawsuit just as a delay tactic. These are not helpful tactics. On the
contrary, these are malicious tactics. I appreciate the inclusion of
that because that moves it in the right direction.
Look, in closing, Mr. Chairman, this entire bill builds upon the
incredible work that was done in the revisions or the improvements in
the modernization of the National Environmental Policy Act that
President Biden signed into law back in June that simply tries to
ensure that we shrink the amount of time and that we shrink the scope
of work that is done in looking at environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements.
All of this bureaucratic morass, all of this additional cost that is
being heaped upon American families, all it is doing is slowing down
our economy and giving strategic advantage to countries like China,
which is not in our interest.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this legislation.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I stand today in vehement
opposition to H.R. 7023, the Creating Confidence in Clean Water
Permitting Act.
It is amusing that we are having an energy week conducted by a
majority that uses all of its energy to fight against the interests and
well-being of the American people. This bill is emblematic of the
Republican Party that shamelessly prioritizes the investments of their
billionaire donors over the health of our children, our communities,
and our environment, not to mention our economy.
Every Member of this body likes to claim to be here to advance the
needs of our constituents, but it seems like every day the Republican
Party tries to tear down the very laws that aim to protect their own
constituents, as well as mine, from corporate polluters pumping toxins
into our air and drinking water.
It seems like every day they fight to repeal the investments that are
creating thousands of good-paying union jobs in districts like mine,
lowering our energy bills, and creating a healthy, livable future for
our kids.
Pittsburgh is the 22nd most polluted city in the Nation, and this
year was the first year that we didn't get a failing grade from the
American Lung Association. I know far too well what happens when
corporate polluters are absolved of responsibility and accountability
for their actions, which several portions of this bill seek to enable.
I am proud to fight against those who seek to endanger our
communities, endanger our children, through polluted air and tainted
water, just so they can give another handout to the billionaires and
Big Oil CEOs who bankroll their campaigns. I am proud to represent
western Pennsylvania and the city of Pittsburgh where we have worked
hard to remove and replace over 10,000 lead service lines, largely
thanks to Federal protections and investments these Republicans are
trying to repeal.
The only confidence this bill gives me is that Republicans will take
any opportunity to eliminate oversight and safeguards for our
environment and to silence the voices of those in communities who are
tired of unbreathable air and toxic water.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the passage of
this legislation.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chair, I don't think I have ever heard so much
nonsense in such a short period of time.
As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I
rise today in strong support of H.R. 7023, the Creating Confidence in
Clean Water Permitting Act, of which I am a sponsor.
In the five decades since its enactment, the Clean Water Act has
helped improve the quality of water bodies throughout this country.
H.R. 7023 is focused on improving sections 402 and 404 permitting
processes under the Clean Water Act. The keyword here is ``improve,''
not remove, not eliminate, not undermine, but improve.
Improving permitting under the Clean Water Act has been a priority of
mine as chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. I
have heard over the course of a number of hearings about the successes
and challenges of the Clean Water Act. Throughout these conversations,
one theme has become clear: Years of weaponization of this law by
various administrations and radical activists are hurting our economy
without providing any meaningful environmental benefit.
Today, we have heard our colleagues from across the aisle say this
legislation will gut the Clean Water Act by rolling back critical water
protections, but the fact of the matter is that is just not so. This
bill does not modify the scope of the Clean Water Act, nor does it
change the current permitting requirements. Let me say that again. It
does not change current permitting requirements. It simply closes
loopholes to prevent the continued weaponization of the permitting
process, all of which has nothing to do with water quality.
I firmly believe that regulations should be easy to understand and
easy to follow, which has the added benefit, by the way, of making them
easier to enforce. Our competitors across the globe often disregard any
kind of regulatory structure or permitting. When they want to do
something, when they want to build a canal, they just go do it.
We are better than that. We believe in environmental protection.
However, this does not mean we should be forced to wait years to build
a manufacturing plant, new infrastructure, or energy projects due to
weaponization of the regulatory process. Such delays only give our
international competitors a distinct advantage and harm our country's
economy as well as our energy security, which also, by the way,
directly affects our national security.
Mr. Chair, it is simple: Clear processes lead to good decisionmaking
and more consistent outcomes. H.R. 7023 helps achieve that.
For example, this bill better ensures that section 402 NPDES permits
are straightforward and developed in a more transparent way, from the
data used to develop the permit to language
[[Page H1330]]
that is used within the permit. Currently, the EPA develops water
quality standards through their own internal processes, routinely
dismissing comments from outside stakeholders. This legislation would
require the EPA to bring interested parties to the table when crafting
water quality standards. It would also require NPDES permit writers to
use clearer, more specific language when developing a permit and
provide a liability shield for good faith actors who are adhering to
their permit terms.
For section 404 dredge and fill permits, this legislation creates
more consistency and provides more legal clarity. For example, it
clarifies the EPA can only veto a permit when a 404 application is
active, not before an application has been filed or after a permit has
been issued. It also codifies many longstanding practices for the
application of nationwide permits by the Corps and creates clearer
standards for judicial review to protect against frivolous lawsuits.
Section 404 permits, particularly nationwide permits, are often
targeted by radical environmentalists and get bogged down by
litigation. This legislation helps to protect against these kinds of
frivolous lawsuits.
{time} 1530
Additionally, this bill requires the EPA and the Corps to, at long
last, issue and make public post-Sackett decision implementation
guidance for the definition of waters of the United States, WOTUS, so
that we can finally get jurisdictional determinations moving and
projects done.
This bill enjoys support from a wide range of stakeholders and
constituencies, from water utilities to energy groups to farmers to
Main Street businesses. This legislation will enable the law to be
executed and enforced more effectively, save taxpayers money, and
provide more consistency for permit holders, seekers, and writers.
I will also note this bill is a team effort representing the input of
several of my T&I colleagues. In particular, I thank Congressmen Owens,
Stauber, Duarte, Burlison, and Garret Graves, all of whom have
contributed provisions to this package.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support this bill.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moylan). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds
to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides energy predictability
and certainty that our utilities, energy, manufacturing, and
agricultural industries need to succeed, which are so critical to
American greatness in energy, food production, and the manufacturing
necessary to improve the standard of living of every American.
That is what this is about, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. That was my last speaker, Mr. Chair, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no
issue has more support among American families than the protection of
our Nation's waters.
Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean water,
as recent years have shown major water challenges across the U.S. such
as drought in the West, floods in the East, and water contamination in
many States.
We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our businesses,
and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable supplies of
water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our quality-of-life
needs, and our day-to-day survival. I have dedicated much of my time in
Congress to protecting our critical water supplies and making sure we
capture, use, and reuse every available drop of water in our
communities, and I do not plan to stop now.
Recent public surveys in the West have found that residents are more
concerned than ever about inadequate water supplies. Almost 9 in 10
Westerners say that inadequate water supply is a serious problem in
their State.
This is especially true in my home State of California. As the
Metropolitan Water District commented to our subcommittee 1 year ago, a
strong and clear Clean Water Act is important to the day-to-day
operations of water agencies and source water protection efforts.
Congress should be reinstating protections to the Clean Water Act
that the Supreme Court removed to continue to protect our streams and
wetlands that have been protected since the inception of the act.
Streams, rivers, and wetlands are critical to capturing and storing
rain and snowmelt to ensure a long-term supply of water and to recharge
our underground aquifers; yet, this bill limits or eliminates
protections over waters that provide the source of drinking water to
over 117 million Americans.
Yes, there is a cost to protecting our communities, our sources of
drinking water, and our environment. However, that cost should be borne
by those seeking to pollute our waterways or fill our wetlands for
their own personal gain, rather than transferring that cost to
Americans or to downstream States.
This bill would increase levels of pollution in our water bodies,
increase risk of downstream flooding, and increase certainty that
communities like mine cannot maintain sustainable sources of drinking
water.
Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the
pollution caused by others.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 7023, I urge my colleagues to vote
against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, H.R. 7023 is critical to achieving more
efficient project completion by streamlining and improving permitting
processes under the Clean Water Act.
As has been stated, this bill will support everyday Americans making
targeted, commonsense reforms to the Clean Water Act, balancing the
need for environmental protections along with energy and infrastructure
improvements.
This bill is the product of hard work by many members of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In particular, I thank
Subcommittee Chairman David Rouzer for his leadership on this issue,
and Representatives Eric Burlison, Burgess Owens, Peter Stauber, John
Duarte, and Garret Graves for their work who all contributed
legislative language to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am here today to speak in strong
opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 7023, the Creating
Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act.
This bill would modify requirements under the well-established Clean
Water Act, limiting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
authority to regulate the discharge of pollutants into United States
waters.
If passed, it would represent a significant regression from over 50
years of well-established precedent regarding pollution prevention.
Moreover, it would defy the overarching intent of the initial
legislation, which was to provide for more agency oversight and
accountability of industrial polluters, not less.
I offered for consideration to the Rules Committee, the Jackson Lee
Amendment No. 21, which sought to help ensure that any harmful impact,
which would inevitably result from the passage of this dangerous bill,
is documented, and reported to Congress.
Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 21 would have added the
following language to the end of the bill text in H.R. 7023:
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall submit to
Congress a report on any disparate impacts on minority and
disadvantaged communities, and communities previously or currently
designated as having cancer clusters, including impacts to human
health, environmental quality, and local economies, that may result
from the implementation of this Act, including the amendments made by
this Act.
In my home-state of Texas and in my district particularly, there have
been multiple revelations of cancer clusters in many of the underserved
and minority communities.
For instance, the Fifth Ward, Kashmere Gardens, and the larger
Northeast community along with other communities in the 18th
Congressional District of Texas, are all regions with minority and
underserved populations that have been disproportionately and gravely
impacted by harmful environmental pollutants and toxins.
[[Page H1331]]
In a time where we are still seeking to combat the deadly and
dangerous impacts of environmental injustice in my district, and across
the country, we must be taking more vigilant steps to protect our
communities and the environment for current and future generations.
Instead, this partisan package repeals, weakens, or otherwise erodes
the oversight and regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers established by the Clean Water
Act (CWA) over 50 years ago.
While the CWA requires projects to minimize their impact on the
environment, this bill hamstrings EPA's oversight of large-scale
projects and changes the process by which it reviews ``linear''
projects like oil and gas pipelines.
At the same time, the bill also significantly hampers the legal
action the government can take against polluters, shortens the timeline
for judicial review, and removes opportunities for local governments to
give input on projects affecting their communities.
Coupled with the ruling in Sackett v. EPA last year that changed the
definition of what qualifies as protected waters under the CWA, this
bill is simply a shameful attempt to swing the door open for
corporations to maximize their profits at the expense of the health of
the general public.
Although the bill purports to ``cut red tape'' and speed up the
permitting process, adding a formal rulemaking process instead of
maintaining the system by which the EPA currently issues guidance will
actually slow it down and open these permits up to judicial review.
It is time we stop playing these senseless and harmful political
games that only put the health of the American people at risk.
It is time for my Republican colleagues to join me and my Democratic
colleagues across the aisle in working towards common sense, bipartisan
solutions for the advancement and protection of our Nation and the
American people.
Yet, here we are again, instead of finding real solutions to real
crises--such as providing aid to our allies abroad and providing long-
term funding to yet again avert a government shutdown--House
Republicans have instead chosen to once again waste precious floor time
on political stunts on behalf of Big Polluters.
For these reasons, this Resolution providing consideration for this
bill and the other anti-environment bills in this rule package should
be voted down.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this reckless and shortsighted
bill.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, printed in the
bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
of Rules Committee Print 118-25, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 7023
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Creating Confidence in Clean
Water Permitting Act''.
SEC. 2. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPARENCY.
(a) Information and Guidelines.--Section 304(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(10) Administrative procedure.--After the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall issue
any new or revised water quality criteria under paragraph (1)
or (9) by rule.''.
(b) Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review.--Section
509(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1369(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``section 402, and'' and inserting
``section 402,''; and
(2) by inserting ``and (H) in issuing any criteria for
water quality pursuant to section 304(a)(10),'' after
``strategy under section 304(l),''.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL GENERAL PERMITS.
Section 402(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1342(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6)(A) The Administrator is authorized to issue general
permits under this section for discharges of similar types
from similar sources.
``(B) The Administrator may require submission of a notice
of intent to be covered under a general permit issued under
this section, including additional information that the
Administrator determines necessary.
