[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6424-6438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              REGULATORY INTEGRITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on H.R. 1732.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 231 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. 1732.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 6425]]



                              {time}  1602


                     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. 1732) to preserve existing rights and responsibilities with 
respect to waters of the United States, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Young of Iowa 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.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1732, the 
Regulatory Integrity Protection Act.
  The Federal-State partnership Congress created under the Clean Water 
Act has led to significantly improved water quality over the past four 
decades. This is because Congress recognized that States should have 
the primary responsibility of regulating waters within their own 
boundaries and that not all waters need to be subjected to Federal 
jurisdiction. These limits on Federal power have also been reaffirmed 
by the Supreme Court not once, but twice.
  However, last year, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers proposed a new 
rule that discards these limits. This purposefully vague rule will only 
increase confusion, increase uncertainty, increase lawsuits, and open 
up just about any water or wet area to Federal regulation.
  Don't just take my word for it. At least 32 States, including 
Pennsylvania, are objecting to the rule as proposed. More than 1 
million comments have been filed on this proposed rule, with 
approximately 70 percent of the substantive comments asking for the 
rule to be withdrawn or significantly modified.
  Mr. Chair, 370 individual counties and the National Association of 
Counties oppose the rule. The National League of Cities, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Towns and 
Townships all oppose this rule.
  The majority of the regulated community opposes the rule, including 
the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Home Builders, 
the Associated General Contractors of America, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Edison 
Electric Institute, the National Mining Association, and the American 
Road and Transportation Builders Association.
  This list of those opposed to this rule goes on and on and on. Not 
only do all these groups oppose the rule, but they all support H.R. 
1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act.
  I will insert the list of supporters in the Congressional Record at 
this time.

                    Letters of Support for H.R. 1732

       AgriMark, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Public 
     Works Association, American Road and Transportation Builders 
     Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated 
     General Contractors of America, Association of American 
     Railroads, Family Farm Alliance, International Council of 
     Shopping Centers.
       National Alliance of Forest Owners, National Association of 
     Counties, National Association of Homebuilders, National 
     Association of Realtors, National Association of Regional 
     Councils, National Association of Wheat Growers, National 
     League of Cities, National Multifamily Housing Council, 
     National Water Resources Association.
       Northeast Dairy Farmers Cooperatives, Oregon Dairy Farmers 
     Association, Portland Cement Association, Select Milk 
     Producers Inc., Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, 
     The American Sugarbeet Growers Association, The United States 
     Conference of Mayors, Virginia Poultry Federation, Waters 
     Advocacy Coalition.
       National Association of Manufacturers.


                    List of Supporters for H.R. 1732

       Agricultural Retailers Association, American Exploration & 
     Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American 
     Forest & Paper Association, American Gas Association, 
     American Iron and Steel
     Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Public 
     Power Association, American Road & Transportation Builders 
     Association, American Society of Golf Course Architects.
       Associated Builders and Contractors, The Associated General 
     Contractors of America, Association of American Railroads, 
     Association of Oil Pipe Lines, Club Managers Association of 
     America, Corn Refiners Association, CropLife America, Edison 
     Electric Institute, Federal Forest Resources Coalition, The 
     Fertilizer Institute.
       Florida Sugar Cane League, Foundation for Environmental and 
     Economic Progress (FEEP), Golf Course Builders Association of 
     America, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, 
     The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), 
     Industrial Minerals Association--North America, International 
     Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), International Liquid 
     Terminals Association (ILTA), Interstate Natural Gas 
     Association of America (INGAA), Irrigation Association.
       Leading Builders of America, NAIOP, the Commercial Real 
     Estate Development Association, National Association of Home 
     Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National 
     Association of REALTORS, National Association of State 
     Department of Agriculture, National Cattlemen's Beef 
     Association, National Club Association, National Corn Growers 
     Association, National Cotton.
       National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer 
     Cooperatives, National Golf Course Owners Association of 
     America, National Industrial Sand Association, National 
     Mining Association, National Multifamily Housing Council, 
     National Oilseed Processors Association, National Pork 
     Producers Council (NPPC), National Rural Electric Cooperative 
     Association, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association 
     (NSSGA).
       Portland Cement Association, Public Lands, Responsible 
     Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), Southeastern Lumber 
     Manufacturers Association Southern Crop Production 
     Association, Sports Turf Managers Association, Texas Wildlife 
     Association, Treated Wood Council, United Egg Producers, U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. SHUSTER. I next want to read a quote from a constituent of mine, 
Marty Yahner, a farmer from Cambria County, Pennsylvania.
  ``This illegal power grab clearly goes far beyond the power granted 
to the EPA by Congress through the Clean Water Act. Farmers, like me, 
are very concerned about the proposal giving unprecedented power to 
government agencies over how farmers can use their land. I'm also 
worried that the proposed rules will adversely impact the next 
generation being able to farm.''
  That is not a Member of Congress. That is not a government official. 
That is a real-life farmer, and he has real concerns.
  This rule will have serious economic consequences not just for our 
farmers, but for many others. This rule will threaten jobs and result 
in costly litigation. It will restrict the rights of landowners and the 
rights of States and local governments to carry out their economic 
development plans.
  H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, requires the 
agencies to withdraw the flawed rule, consult with States and local 
governments and other stakeholders, and then use that input to develop 
and repropose a new rule that works.
  This bill gives the agencies, their State partners, and stakeholders 
another chance to work together and develop a rule that does what was 
intended, provide clarity. This is a chance to find the thoughtful, 
balanced regulatory approach that is necessary.
  We all want to protect our waters. With this bill, we have a chance 
to do that by restoring integrity to the rulemaking process and restore 
common sense.
  With this bill, we have a chance to tell the administration, the EPA, 
and the Corps to do it right this time.
  I urge all Members to support H.R. 1732, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 1732, very aptly name the RIP 
Act, rest in peace--oh, no, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act. It 
will rest in peace. It would be inevitably vetoed if the Senate chose 
to take it up, which I don't believe they will.
  We are being asked to vote on things here that no one has seen or 
read, and that is why we are here today.
  Now, the President wants us to vote on trade policy for the United 
States of America. I have read parts of it. Many Members haven't read 
any of it, but nobody--probably very few have read all of it. The 
public hasn't seen any of it.

