[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.

                          ____________________