``(C) If a general permit issued under this section will
expire and the Administrator decides not to issue a new
general permit for discharges similar to those covered by the
expiring general permit, the Administrator shall publish in
the Federal Register a notice of such decision at least two
years prior to the expiration of the general permit.
``(D) If a general permit issued under this section expires
and the Administrator has not published a notice in
accordance with subparagraph (C), until such time as the
Administrator issues a new general permit for discharges
similar to those covered by the expired general permit, the
Administrator shall--
``(i) continue to apply the terms, conditions, and
requirements of the expired general permit to any discharge
that was covered by the expired general permit; and
``(ii) apply such terms, conditions, and requirements to
any discharge that would have been covered by the expired
general permit (in accordance with any relevant requirements
for such coverage) if the discharge had occurred before such
expiration.''.
SEC. 4. CONFIDENCE IN CLEAN WATER PERMITS.
(a) Compliance With Permits.--Section 402(k) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(k)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(k) Compliance with'' and inserting the
following:
``(k) Compliance With Permits.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), compliance
with''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Scope.--For purposes of paragraph (1), compliance
with the conditions of a permit issued under this section
shall be considered compliance with respect to a discharge
of--
``(A) any pollutant for which an effluent limitation is
included in the permit; and
``(B) any pollutant for which an effluent limitation is not
included in the permit that is--
``(i) specifically identified as controlled or monitored
through indicator parameters in the permit, the fact sheet
for the permit, or the administrative record relating to the
permit;
``(ii) specifically identified during the permit
application process as present in discharges to which the
permit will apply; or
``(iii) whether or not specifically identified in the
permit or during the permit application process--
``(I) present in any waste streams or processes of the
point source to which the permit applies, which waste streams
or processes are specifically identified during the permit
application process; or
``(II) otherwise within the scope of any operations of the
point source to which the permit applies, which scope of
operations is specifically identified during the permit
application process.''.
(b) Expression of Water Quality-based Effluent
Limitations.--Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(t) Expression of Water Quality-based Effluent
Limitations.--If the Administrator (or a State, in the case
of a permit program approved by the Administrator) determines
that a water quality-based limitation on a discharge of a
pollutant is necessary to include in a permit under this
section in addition to any appropriate technology-based
effluent limitations included in such permit, the
Administrator (or the State) may include such water quality-
based limitation in such permit only in the form of an
effluent limitation that specifies--
``(1) the pollutant to which it applies; and
``(2) the numerical limit on the discharge of such
pollutant, or the precise waterbody conditions to be attained
with respect to such pollutant, required to comply with the
permit.''.
SEC. 5. REDUCING PERMITTING UNCERTAINTY.
(a) In General.--Section 404(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c) The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Specification or Use of Defined Area.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator'';
(2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by inserting
``during the period described in paragraph (2) and'' before
``after notice and opportunity for public hearings''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Period of prohibition.--The period during which the
Administrator may prohibit the specification (including the
withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a
disposal site, or deny or restrict the use of any defined
area for specification (including the withdrawal of
specification) as a disposal site, under paragraph (1)
shall--
``(A) begin on the date on which an applicant submits all
the information required to complete an application for a
permit under this section; and
``(B) end on the date on which the Secretary issues the
permit.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to a permit application submitted under section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1344) after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. NATIONWIDE PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 404(e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(e)(1) In carrying'' and inserting the
following:
``(e) General Permits on State, Regional, or Nationwide
Basis.--
``(1) Permits authorized.--In carrying'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``(2) No general'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Term.--No general''; and
[[Page H1332]]
(B) by striking ``five years'' and inserting ``ten years'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Considerations.--In determining the environmental
effects of an activity under paragraph (1) or (2), the
Secretary shall consider only the effects of any discharge of
dredged or fill material resulting from such activity.
``(4) Nationwide permits for linear infrastructure
projects.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the Secretary shall maintain general permits on
a nationwide basis for linear infrastructure projects that do
not result in the loss of greater than \1/2\-acre of waters
of the United States for each single and complete project (as
defined in section 330.2 of title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
paragraph)).
``(B) Definition of linear infrastructure project.--In this
paragraph, the term `linear infrastructure project' means a
project to carry out any activity required for the
construction, expansion, maintenance, modification, or
removal of infrastructure and associated facility for the
transmission from a point of origin to a terminal point of
communications or electricity or the transportation from a
point of origin to a terminal point of people, water,
wastewater, carbon dioxide, or fuel or hydrocarbons (in the
form of a liquid, liquescent, gaseous, or slurry substance or
supercritical fluid), including oil and gas pipeline
facilities.
``(5) Reissuance of nationwide permits.--In determining
whether to reissue a general permit issued under this
subsection on a nationwide basis--
``(A) no consultation with an applicable State pursuant to
section 6(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1535(a)) is required;
``(B) no consultation with a Federal agency pursuant to
section 7(a)(2) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) is
required; and
``(C) the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) shall
be satisfied by preparing an environmental assessment with
respect to such general permit.''.
(b) Administration of Nationwide Permit Program.--In
carrying out section 404(e) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, may not finalize or
implement any modification to--
(1) general condition 15 (relating to single and complete
projects), as included in the final rule titled ``Reissuance
and Modification of Nationwide Permits'' and published on
January 13, 2021, by the Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers (86 Fed. Reg. 2868);
(2) the definition of single and complete linear project,
as included in such final rule (86 Fed. Reg. 2877); or
(3) the definition of single and complete project, as
included in section 330.2 of title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act).
SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW TIMELINE CLARITY.
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (u);
(2) in subsection (u), as so redesignated, by striking
``Nothing in the section'' and inserting ``Savings
Provision.--Nothing in this section''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (s) the following:
``(t) Judicial Review.--
``(1) Statute of limitations.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any applicable provision
of law relating to statutes of limitations, an action seeking
judicial review of--
``(i) an individual or general permit issued under this
section shall be filed not later than the date that is 60
days after the date on which the permit was issued; and
``(ii) verification that an activity is authorized by a
general permit issued under this section shall be filed not
later than the date that is 60 days after the date on which
such verification was issued.
``(B) Savings provision.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) may
be construed to authorize an action seeking judicial review
of the structure of, or authorization for, a State permit
program approved pursuant to this section.