[[Page 6426]]

  Here we are again today. We are being asked to vote on killing 
something that nobody has read. No one in this Chamber knows what is in 
this rule.
  Now, I would not rise to support the rule as initially proposed. It 
was garbled, poorly presented, and I believe there were many problems 
that it would have created, and that was especially distressing because 
it was a rule that was trying to fix something done in the Bush era. We 
are still dealing with the Bush era.
  Because of a 4-1-4 Supreme Court decision, with two different tests 
for jurisdictional waters and total confusion, the Bush administration 
decided to write a rule to interpret the Clean Water Act.
  When it was unveiled, it was opposed by all the groups that are 
supporting this bill today. They said: This is ridiculous. It is 
confusing. It just leaves way too much to interpretation. It can be 
applied in different ways in different parts of the country. There is 
no certainty here. It is a mess. Get rid of it.
  Well, that didn't happen, and the Obama administration, in response 
to the requests of all those groups, said: Okay. We will take a cut at 
it.
  Now, as I say, the first version was not very well done, and it 
raised more questions than it answered, but we now have at least some 
idea of some of the things this bill is going to do.
  It is not going to regulate your birdbaths and ditches and all these 
other things that are out there on the Internet. In fact, it may solve 
real problems. We don't know that, but we are going to repeal it before 
it happens.
  Now, here is a problem. This farmer in the South was made to go 
through the environmental review process and get a permit; yet farming 
and agricultural practices are supposed to be exempt.
  I showed this to the Republicans who were using this in a joint 
hearing with the Senate. I asked the EPA Administrator and secretary of 
the Corps: Would this land, knowing it is agricultural land, be 
jurisdictional--they can't tell us what is in their rule--under your 
rule?
  They said: No, that land would be exempt.
  This person who had to go through a lengthy permitting process 
because of the confusion of the Bush guidance would not, under the 
proposed rule, have to go through any of that and could just go on 
farming.
  Thank you very much.
  Now, we are going to prevent him or her from getting that relief. 
Now, that is just one of the aspects of this rule that we know a little 
bit about--or at least we know the Administrator's interpretation of 
that part of the rule, that it would fix a problem for farmers.
  I would suggest that there is a better way to proceed in the House, 
which would be let them publish the rule. If it solves a bunch of 
problems, great. If it solves a bunch of problems but still needs some 
tweaks, great. Let's intervene. Let's give them direction.
  If it is something that you and everybody else feels we just can't 
live with, that it is poorly done--instead of this confusing process we 
are going through here, which I am about to explain contradicts 
legislation just passed 2 weeks ago--we can do this: I have already had 
it drafted for you. You don't need to take the time. It is less than a 
page. It is called a joint congressional resolution of disapproval.
  Any major rule--this is a major rule--Congress has the right, under 
legislation that is 20 years old now, to reject it within 60 days. If 
the rule is not well written, once we see it and read it, you could 
reject it. What is the rush to repeal it before we have read it and we 
know what is in it?
  Well, there is a lot of political stuff going on around here. I would 
say it is just politics playing to the crowd and the fears of people 
who haven't seen it or read it yet either, but they are worried about 
what it might be.
  Well, it doesn't go into effect immediately, I will say to them. If 
it is bad, you can ask the same people that introduced this resolution, 
pass it forthwith, send it to the Senate, pass it forthwith, and that 
is the end of it, and we would start over.
  Now, there is one other confusing aspect here, and that is that, just 
2 weeks ago, the House voted on this language, which says that the bill 
before us purports to start the process over again, the fourth attempt 
at writing the rule with a whole lot more public hearings and 
everything, despite everything that has gone on to this point in time.
  Two weeks ago, an amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations 
said there can be no new rule development, so that is already in the 
bill. Unless that were taken out of the bill, what we are doing here 
today can't happen.
  You can't develop a new rule when it is precluded in the 
appropriations process, as passed by many of the people who are going 
to vote for this today. You have sort of contradicted yourself a little 
bit.
  It makes it a little problematic. Do a new rule, but you can't do a 
new rule, so forget about it. What does that mean? We are stuck with 
the Bush guidance, which everybody hates and doesn't work and subjects 
farmers to unnecessary permitting processes.
  I don't call that exactly progress or acting in the best interest of 
the American people and agriculture and a whole host of other people 
who might be impacted. I would just suggest that we forgo this little 
political demonstration today, just wait patiently for another 2 weeks 
when the trolls at OMB finally release the rule.
  It has been down there for months. We need to reform OMB, and I hope 
some on the other side of the aisle would like to help me there. We 
need a more transparent rulemaking process in this country.
  We should not rush ahead and not allow a rule to be published that 
might help people; and, if it doesn't help people, then you can kill 
it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Chairman Shuster's leadership 
on this issue. It is important that we go ahead and kill this proposed 
rule now because it will go final coming out of OMB, and that is a 
wreck.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity 
Protection Act of 2015. I cannot stress enough the importance of this 
legislation to stop the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. 
proposed rule and its damaging impacts on our country.
  This rule, in its current form, is a massive overreach of EPA's 
authority and will impact nearly every farmer and rancher in America. 
It gives the EPA the ability to regulate essentially any body of water 
they want, including farm ponds and even ditches that are dry for most 
of the year.