``(2) Limitation on commencement of certain actions.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no action
described in paragraph (1)(A) may be commenced unless the
action--
``(A) is filed by a party that submitted a comment, during
the public comment period for the administrative proceedings
related to the applicable action described in such paragraph,
which comment was sufficiently detailed to put the Secretary
or the State, as applicable, on notice of the issue upon
which the party seeks judicial review; and
``(B) is related to such comment.
``(3) Remedy.--If a court determines that the Secretary or
the State, as applicable, did not comply with the
requirements of this section in issuing an individual or
general permit under this section, or in verifying that an
activity is authorized by a general permit issued under this
section, as applicable--
``(A) the court shall remand the matter to the Secretary or
the State, as applicable, for further proceedings consistent
with the court's determination;
``(B) with respect to a determination regarding the
issuance of an individual or general permit under this
section, the court may not vacate, revoke, enjoin, or
otherwise limit the permit, unless the court finds that
activities authorized under the permit would present an
imminent and substantial danger to human health or the
environment for which there is no other equitable remedy
available under the law; and
``(C) with respect to a determination regarding a
verification that an activity is authorized by a general
permit issued under this section, the court may not enjoin
the activity, unless the court finds that the activity would
present an imminent and substantial danger to human health or
the environment for which there is no other equitable remedy
available under the law.
``(4) Timeline to act on court order.--If a court remands a
matter under paragraph (2), the court shall set and enforce a
reasonable schedule and deadline, which may not exceed 180
days from the date on which the court remands such matter,
except as otherwise required by law, for the Secretary or the
State, as applicable, to take such actions as the court may
order.''.
SEC. 8. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, shall begin a process to
issue guidance on the implementation of the final rule
published on September 8, 2023, by the Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the
Environmental Protection Agency and titled ``Revised
Definition of `Waters of the United States'; Conforming'' (88
Fed. Reg. 61964).
(b) Public Comment.--In issuing the guidance required under
subsection (a), the Administrator and the Secretary shall--
(1) prior to such issuance, solicit comments from the
public on such guidance; and
(2) ensure that such comments and any responses to such
comments are made publicly available.
(c) Compliance.--Any guidance issued pursuant to this
section shall comply with the decision of the Supreme Court
in Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023).
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in House Report 118-428. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bergman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 118-428.
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, including the amendments made by this
Act, may be construed as affecting the ban on oil and gas
development in the Great Lakes described in section 386 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15941).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Bergman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to offer my amendment to
H.R. 7023.
Michigan's First District is home to more than 2,000 miles of Great
Lakes coastline. It is by far the most of any congressional district,
and it touches three of the five Great Lakes.
For those of us who call Michigan home, the Great Lakes play an
invaluable role for our natural ecosystems, communities, economies, and
our general way of life.
Protecting our lakes is a unifying goal that crosses all political
lines.
My amendment is simple. It would clarify that nothing in this
legislation would affect the longstanding ban on oil and gas drilling
in the Great Lakes under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
To be clear, I don't believe a reasonable reading of H.R. 7023 would
directly lead to drilling activities in our Great Lakes. Nonetheless,
if there is one thing I have learned in my years in the military and
here in Congress, Mr. Chair, you can't always trust the Federal
bureaucracy to do the reasonable and right thing.
The vital importance of the Great Lakes to those of us who live near
them demands certainty and security. This is a concrete assurance that
these protections, which have wide bipartisan support, will stay in
place.
This is especially true when we are discussing permitting under the
Clean Water Act, including for energy producers.
With this protection included, H.R. 7023 will be able to properly
balance
[[Page H1333]]
sound environmental stewardship with responsible infrastructure
development and cut the amount of red tape.
Providing regulatory certainty and clarity while maintaining
longstanding protections, like the ban on Great Lakes drilling, is not
a zero-sum game. We can and must do both.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even
though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that nothing
in this act affects the existing ban on oil and gas drilling in the
Great Lakes.
Legislation banning the issuing of new drilling permits in the Great
Lakes was passed in 2005 with support from both parties.
{time} 1545
While legislation before us does undermine Clean Water Act
protections, it does not affect the existing ban on drilling in the
Great Lakes.
Republicans would like to call this week energy week, so let's look
at the state of American energy today. Despite what you hear on the
other side of the aisle, we are experiencing a record oil boom in the
United States--a record oil boom.
There is no war on oil. The United States is the largest crude oil
producer in the world, outpacing Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC
countries.
Last fall, President Biden had approved more permits for oil and gas
drilling on public lands than the previous President had at the same
point in his Presidency.
Through passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the
Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden and House Democrats are
addressing both the immediate needs for affordable gas prices for
consumers as well as the long-term investments in a clean energy future
that will also tackle the climate crisis.
Already since the Inflation Reduction Act's passage, 292 major clean
energy projects have been announced that would create over 100,000 jobs
across the country.
Just like America can dominate both oil production and clean energy
deployment, we can promote American energy while also ensuring
protection of our environment.
I have no objection to the amendment or its adoption.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chair, explicitly maintaining protections that
prevent oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes will provide certainty
for the millions of Americans who call the region home while we work to
improve Federal permitting.
Mr. Chair, once again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment
and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 118-428.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, after line 11, insert the following:
SEC. 4. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES) TERMS.
Section 402(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) are for fixed terms--
``(i) not exceeding 10 years, for a permit issued to a
State or municipality; and
``(ii) not exceeding 5 years, for a permit issued to any
person not described in clause (i); and''.
Page 5, after line 4, insert the following:
(b) Technical Corrections.--Section 402(l)(3) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)(3)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``section 402'' and inserting ``this
section''; and
(B) by striking ``federal'' and inserting ``Federal''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``Section'' and inserting ``section'';
(B) by striking ``402(p)(6)'' and inserting ``subsection
(p)(6)'';
(C) by striking ``402(l)(3)(A),'' and inserting
``subparagraph (A),''; and
(D) by striking ``402(l)(3)(A).'' and inserting ``such
subparagraph.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and 47 States and U.S. territories with
delegated authority under the Clean Water Act to issue permits for
public works up to 10 years.
Under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, NPDES, Federal, State, and territory regulators can issue
permits for 5 years, and that is it. That arbitrary permit duration no
longer matches the construction timeline for public works, like
modernizing wastewater treatment plants and building new water
recycling facilities.
When the Clean Water Act was signed into law in 1972, publicly owned
wastewater treatment plants were being constructed principally to
provide primary or secondary treatment. Things have changed over the
last five decades. Now, these plants are looking at tertiary and even
higher standards, taking longer time for the engineering as well as the
construction. Some of these plants are even installing fuel cells, such
as in my district, Pittsburg, California.