                              {time}  1615

  Bottom line: under the EPA's proposed rule, nearly every body of 
water in the United States can be controlled by Federal regulators.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation that forces the EPA 
and the Corps to stop moving forward with the proposed Waters of the 
U.S. rule and do as they should have done from the beginning--working 
with States and local stakeholders to develop a new and proper set of 
recommendations.
  I urge support for H.R. 1732. It is imperative that the 
administration listen to rural America.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, that gentleman hasn't 
read the rule, I haven't read the rule, and I don't know how one can 
assert very specifically what it might or might not do if you haven't 
read it when we have heard there have been major changes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member DeFazio for the 
opportunity to rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1732, the Regulatory 
Integrity Protection Act, for several reasons. First, frankly speaking, 
I oppose the bill because it simply does not work. Just before the 
recess, the House passed the Energy and Water Appropriations, as was 
pointed out by Mr.

[[Page 6427]]

DeFazio, that included a rider which I opposed that would prohibit the 
Army Corps of Engineers from using any appropriated funds to develop or 
implement a change to the current rules that define the scope of Clean 
Water Act protections. Yet that is what the sponsors of H.R. 1732 say 
this bill is meant to do.
  The sponsors of this bill claim that it will not kill the ongoing 
rulemaking but only tells the Corps and EPA to do the rulemaking over 
again. Yet just 2 weeks ago, as was pointed out, the House voted to 
prevent the agency from taking any action to change the current rules. 
So which is it? Does the majority want the agencies to do the 
rulemaking over? Or do they want to kill any effort to change the 
current process that has been uniformly criticized by farmers, 
developers, other industries, and environmental organizations as 
unworkable, arbitrary, and costly?
  Secondly, I am opposed to H.R. 1732 because it is yet another attempt 
to delay needed clarification to the scope of the Clean Water Act. 
Remember, the executive branch has been trying to clarify the scope of 
the Clean Water Act since January 2003. Now that is what, 15 years ago, 
roughly, since the Bush administration released their Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for public comment. Since that time there have been 
six--again six--attempts by the executive branch to release their 
interpretation of the Waters of the United States.
  We have waited 12 years for clarity. For 12 long years, Mr. Chairman, 
our Nation's streams and rivers have been vulnerable to pollution and 
degradation. For 12 years our government has spent millions of dollars 
working on bringing clarity to the decisions made by the Supreme Court. 
Delaying this further would cost our American taxpayers--all of us--
many more millions of dollars and a lot of wasted time.
  Intervening now and forcing the administration to start over again, 
particularly when we are on the cusp of clarity, is reckless. For 
example, stopping the administration's rulemaking to clarify the Clean 
Water Act could further impact the already dire circumstances Western 
States are facing with prolonged drought.
  Mr. Chairman, 99.2 percent of my State in California drink water from 
public drinking water systems that rely on intermittent, ephemeral, and 
headwater streams. These streams are drying up in the West. And, to add 
insult to injury, our actions today would force the administration to 
withdraw a rule that protects those streams that provide drinking water 
for 117 million Americans.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Emmer of Minnesota). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation puts the legislative agenda of a well-
heeled few ahead of the Nation's--our taxpayers'--drinking water. It 
aims to protect the rights of speculators and developers over the need 
to conserve and reuse every precious drop of water that falls in our 
State. The bill potentially creates new opportunities for individuals 
to overturn decades of Western water law for their own personal 
benefit.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us have had many concerns with the proposed 
rule--the original one. But I appreciate that the administration has 
addressed those concerns and most of the concerns of the States and the 
stakeholders. The administration has pledged to work with stakeholders 
on implementation of the rule once it is final, which should happen in 
the next few months.
  So, today, we will hear many platitudes that this bill is not about 
killing the rule but about simply asking for public comment. Yet such 
statements ignore the fact that the House just passed a rider, as was 
pointed out, in the Energy and Water bill to block the bill from taking 
effect and blocking any change to the existing rulemaking or guidance.
  So, Mr. Chairman, today's rhetoric that this is simply an attempt to 
gather more public comment is simply that--just words. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 1732.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, a gentleman who has put lots and lots of work into this 
issue over the past several months.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today for H.R. 
1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015.
  One of the reasons that we are doing this bill today is to provide 
clarity and certainty for the regulated community. Following the SWANCC 
and Rapanos Supreme Court decisions, determining the appropriate scope 
of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has been confusing and 
unclear. Both the regulated community and the Supreme Court have called 
for a rulemaking that will provide such clarity.
  Last April, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published a rule in 
the Federal Register that, according to the agencies, would clarify the 
scope of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. But in 
reality, this rule goes far beyond merely clarifying the scope of 
Federal jurisdiction under Clean Water Act programs. It amounts to a 
vast expansion of Federal jurisdiction.
  To the agencies, clarity is simple: everything is in. This is a clear 
expansion of the EPA's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and flies 
in the face of two Supreme Court decisions, both of which told the 
agencies there are limits to Federal jurisdiction.
  The proposed rule misconstrues and manipulates the legal standards 
announced in the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court cases, effectively 
turning those cases that place limits on Federal Clean Water Act 
jurisdiction into a justification for the agencies to expand their 
assertion of Federal authority over all waters and wet areas 
nationally.
  The agencies had an opportunity to develop clear and reasonable 
bright-line rules on which is jurisdictional versus not, but they 
instead chose to write many of the provisions in the proposed rule 
vaguely, in order to give Federal regulators substantial discretion to 
claim Federal jurisdiction over most any water or wet area whenever 
they want. This is dangerous because this vagueness will leave the 
regulated community without any clarity and certainty as to their 
regulatory status and will leave them exposed to citizen lawsuits. In 
addition, since many of these jurisdictional decisions will be made on 
a case-by-case basis, this will give the Federal regulators free rein 
to find jurisdiction.
  This rule, in essence, will establish a presumption that all waters 
are jurisdictional and will shift to property owners and others in the 
regulated community the burden of proving otherwise. This rule will set 
a very high bar for the regulated community to overcome.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration even explicitly acknowledges in its 
recently issued Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 1732 that 
it does not want the bill to constrain the agencies' regulatory 
discretion.
  The Clean Water Act was originally intended as a cooperative 
partnership between States and the Federal Government, with States 
responsible for the elimination, prevention, and oversight of water 
pollution. This successful partnership has provided monumental 
improvements in water quality throughout the Nation since its 1972 
enactment because not all waters need to be subject to Federal 
jurisdiction. However, this rule will undermine Federal-State 
partnership and erode State authority by granting sweeping new Federal 
jurisdiction to waters never intended for regulation under the Clean 
Water Act.
  In promoting this rule, Mr. Chairman, the agencies are asserting that 
massive amounts of wetlands and stream miles are not being protected by 
the States and that this rule is needed to protect them. Yet the 
agencies continue to claim that no new waters will be covered by the 
rulemaking, which raises the question of

[[Page 6428]]

how can the rule protect those supposedly unprotected waters without 
vastly expanding Federal jurisdiction over them? The agencies are 
talking out of both sides of their mouths. In reality, however, States 
care about and are protective of their waters, and wetlands and stream 
miles are not being left unprotected.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to proposing a rule that has sweeping 
ramifications for the country, the agencies played fast and loose with 
the regulatory process. The sequence and timing of the actions the 
agencies have taken to develop this rule undermine the credibility of 
the rule and the process to develop it.
  Among other things, State and local governments and the regulated 
community all have repeatedly expressed concern that the agencies have 
cut them out of the process and have failed to consult with them, first 
during the development of the agencies' jurisdiction guidance, and now, 
in the development of the rule.
  Mr. Chairman, if the agencies had taken the time to consult with the 
State and local governments and actually listen up front to the issues 
that our counties, cities, and townships are facing, we might not have 
had a proposed rule which, the agencies have admitted to Congress in 
multiple hearings, creates confusion and uncertainty.
  If the agencies had followed the proper regulatory process, we 
wouldn't have a proposed rule that cuts corners on the economic 
analysis, used incomplete data, and only looked at economic impacts of 
the rule on one of the many regulatory programs under the Clean Water 
Act. If the agencies had done things right the first time, the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee wouldn't have had to 
respond to the more than 30 States and almost 400 counties who have 
requested the EPA withdraw or significantly revise the proposed Waters 
of the United States rule. If the agencies had done things right, 
substantive comments filed on the rule wouldn't have been nearly 70 
percent opposed to the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. GIBBS. But the agencies didn't do things right.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, 
gives the agencies, their State and local government partners, and 
other stakeholders another chance to work together to develop a rule 
that does what was intended--to provide clarity.
  This bill requires the agencies to withdraw the proposed rule and 
enter into a transparent and cooperative process with States, local 
governments, and other stakeholders to write a new rule. This is what 
EPA should have done in the first place.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. GIBBS. The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act will ensure that 
the agencies cannot re-propose the same broken rule they released a 
year ago but does give the agencies an opportunity to get it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues across the aisle all believe the 
agencies have heard the confusion and are committed to changing the 
rule to respond to the stakeholders' complaints. Unfortunately, the 
agencies have not provided Members of Congress or stakeholders with any 
real assurance that that will happen. All they tell us is to trust 
them.
  In fact, at our joint hearing with the Senate earlier this year, when 
I asked Administrator McCarthy about whether the public would have a 
chance to review all of the changes they promised to make before the 
rule goes final, she said they weren't changing the rule enough to need 
to put it out for public comment again.
  In our committee, Mr. Chairman, we have repeatedly heard from our 
friends on the other side of the aisle that we need to wait until the 
rule is finalized before taking action. If the agencies have not made 
the changes that they promised, or if the changes they have made do not 
work, we have congressional authority to disapprove of the rule.
  While I appreciate my colleagues' interest in using the Congressional 
Review Act, waiting until the rule is finalized doesn't give us or the 
agencies a real chance to fix the problems that will be created.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. GIBBS. Not only would the President have to sign any disapproval 
resolution we pass, but there are legal scholars who believe if the 
Congressional Review Act did pass, the agencies would be barred from 
ever going back and doing another rulemaking, which would leave us in 
the position of being stuck in the same regulatory uncertainty we are 
in today. I don't think I want this or any of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle want this.
  As I said in the beginning, the reason we are voting on the 
Regulatory Integrity Protection Act today is to get a rule that 
provides real clarity, that works for the States, that works for local 
governments, and that protects our waters.
  Nearly $220 billion in annual economic investment is tied to section 
404 permits. Even more economic investment is tied to other Clean Water 
Act programs. I urge support for this bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, again, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentleman on the other 
side that we are not voting on the proposed rule. We are voting on a 
revised rule, and no Member of Congress nor any member of the 
potentially regulated community nor any member of any environmental 
group has seen or has knowledge of that rule.
  The gentleman reports that this simply tells them to go back again 
because they didn't do enough. They had 700 days of public comments, 
and they accepted 1,429 public comments that went into this.
  I would also remind the gentleman that I don't know how he voted on 
the amendment, but on the Republican Energy and Water bill 2 weeks ago, 
we precluded developing any new rule, none, zero. So kill the one we 
haven't seen, and you are stuck with the Bush guidance which everybody 
agrees is a disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler), a member of the committee.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1732. This bill would halt 
efforts to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act, a clarification 
necessary to protect the environment, to protect wetlands, and to 
protect drinking water for a third of the population.
  For over a decade, there has been great uncertainty about the 
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, particularly as it applies to 
wetlands and streams, as a result of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 
and 2006, and of guidance documents issued under the Bush 
administration.
  In an effort to provide regulatory clarity--a goal universally shared 
by State and local governments, industry, agriculture, and 
environmental organizations--the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers 
have conducted a formal rulemaking process.
  The resulting clean water rule was proposed over a year ago and 
represents the culmination of years of study, independent scientific 
review, and unprecedented public comment and outreach. Just as the rule 
is at OMB and before it has even been published so people could read 
it, this bill guts all that work and requires EPA and the Corps, 
essentially, to start over.
  The bill has no justifiable purpose. It kills the new rule before 
anyone has even had a chance to read it. It requires the agencies to 
conduct what appears to be two additional public comment periods, 
bringing the total up to six public comment periods in the last decade.