Increasing the NPDES permit from 5 to 10 years ensures that the
Federal permitting process accurately reflects the timeframes to
construct a public water project, upholding the Clean Water Act
protections.
U.S. EPA and many State Clean Water Act regulators, including the
California State Water Resources Control Board, have a backlog of
permits, some of these multiple, multiple years. That is why many, if
not most, of these NPDES permits issued nationwide expire long before
they can be renewed and remain in effect, sometimes for years.
Mr. Chair, this amendment, if adopted, would clear the backlog and
provide the necessary time to plan, engineer, and build the facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, although I claimed the time in opposition,
I did, of course, note that I am not opposed. I support this amendment
offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi) as it furthers
the purpose of the underlying legislation by offering more flexibility
and regulatory certainty to permit holders.
This amendment will provide publicly owned wastewater treatment
facilities with the ability to have their permits under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act issued for 10 years, up from the current 5 years.
In doing so, the amendment will reduce administrative strains and
bureaucracy, while giving communities more flexibility to take on
important wastewater infrastructure projects with certainty.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the bipartisan support for this amendment.
It makes a lot of sense to expand up to 10 years. It may be that an
entity would like to have a permit for less than 10 years, and this
amendment would allow that, but more importantly, it does allow a
permit to go for a full 10 years.
The bipartisan support is much appreciated, even though it was
presented in opposition, which I understand needed to be done to meet
the rules.
[[Page H1334]]
Mr. Chairman, nevertheless, with that in mind, I urge my colleagues
to vote ``aye,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Houlahan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 118-428.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON CORPS STAFFING NEEDS.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall submit to Congress a report on--
(1) the staffing needs of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Corps of Engineers to process applications
for, and issue, permits under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, based on the number of such applications
submitted during the 5-year period preceding such date of
enactment; and
(2) the impact that funding for additional full-time
employees would have on processing timelines for such
permits.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support this bipartisan and straightforward amendment to help pass the
backlog of permits that have slowed down the development of
infrastructure and energy projects across this country.
As the co-chair of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, I am very
excited to be able to offer this amendment alongside my Republican co-
chair, Andrew Garbarino, and caucus members David Valadao and Mike
Lawler.
Our caucus has heard from businesses, experts, and agency officials
that have all expressed the very same message: Permitting in our
country takes too long, and our Nation's climate and infrastructure
goals are being diminished as a result.
Ensuring timely review processes is also critical as our Nation hopes
to maximize the potential of recent historic legislation, including the
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In other words, slow
permitting means slower progress for our economy.
In issuing permits, the Federal Government does their due diligence
to ensure that these projects will not cause undue harm to our
communities, waters, and environment. That said, under no circumstances
should issues with agency staffing hamstring the permitting of
projects, costing us good-paying jobs, time, and money for our
businesses.
Unfortunately, the EPA faces a significant backlog. At the end of
fiscal year 2023, the Agency's backlog of general permits under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System impacted 600 facilities
nationwide. Further, in 2018, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cited
that the average time to complete a standard individual permit is 329
days.
Every day that a permit is not issued, time, jobs, and the potential
vitality of an entire project may be lost. The EPA and the Army Corps
have a responsibility to meet their regulatory permitting deadlines so
that we can get shovels in the ground and projects online and on time.
That is why I offered this very straightforward and bipartisan
amendment that will help us to better understand how staffing
shortfalls are impacting permitting timelines. This amendment does two
major things. It requires the EPA and the Army Corps to issue a report
on the staffing needs that they have to process and issue permits under
the Clean Water Act based on data over the last 5 years. The amendment
also requires the agencies to cite the impact that funding for
additional full-time employees might have on processing timelines.
This will allow Congress to be able to take any requisite action to
be able to support the hardworking public servants who process these
applications and who help reduce that backlog moving forward.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues, both Democrats and
Republicans alike, to support my bipartisan amendment. I thank those
who have already supported this amendment, and I especially thank
Ranking Member Larsen for his leadership and support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would help provide Congress
with useful information on the staffing needs for processing Clean
Water Act permits.
Ensuring the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have the necessary
resources to issue permits combined with the commonsense permitting
reforms included in the underlying legislation will benefit energy and
other infrastructure projects in communities across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the bipartisan
nature with which this amendment has been accepted and received. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. James
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 118-428.
Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. SAVINGS CLAUSE RELATING TO PFAS.
Nothing in this Act, including the amendments made by this
Act, shall affect the authority of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct research on
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. James) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, today, I stand before my colleagues with a
grave concern that demands our immediate attention.
The Great Lakes, the lifeblood of our region, are under siege from a
silent yet deadly threat, PFAS chemicals. These persistent, toxic
substances pose a significant risk to both human health and our
environment. Congress cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this
pressing issue. The health and well-being of Michigan and Great Lakes
communities depend on it.
That is why I have submitted an amendment that would bar any of the
provisions in this bill from attempting to impede research into PFAS
chemicals. Stopping PFAS research would be a disservice to the public
and to millions of Americans who rely on the Great Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow political agendas to stand in the way
of scientific progress and the health of our people. Our people are too
important for that.
That is why I am similarly supporting an amendment from my friend,
Representative Jack Bergman from Michigan, which would also ban gas and
oil drilling in the Great Lakes.
This isn't a left versus right issue. This is an issue that impacts
all of us and future generations.
Congress must do all that it can to protect the Great Lakes, and one
step is supporting comprehensive research initiatives to fully
understand the extent of PFAS contamination and its potential impacts.
[[Page H1335]]
We owe it to future generations to safeguard the Great Lakes and
ensure they remain a source of clean water and natural beauty for years
to come. Let us unite in our commitment to protect our environment and
the health of our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues to please support this very
important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though
I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).
Communities across the Nation have learned firsthand of the human
health risks associated with forever chemicals such as PFAS, a
pollutant that is found in wastewater of municipal treatment works as
well as in industrial discharges.
EPA is actively addressing PFAS concerns both by pushing to identify
and limit large-scale industrial discharges of PFAS to treatment
systems as well as developing an enforcement discretion policy for
municipalities that may simply have PFAS chemicals in their sewage
through no fault of their own.