[[Page 6429]]

  It requires the agencies to consult with stakeholders again, even 
though the rule was developed after 400 meetings with stakeholders, 
with comments filed by over 800,000 members of the public.
  My Republican colleagues are always complaining about regulatory 
uncertainty, the resulting increased costs on businesses, bureaucratic 
delay, and waste of taxpayer dollars; yet this bill is unnecessary, 
repetitive, and serves no legitimate purpose other than to delay.
  The harm it will cause is extensive. There is perhaps no greater 
responsibility than to protect the Nation's water supply. This bill 
would leave our environmental resources unprotected and the drinking 
water for 117 million Americans at risk. The rule is up in the air, 
unread, unseen, undecided, and unknown.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, all of a sudden, want 
to see this rule; but, when we passed the ObamaCare bill, nobody seemed 
to care about what it said in it. Again, this is new for me from my 
colleagues from the other side.
  I think one thing is for certain. When you have so many people, so 
many States--the State of New York, I believe, is one that asked for 
significant revision--the counties, all these stakeholders crying out 
to have this rule significantly changed or do away with it is important 
to the American people.
  This bill does exactly what the gentleman said. It delays this rule 
from going into place because it is a bad rule and will cause great 
economic harm to this country.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster 
and Chairman Gibbs for your leadership on this important issue. I am an 
original cosponsor of this very important bill.
  Everyone in this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, supports clean water. That is 
why I was such a strong advocate for the EPA to designate a portion of 
the Mahomet Aquifer in central Illinois as a sole source of drinking 
water, which was finalized just this past year.
  This proposed rule on the Waters of the U.S., this attempt by the EPA 
to expand its authority under the Clean Water Act to lands that are 
traditionally dry is an overreach and must be reined in.
  I am increasingly concerned of the trust gap between the EPA and the 
agricultural community. Earlier this year, EPA Administrator McCarthy 
apologized to ag producers for not bringing them to the table when the 
Agency put out its interpretive rule on conservation practices, which 
the EPA and the Corps of Engineers ultimately withdrew.
  Unfortunately, this is just more evidence of the haste with which the 
proposed rule was developed, without appropriately seeking and 
implementing all necessary stakeholder input.
  H.R. 1732 would require both the EPA and the Corps to withdraw the 
proposed rule, go back to the drawing board, and write a new rule with 
all stakeholders together. Frankly, this is what they should have done 
in the first place.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I would correct the Record--and far be it for me to correct 
the chairman--but, actually, the attorney general of New York, on 
behalf of the State of New York, as one of our witnesses, testified in 
favor of going forward with the rule, so there were others who 
objected.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. The implementing agencies with their comments rejected 
the rule from New York. It sounds like New York is confused.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. New York may be confused, and everybody is confused 
because they have not seen what it is that they are objecting to and 
would, again, suggest that the best course of action would be to 
actually see it.
  The gentleman from Ohio brought up something very weird, saying that, 
somehow, if we used a simple resolution of disapproval, they couldn't 
write a new rule.
  He is confusing it with the bill you passed last year, which said 
that the rule is rejected and you can't use anything you use to write 
that rule to write a new rule. A number of us raised questions about 
that at the time. You did pass that last year. That is probably what he 
is thinking of.
  This is a simple resolution of disapproval. It would not have any 
impact on future actions of the Agency.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I think the American public, Mr. Chairman, must be quite confused. 
This rulemaking that we are talking about is actually about clean 
water; it is about a rulemaking process that hasn't been completed yet, 
and it is about a rule that we haven't seen, so it seems sort of odd 
that we are standing here commenting on it.
  I just want to remind the other side that, thanks to the Clean Water 
Act, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, 
and the number of waters that now meet clean water goals nationwide has 
actually doubled with direct benefits for drinking water, public 
health, recreation, and wildlife.
  This is especially true from my home State of Maryland that is within 
the six-State Chesapeake Bay Watershed and several of its tributaries, 
including the Anacostia, the Patuxent, Potomac, and Severn Rivers that 
flow through the Fourth Congressional District.
  The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is fed by 110,000 miles of creeks, 
rivers, and streams; and 70 percent of Marylanders get our drinking 
water from sources that rely on headwater or seasonal streams. 
Nationwide, 117 million people, or over a third of the total 
population, get our water from these waters.
  However, due to the two Supreme Court decisions that have been 
referenced, there is, in fact, widespread confusion as to what falls 
under the protection of the Clean Water Act. That is precisely why this 
administration is working to finalize their joint proposed rule 
clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the act.
  In fact, on April 6, the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
Environmental Protection Agency submitted a revised clean water 
protection rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final 
review. From my understanding, the final rule may be published in the 
Federal Register later this spring. I share the view that we want OMB 
to just get on with it.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman has complained about the confusion in the 
litigation. That is precisely why we need to get through a final 
rulemaking, which has been years in the making. If the gentleman seeks 
clarity, let the administration just finish its job.
  That is what the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Government to 
do 14 years ago with the 2001 SWANCC decision and, subsequently, the 
2006 Rapanos case.
  Along with those Supreme Court decisions, the Bush administration, as 
has been said, followed the exact same process in issuing two guidance 
documents in 2003 and 2008. In fact, they remain in force today.
  It is, in fact, these two Bush-era guidance documents that have 
compounded the confusion, uncertainty, and increased compliance costs 
faced by our constituents--opponents and proponents alike--who all just 
say they want clarity.
  You don't actually have to take my word for it. In fact, let me quote 
from the comments made by the American Farm Bureau Federation, 
something I don't do quite often:

       With no clear regulatory definitions to guide their 
     determinations, what has emerged is a hodgepodge of ad hoc 
     and inconsistent jurisdictional theories.

  Those are the words of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
  We all agree that it is confusing. Let the Obama administration 
finish what the Bush administration started and failed to do, and that 
is publish a rule

[[Page 6430]]

that finalizes the rule that gives stakeholders the clarity they have 
been seeking for 14 years.
  Quite oddly, H.R. 1732 would actually halt the current rulemaking and 
require the agencies to withdraw the proposed rule and restart the 
rulemaking process. This is after 1 million public comments, a 208-day 
comment period, and over 400 public meetings.
  In appearances before the Senate, House, and joint committees, high-
ranking Agency officials have testified that the revised rule will 
address many of the concerns expressed during the public comment 
period. They have also stated that the revised rule will provide 
greater clarity to the current permitting process, reduce regulatory 
cost, and ensure more exacting protections over U.S. waters.
  The bill that we are talking about would actually force the agencies 
to meet with the same stakeholders again and talk about the same issues 
again that they have already discussed several times over the last 14 
years since the first Supreme Court decision--what a colossal waste of 
time and taxpayer money. Actually, the other side should be ashamed if 
they put a cost to restarting the procedure.
  In fact, the rulemaking has been more than a decade, as we have 
described, in development. We need to let the administration get on 
with its work. As others have pointed out, just 2 weeks ago, the House 
passed--and I opposed it; many of our colleagues opposed it--the Energy 
and Water Appropriations bill.
  It contained a policy rider that explicitly prohibits the Corps from 
spending any money to develop the same new clean water rule that this 
bill wants us to restart. Let me repeat that. The House has already 
passed a provision that states the Corps can use no money not just this 
fiscal year, but in future fiscal years, going forward in perpetuity.
  Republicans try to make it sound as if all they want is for the EPA 
and the Corps to develop new rules right away, but it is really clear 
that what they want to do is stop these agencies from doing their jobs 
at all--no new rules and no clean water, what a shame.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have great regard for the gentlewoman from Maryland. I know that 
the Chesapeake Bay is incredibly important to not only Maryland, but 
the United States. The watershed I live in, much of it drains into the 
Susquehanna that flows into the Chesapeake, so we are very concerned in 
Pennsylvania about wanting to have clean water.
  We also want to have an agriculture community prospering in 
Pennsylvania. They spent millions of dollars to try to clean it up.
  Again, this notion that we haven't seen the rule is not that clear 
because we have. It is not clear to what the Democrats are saying. What 
we are saying is we have seen a proposed rule. We have seen a proposed 
rule.
  Because they are not going to make substantial changes to the 
proposed rule, that means, if they were making substantial changes, 
they would have to come back and reopen this up and have a significant 
comment period, but they are not doing that.
  Basically, the proposed rule is going to be very similar to the final 
rule. That is what scares the heck out of people--the farmers, 
builders, people across this country, landowners. This bill does force 
the EPA and the Corps to go back in and talk to the stakeholders 
because of the million comments. Seventy percent were ignored. They 
said revise or significantly change this. They ignored 70 percent of 
those million comments.
  I am encouraging all Members to support this.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), a 
leader on this issue.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I support wetlands, and I 
support clean water. I spent much of my career actually working to 
restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana.
  The irony here is that the agencies that are proposing this rule are 
actually the same agencies that right now are the largest cause of 
wetlands loss in the United States on the way they manage the 
Mississippi River system. The hypocrisy here is absolutely 
unbelievable.
  This proposed rule goes outside the bounds of the law, the law which 
states ``navigable waters.'' Read this definition. It clearly goes 
beyond the scope of the parameters of the law. It goes outside the 
scope of jurisprudence.
  Taking a pass right now would be a dereliction of duty. An ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure. We know what this rule is. We have 
had the EPA; we have had the Corps of Engineers before our committee, 
and it is crystal clear the direction this is going in.
  Even the sister agency of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers, the 
Small Business Administration, has indicated that the cost estimate 
complying with this regulation goes well beyond the higher cost than 
that done by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. The home State I represent, Louisiana, the 
watershed goes from the State of Montana to New York and comes all the 
way down. You can take this proposed definition, and you can basically 
apply it to 90 percent of the lands in south Louisiana.
  This bill simply requires consultation with stakeholders, 
consultation with the property owners. This is a tax. This is a taking 
of private property. Mr. Chairman, I want to state: This is private 
property; this is people's homes; it is people's farms; it is people's 
small businesses, and it is impeding their ability to achieve the 
American Dream.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, the EPA has, once again, lost all common 
sense as it has decided unilaterally to redefine Waters of the U.S.
  Under its proposed rule change, Waters of the U.S. would now be 
defined to include smaller bodies of water and even some dry land. This 
new definition would extend the EPA's regulatory reach to seemingly any 
body of water, including that water puddled in your ditch after a 
rainstorm. You heard me right.
  Let me put it another way for an even better understanding. This rule 
is so broad that it could very well require you to get permission from 
a Federal bureaucrat before acting on your property. Small-business 
owners, farmers, Realtors, and homebuilders all agree that this bill is 
bad for business in southeastern North Carolina.
  For those reasons, I am a cosponsor of this bill, the Regulatory 
Integrity Protection Act, which requires the EPA to scrap its current 
proposal and start anew by engaging stakeholders who are actually 
affected by this rule.
  Mr. Chairman, common sense has had its share of setbacks in this 
country. Let's not let this rule be another one. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote for this bill, and I thank the chairman for his fine 
leadership.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished 
majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the 
chairman for his work on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a simple truth that exists at all times and in 
every place: the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. That 
is especially true when it comes to regulations. When the bureaucracy 
makes more rules, those rules limit the freedom and opportunities of 
real people--people who are just trying to work hard, make a living, 
and support themselves and their families.
  Frankly, the EPA has crossed the line with this proposed water rule. 
It has crossed the line constitutionally,