{time} 1600
While I share the gentleman's concern about the health risks of PFAS,
I would point out that the underlying bill may create greater
incentives for discharges to underreport or look the other way when it
comes to PFAS discharges.
Since 1994, EPA has had in place a ``permit shield'' policy that
provides dischargers with legal protection if they are applied for in
good faith, and with honest disclosures of all pollutants potentially
contained in the discharge.
However, the underlying bill codifies an expanded version of the
permit shield, applicable to any discharger, whether a municipal
treatment plant, a mining site, or industrial discharger regardless of
whether they have made good-faith disclosures of all pollutants.
EPA has indicated that this expanded permit shield creates a
disincentive for permittees to identify pollutants that are part of
their waste stream during the development of their permit, including
PFAS.
We should not be creating incentives for permittees to ignore the
discharge of these chemicals.
I support the gentleman's amendment to ensure that nothing in the act
affects the EPA's authority to research PFAS chemicals. However, I do
not support the provisions in the underlying bill that will undermine
EPA's ability to track ongoing discharges of PFAS making it more
challenging to utilize this research to help the communities threatened
by PFAS.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chair, once again, I thank my colleagues for
supporting this very important bill. The Great Lakes is important to
the entire United States of America and to Michigan especially.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Moolenaar
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 118-428.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Insert after section 7 the following:
SEC. 8. LIMITATION ON PERMIT ISSUANCE.
Title IV of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1341 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 407. LIMITATION ON PERMIT ISSUANCE.
``(a) Prohibition.--No permit may be issued under this
title for any discharge from a point source that is owned or
operated by an entity that--
``(1) is subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country
of concern (as defined in section 9901(7) of the William M.
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4651(7)); or
``(2) is a subsidiary of an entity that is subject to the
jurisdiction of a foreign country of concern (as so defined).
``(b) Application.--This section shall be applied in a
manner consistent with the obligations of the United States
under applicable international agreements.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward.
It prohibits the EPA from issuing a water permit to a company that is
based in a foreign country of concern as well as any of its
subsidiaries.
The countries of concern are China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
This is common sense.
As a member of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition
Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, I have seen
firsthand how the CCP is trying to disrupt American leadership around
the world and replace it with their own authoritarian regime.
Here at home, Americans feel like China is constantly taking
advantage of our country and our freedoms. They are sick and tired of
seeing the CCP fly spy balloons over our country, bribe our
servicemembers to spy on us, hack our computer systems, poison our
communities with fentanyl, and depress our children with secret social
media algorithms based in Beijing.
Mr. Chair, if you talked to constituents in your hometown and asked
them if we should allow CCP-affiliated companies to use 700,000 gallons
of water a day, they would all say, of course not.
Unfortunately, in my district, the CCP-affiliated company called
Gotion is trying to bully its way into town. The company was rejected
in a recall election last November and now it is suing a rural township
over its plans to build a factory and use 700,000 gallons of water a
day.
The EPA should not be issuing permits to CCP-affiliated companies and
their subsidiaries.
We cannot allow China to take advantage of our country's natural
resources.
My amendment is necessary, and it is common sense.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, for over 50 years, the Federal-State
partnership created by the Clean Water Act has allowed communities to
enjoy clean water and has given businesses the certainty they need to
create jobs and spur economic growth.
Yet, if this amendment becomes law, both EPA and every State who has
taken on responsibility for implementing the Clean Water Act would have
to deny clean water permits for any--I underscore any--facility or
activity associated with a foreign government of concern.
That means that any U.S. subsidiary of a company with economic ties
to China, Russia, or any other foreign country of concern would, by
statute, be denied the ability to operate and expand in this country if
their activities trigger Clean Water Act review.
I know Representative Moolenaar is concerned about the announced $2.3
billion investment in the State of Michigan that is likely to create an
additional 2,350 good-paying jobs, and that Michigan Governor Whitman
has called `` . . . the biggest ever economic development project in
northern Michigan. . . . ''
However, this amendment is not limited to Michigan. How many other
U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will also be caught up in this
amendment?
How will the General Electric appliance manufacturing plants in
Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina continue to
operate if this amendment is adopted? GE Appliances is a subsidiary of
a Chinese-owned company.
How will this amendment affect Smithfield Foods' operations in
Maryland and Virginia if these facilities are
[[Page H1336]]
forever denied clean water permits because of their association with a
Chinese owner?
Motorola is one of the world's leading manufacturers of smartphones;
however, this Chinese-owned company has numerous offices and
manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S., including a new 136,000-
square-foot facility in Richardson, Texas.
Will the Moolenaar amendment make it logistically impossible for
Motorola to continue to operate in the U.S.?
House Democrats have been leading the charge to ensure that the Clean
Water Act continues to accomplish both goals--clean water and job
creation.
House Democrats will continue to build a strong record of sustainable
job creation and support of domestic manufacturing.
Prohibiting the issuance of Clean Water Act permits for projects that
have investment from certain foreign entities is likely to be
unimplement
able, will increase the potential for litigation and delay, and
ultimately only threatens clean water.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to
oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chair, again, I would just restate for the Members
that we are talking about countries of concern--China, Russia, Iran,
and North Korea.
When we consider that China and the CCP have been flying spy
balloons, bribing our servicemembers, poisoning our communities with
fentanyl, and the malign activities that they are engaging in around
the globe, why would we submit ourselves and our greatest natural
resources? To me it is just common sense. When we are funding projects,
when we are developing the future of our country, why would we further
our dependence on our adversaries?
Mr. Chair, just in closing, I would ask our colleagues to vote
``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 6 will not
be offered.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bean of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 118-428.
Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 9. APPROVAL OF FLORIDA PERMIT PROGRAM.
The notice of the Environmental Protection Agency approving
the State of Florida's request to carry out a permit program
for the discharge of dredged or fill material pursuant to
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), published on December 22, 2020, and titled
``EPA's Approval of Florida's Clean Water Act Section 404
Assumption Request'' (85 Fed. Reg. 83553) shall have the
force and effect of law.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Bean) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, ERROR: 404 not found. It is the
dreaded computer message that appears when you visit a website or
access a file that no longer exists.
Unfortunately, it is also the message that more than 1,000 critical
development projects throughout the free State of Florida may receive
due to the uncertainty surrounding the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's continued ability to issue section 404
program permits.