[[Page 6431]]

and it has crossed a line by hurting people and threatening their 
livelihoods and private property.
  Let me tell you a story about a place back in my district called 
Sandy Creek. It is named Sandy Creek for a reason; it has been dry for 
over 30 years. With the drought in California, there is no time soon 
that water is coming.
  Now, long before this proposed rule that would expand the EPA's power 
even more, the EPA tried to regulate Sandy Creek. That would have added 
more costs to the people who owned the land. It would have meant more 
paperwork, Federal permits, compliance, and Federal regulators snooping 
around.
  It took me years to finally get the EPA to stop. Do you know how I 
got them to stop? I had to have an individual come to Taft, California, 
get in my car, drive out, and walk in Sandy Creek, throughout the sand, 
before he believed there was no water to regulate.
  Mr. Chairman, can you imagine what the EPA would try and do if they 
even had more authority to regulate things outside their jurisdiction?
  These are the actions of an administration that is unaccountable and 
that doesn't care about the freedom and prosperity of its citizens. 
This is an administration that cares more about regulation than reform, 
that cares more about power than it does about people.
  The House is going to pass a bill to stop this rule, this abuse of 
power. We are going to stop this regulation for all of the hard-working 
Americans who are tired of this Agency's power grabs just for the sake 
of power.
  We are going to try to do it for all who wish they could have control 
over their own lives. The EPA doesn't need any more power, Mr. 
Chairman, the people do.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 1732, the 
Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015.
  We hear that this is all about clean water. This is about clean 
water, and we all want clean water. It is an issue that should not be 
demagogued in this debate. We all want clean water. We have kids, and 
we have mothers and fathers and grandparents.
  This is about a process. It is about a process that needs to be 
transparent, and it is about where stakeholders are at the table. Who 
are these stakeholders? They are Americans. They are our farmers, our 
ranchers, the folks who put food on our tables; they are developers and 
construction workers who build our homes.
  This has amazing implications if we don't get this rule right, Mr. 
Chairman. Can you imagine the EPA's requiring farmers to have to get a 
permit to till during a season? Can you imagine how long that could 
take? Your season could be too late to plant. What would that do to 
land value? to commodity prices?
  We have to get this right. I rise in support of this bill as it is a 
commonsense, smart bill. We can do it together. We can get it right. 
The American people must be heard.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue as 
it is so important to our farmers and businesses in Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the gross regulatory overreach 
of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers 
regarding the proposed Waters of the United States rule.
  Under the rule's proposed changes to the Clean Water Act, the Federal 
Government would have the power to regulate virtually any place water 
flows in the United States. This is not about clean water.
  This includes things like creeks, streams, and groundwater but also 
manmade waterways like a fish pond, irrigation pipes, and dry ditching 
to harvest timber. If not stopped, this overreach will have damaging 
consequences for economic growth and jobs.
  In Georgia's 12th District, many farmers and businesses are concerned 
about their ability to comply with these Federal mandates while 
maintaining their livelihoods. The Waters of the United States rule 
will grant the Federal Government power to dictate land use decisions, 
as well as farming practices, making it even more difficult to maintain 
a competitive and profitable farm or business.
  I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 1732, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, there is something 
terribly wrong when the Federal Government is attempting to regulate 
our Nation's puddles, streams, and ditches.
  The proposed rule that the Obama administration issued last year 
would, unfortunately, give the EPA the power to do just that. This rule 
would redefine the Waters of the United States under the Clean Water 
Act and significantly increase the Federal Government's jurisdiction 
over waters never intended for regulation.
  The blatant power grab and regulatory overreach would not only 
dismantle a longstanding partnership between the States and the Federal 
Government, but it would also threaten American jobs, increase the 
costs of doing business, and heighten the likelihood of costly 
lawsuits.
  The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, of which I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor, would require the Obama administration to withdraw 
its proposed rule and replace it with one that considers stakeholders' 
input and maintains the State-Federal partnership to regulate our 
waters. I urge my colleagues to support this vital bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  You have heard a lot about the EPA, that it is a bad agency doing bad 
things; but, if it weren't for the EPA, many of our communities would 
be facing undrinkable water because of the pollution that is left 
behind, without any followup.
  We discussed this during the committee, and one of the issues that 
was brought out was that some of the EPA's regional offices were being 
a little heavyhanded. I suggested they may be able to take it up with 
the administrators, themselves, to figure out how we could really bring 
that to the forefront. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off with a 
few facts, and we have covered them already.
  There are broad environmental and conservation organizations that 
also oppose the bill. For the Record, I will submit 59 of them that are 
in opposition.