Lake County, Florida, alone estimates a billion dollars of economic
development that now faces uncertainty. This is due to a District of
Columbia Federal judge's decision to vacate Florida's 404 permitting
program, a decision that will have serious implications for the future
of our environment and our economy.
The ability for States like Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey to take
the lead in regulating their natural resources is vital, but it is
especially important for a State like Florida where our growing economy
is contingent on the continued protection of our environment.
That is why my amendment simply seeks to provide permitting certainty
to the now more than 1,000 projects that are lined up in limbo by
codifying Florida's successful 404 program. Our program has proven time
and time again that Florida can do a much better job, more efficiently
and effectively, issuing permits for necessary projects better than the
Federal Government has.
Mr. Chair, as Floridians, we understand the important role our
environment plays in our economy and in Floridians' way of life.
Florida, please, is asking everybody to join us because we need the
flexibility to make decisions that are best suited for the Sunshine
State's environmental and economic needs, reduce project costs, and
save taxpayer dollars, all while improving responsiveness to applicants
and the communities' projects they serve.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues for their support of this important
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, the Clean Water Act was specifically
enacted as a Federal-State partnership.
Today, EPA has approved 47 States to implement the point source
discharge program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Their
status as coregulators makes comprehensive implementation of the
programs possible.
However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the
discharge of dredge and fill materials under section 404 of the act,
with only New Jersey and Michigan currently approved to implement this
authority.
This amendment is directly related to whether Florida followed the
rules in seeking approval of its own section 404 program.
Recently, a Federal district court struck down the previous
administration's approval of Florida's 404 permit authority on the
grounds that both State and Federal agencies failed to follow the rules
in approving the State's program.
I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to
manage 404 authority within its border. However, this amendment seeks
to legislatively mandate approval of a program, without changes, that
was adopted without proper oversight and review.
The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program, but
through the proper approval process, and Congress should not mandate a
program that has been deemed deficient by the courts.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to
oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, the Environmental Protection Agency
still maintains a strict permit-by-permit oversight of Florida's
permitting decisions, but you have heard me say that thousands of
projects are on hold.
You may ask: What are you talking about, Congressman Bean? What
projects are we talking about? What projects are on hold right now?
Let me tell you what is on hold, Mr. Chair: Projects to restore
Florida's Everglades and prevent damaging discharges from Lake
Okeechobee are on hold; public projects to build sidewalks, improving
bridges, utilities, roads, highways across the Sunshine State are on
hold. We can't do them. Solar energy projects, including solar power
stations and other electric utility projects impacting our grid in the
Sunshine State are on hold; stormwater infrastructure repairs at U.S.
Naval Air Station Pensacola damaged due to Hurricane Sally, but the
repairs are on hold because we can't get the Federal Government to act
fast. We are ready to go. We are ready to go.
What else is on hold? We have a school in Jacksonville, a desperately
needed school ready to be built. It is on hold because the Federal
Government put everything on hold.
[[Page H1337]]
Give us the chance to continue this important work in the State of
Florida. I ask my colleagues to reconsider their opposition. Join us
and let's take the Sunshine State back on course to bring these
projects to light.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1615
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 118-428.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, strike lines 15 and 16, and insert the following:
``(B) Limitation.--A general permit issued under
subparagraph (A) may not authorize an activity of an excluded
project if the Comptroller General makes a determination--
``(i) during the period ending on September 30, 2026, that
the total amount of covered credits claimed exceeds the
amount of covered credits predicted to be claimed in the cost
estimate of the Congressional Budget Office for fiscal years
2022 through 2026; or
``(ii) during the period ending on September 30, 2031, that
the total amount of covered credits claimed exceeds the
amount of covered credits predicted to be claimed in the cost
estimate of the Congressional Budget Office for fiscal years
2027 through 2031.
``(C) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Covered credit.--The term `covered credit' means any
tax credit under the amendments made by sections 13101,
13102, and 13103 of Public Law 117-169 (commonly known as the
Inflation Reduction Act).
``(ii) Excluded project.--The term `excluded project' means
a linear infrastructure project for the transmission of
electricity with respect to which--
``(I) the taxpayer has received or expects to receive a
covered credit; and
``(II) the Secretary has not verified that an activity of
the project is authorized by the applicable general permit
before the date on which the Comptroller General makes a
determination described in subparagraph (B).
``(iii) Linear infrastructure project.--The term
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, after listening to the gentleman from
Florida, I would like a double dose of whatever he is taking.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, what our amendment does is, it addresses
something that I think both Conservatives and Liberals should be
excited about. Let me explain.
Under the Inflation Reduction Act, this large, incredibly expensive
energy bill, the Congressional Budget Office did an estimate to
determine the total amount of subsidies that this legislation would
cost the American taxpayers.
Then you have had folks like Goldman Sachs that have come in and done
evaluations and determined that that assessment was likely off by a
factor of three or even four. Let me say that again. The estimate was
off by a factor of three or even four.
What the base text of this legislation does is it provides for an
expedited processing or environmental review of Clean Water Act
requirements. Our amendment simply says, once you hit that cap of how
much the Congressional Budget Office said this bill was going to cost,
said the Inflation Reduction Act was going to cost, you no longer get
the expedited process strictly for linear infrastructure projects;
otherwise, projects like transmission.
If you are a Conservative, you should be supportive because you are
simply capping the cost of this project at what the Congressional
Budget Office said. If you are a Liberal, you should be supporting
this. You are beating up on the bill right now. This caps or stops the
effect of that bill, the expedited process, once you hit the cap that
you all thought you were voting for.
Mr. Chair, this should be a win-win. This should have bipartisan
support. I think that this is an appropriate amendment. I think the
amendment ensures that congressional intent is preserved by limiting
the cost of these incredibly expensive subsidies at the rate that
Members of Congress who supported this legislation believed they were
spending.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mike Garcia of California). The gentlewoman
from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, House Democrats support including local
input in the development of large-scale infrastructure projects
directly affecting local communities. During committee consideration of
this bill, we opposed attempts to curtail local input.
This amendment is another example of curtailing local input to push
through large-scale projects. However, this amendment picks winners and
losers for what types of projects get to be jammed through the process.
I proudly supported the investments in our infrastructure and clean
energy future contained in the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Chips
and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act last Congress. These
critical bills were about creating jobs, advancing infrastructure
investments, and accelerating the economy of the future.
House Democrats are committed to improving the quality of life for
all Americans by building the economy from the middle out and bottom
up. However, this amendment gives a fast lane for Clean Water Act
permits to fossil fuel-related linear infrastructure projects.
It purposefully excludes renewable energy projects, including solar
and wind, and other clean energy alternatives that benefited from the
Inflation Reduction Act. It also excludes efforts to bolster energy
reliability and resilience and nationwide efforts to upgrade the
Nation's energy grid. I suspect this is why several energy companies,
including the American Clean Power Association, Edison Electric, and
the Chamber of Commerce are also opposed to this amendment.
Again, I remain concerned that under H.R. 7023, local voices are
excluded from the development of linear projects generally. Adding Mr.
Graves' amendment, which doubles down on the fast-tracking of fossil
fuel-related energy infrastructure, only strengthens my opposition to
the underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose
the amendment, as well. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the
gentlewoman's response, and I guess I am confused. First of all, this
amendment does absolutely nothing to affect public participation. It
does nothing. It does nothing to affect local input.
This amendment does apply to linear infrastructure, as she noted,
things like transmission, but I remind my friend across the aisle, the
gentlewoman from California, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The gentlewoman can't be opposed to the bill, opposed to the
underlying bill, and then when this amendment actually stops the
expedited authority under this legislation from applying to projects
also say that she opposes that.
Does the gentlewoman support the expedited process or does she not? I
am very baffled by the comments. Either you oppose the underlying bill
or you support the underlying bill. I have heard the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Huffman) both express opposition to the underlying bill.
Let me say it again: What this amendment does, it says that this
expedited authority only for linear transmission projects, linear
infrastructure projects, it no longer applies once you hit the
financial cap that was estimated, the financial score that was
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.
I would think that my friend from California would actually be
supportive of this legislation, of this amendment if she is opposed to
the underlying bill. It caps, it curtails the use of this expedited
authority that I believe Mr. Huffman indicated he believed would result
in trashing the environment.
[[Page H1338]]
Let me say it again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you
are a fiscal conservative, you should support this amendment because it
stops this runaway, excessive subsidy for technologies that have been
around for 40, 50 years. It stops the expedited authority for those
type of projects. Why we are subsidizing technologies that have been
around for 40 or 50 years, I do not understand. Other countries don't
in many cases.
Secondly, if you are a Liberal, if you are out there saying that this
bill is extreme, you should support this amendment because it no longer
allows for the expedited authority once you hit the financial cap.
I ask my friends across the aisle: Do you want to have your cake or
do you want to eat it because you only get one choice?
Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 99,
noes 323, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 99]
AYES--99
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Barr
Bean (FL)
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buck
Burlison
Carey
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Crane
Davidson
Duncan
Ellzey
Fallon
Fry
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Granger
Graves (LA)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hageman
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Kustoff
LaMalfa
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luna
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moran
Moylan
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Ogles
Palmer
Perry
Posey
Radewagen
Rogers (KY)
Rosendale
Roy
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Spartz
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Williams (NY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--323
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Alford
Allen
Allred
Amo
Amodei
Auchincloss
Baird
Balderson
Balint
Banks
Barragan
Beatty
Bentz
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bice
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budzinski
Burchett
Burgess
Bush
Calvert
Cammack
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carl
Carson
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Comer
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donalds
Duarte
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Emmer
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Ezell
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Frost
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Graves (MO)
Green, Al (TX)
Guest
Harris
Harshbarger
Hayes
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houchin
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaHood
LaLota
Lamborn
Landsman
Langworthy
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luttrell
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Maloy
Manning
Mast
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pfluger
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Rouzer
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stauber
Steel
Stevens
Strickland
Strong
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Valadao
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
NOT VOTING--15
Doggett
Frankel, Lois
Golden (ME)
Gonzalez-Colon
Gosar
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Kildee
Molinaro
Nehls
Pressley
Rose
Simpson
Williams (TX)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1651
Messrs. CARSON, GIMENEZ, JAMES, Ms. MALOY, Messrs. DUNN of Florida,
RESCHENTHALER, EMMER, KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. STEEL, Messrs.
MOOLENAAR, CARDENAS, LUTTRELL, Ms. OMAR, Messrs. COSTA, FULCHER and
WEBSTER of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HUNT, FALLON, MOYLAN, and CLINE changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On March 21, 2024, page H1338, in the third column, the
following appeared: LUTTRELL, Ms. OMAR, Messrs. COSTA, FULCHER,
WEBSTER of Flor- ida and MIKE GARCIA of California changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Messrs. HUNT, FALLON, MOYLAN, and
CLINE changed their vote from
The online version has been corrected to read: LUTTRELL, Ms.
OMAR, Messrs. COSTA, FULCHER and WEBSTER of Flor- ida changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Messrs. HUNT, FALLON, MOYLAN,
and CLINE changed their vote from
========================= END NOTE =========================
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendment under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bergman) having assumed the chair, Mr. Mike Garcia of California,
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 7023) to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to codify certain regulatory provisions relating to
nationwide permits for dredged or fill material, and for other
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 1085, he reported the bill
back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mike Garcia of California). The Clerk
will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Scholten of Michigan moves to recommit the bill H.R.
7023 to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
[[Page H1339]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205,
nays 213, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 100]
YEAS--205
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
NAYS--213
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOT VOTING--13
Frankel, Lois
Golden (ME)
Gosar
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Kildee
Molinaro
Nehls
Pressley
Rose
Simpson
Williams (TX)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1701
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 205, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 101]
AYES--213
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--205
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Griffith
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
[[Page H1340]]
Khanna
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
NOT VOTING--14
D'Esposito
Frankel, Lois
Golden (ME)
Gosar
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Kildee
Molinaro
Nehls
Pressley
Rose
Simpson
Williams (TX)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1709
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide regulatory and
judicial certainty for regulated entities and communities, increase
transparency, and promote water quality, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 96,
``nay'' on rollcall No. 97, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 98, ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 99, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 100 and ``nay'' on rollcall
No. 101.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes due to a death
in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 96, H. Res. 987; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 97, H. Con. Res.
86 ``yea'' on rollcall No. 98, H.R. 1836; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 99,
Mr. Graves of Louisiana amendment No. 8; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 100,
motion to recommit H.R. No. 7023; and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 101, H.R.
7023.
____________________