 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure H.R. 1732, Regulatory 
 Integrity Protection Act of 2015 Outside Group Letters of Opposition 
                              May 12, 2015

       Alliance for the Great Lakes, American Rivers, American 
     Whitewater, Arkansas Wildlife Federation, Audubon Naturalist 
     Society, California River Watch, Citizens Campaign for the 
     Environment, Clean Oceans Competition, Clean Water Action, 
     Coalition to Protect Blacksburg Waterways, Earthjustice, 
     Earthworks, Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine 
     Reclamation, Endangered Habitats League, Environment America, 
     Environmental Law and Policy Center, Environmental Working 
     Group, Freshwater Future, Friends of Accotink Creek, Friends 
     of Dyke Marsh.
       Friends of the Nanticoke River, Friends of the Weskeag, 
     Galveston Bay Foundation, Great Lakes Environmental Law 
     Center, Gulf Restoration Network, Izaak Walton

[[Page 6432]]

     League of America, Jesus People Against Pollution, Lake Erie 
     Region Conservancy, League of Conservation Voters, Little 
     Falls Watershed Alliance, Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy, 
     Maryland Conservation Council, Midshore Riverkeeper 
     Conservancy, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Minnesota Center for 
     Environmental Advocacy, Montgomery Countryside Alliance, 
     Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society, 
     National Wildlife Federation, Nature Abounds.
       Neighbors of the Northwest Branch, Anacostia River, Ocean 
     River Institute, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio Wetlands 
     Association, People to Save the Sheyenne, Piedmont 
     Environmental Council, Potomac Riverkeeper Network, 
     Protecting Our Waters, River Network, Sierra Club, Southern 
     Environmental Law Center, St. Mary's River Watershed 
     Association, Surfrider Foundation, Tip of the Mitt Watershed 
     Council, Trout Unlimited, Virginia Conservation Network, 
     WasteWater Education, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, West Virginia 
     Highlands Conservancy.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The Army Corps of Engineers--the Corps--and the EPA 
have testified that their revised clean water protection rule will 
provide more certainty and clarity to the current clean water 
permitting process, that it will reduce regulatory confusion and costs, 
and that it will protect our Nation's waters, our economy, and our 
American way of life, as was stressed in the committee hearing which we 
all attended. I believe that it is something that they were very sure 
they wanted to do.
  Fact: on April 6, 2015, the Corps and the EPA submitted this revised 
clean water protection rule to OMB for final review, bringing it closer 
to publication later this spring, but my Republican colleagues are 
attempting to stop the rulemaking without even seeing the final 
product. As Mr. McCarthy just said, we are going to stop this 
regulation.
  Fact: H.R. 1732 would halt the near final rulemaking needed to 
clarify Clean Water Act protection for countless streams and wetlands, 
many of which serve as primary sources of drinking water for one in 
three Americans. If you want to put it in millions, it would be 117 
million people.
  Fact: rather than allow the Agency to provide additional regulatory 
certainty and clarity, it would leave in place 2003 and 2008 Bush 
guidance documents, which have been uniformly criticized by industry as 
confusing, costly, and frustrating that provide little environmental 
benefit.
  Fact: it is simply a bureaucratic redo, forcing the agencies to 
repeat steps in what has been a nearly decade-long rulemaking process 
of unprecedented public outreach, for no other reason than to prevent 
this administration from finalizing clean water protection rulemaking.
  The last fact: if it is released, it fails to protect our water 
resources and our economy, and Congress simply has multiple avenues 
with which to address those concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the facts and the myths. I have 
five of them.
  The proposed rulemaking, the Federal Clean Water Act authority over 
ditches--it reduces Federal authority over ditches by specifically 
excluding ditches, including roadside ditches that are constructed in 
dry lands, et cetera, and it goes on.
  Myth number two, it is not based on sound science. Fact, in 2015, the 
Office of R&D--Research and Development--released its ``Connectivity of 
Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters'' report of more than 1,200 
existing peer-reviewed publications which support this.
  Myth number four, a power grab by the EPA to exert greater Federal 
authority--fact, it preserves existing statutory and regulatory 
exemptions for common farming, ranching, and forestry practices, and it 
goes on.
  Myth number five, the EPA did not adequately consult with States and 
did not take local concerns into consideration. Fact, again, there were 
900,000 public comments, and 19,000 provided substantive comments, and 
they reached out to other States.

                                                   March 19, 2015.

  Myths vs. Facts: EPA and Corps' Clean Water Rule Myth #1--Expanded 
                         Regulation of Ditches

       Dear Colleague: Last April, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
     proposed a Clean Water rule to clarify the jurisdictional 
     scope of the Clean Water Act. This proposal was intended to 
     simplify and improve the process for determining what waters 
     (and wetlands) are, and are not, protected by the Act, 
     consistent with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
       Since that time, a number of questions or misconceptions 
     about this proposal have been raised. This is the first in a 
     series of Dear Colleagues to address these questions or 
     misconceptions.


                                MYTH #1

       The proposed rule expands Federal Clean Water Act authority 
     over ditches.


                                  FACT

       The proposed rule reduces federal authority over ditches by 
     specifically excluding ditches (including roadside ditches) 
     that are constructed in dry lands and either (1) contain 
     water less than year-round, or (2) do not flow into another 
     waterbody subject to the Act.
       The proposed rule retains existing authority over certain 
     ditches that once were, and continue to function as, natural 
     streams.
       Recently, the agencies testified that they are reviewing 
     over one million public comments submitted on the proposed 
     rule and will make revisions to further clarify the 
     regulation (including its application to ditches) in order to 
     make it more effective in implementing the Clean Water Act, 
     consistent with the science and the law.
       If you have any questions or would like to learn more about 
     the proposal, please see (http://
democrats.transportation.house.gov/legislation/waters-united-
 states) or call the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
     Environment.

                                       Peter A. DeFazio, M.C.,

                  Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
                                                   Infrastructure.

                                    Grace F. Napolitano, M.C.,

              Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
     Environment.
                                  ____

                                                   March 19, 2015.

Myths vs. Facts: EPA and Corps' Clean Water Rule Myth #2--The Proposed 
                    Rule Is Not Based on the Science

       Dear Colleague: Last April, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
     proposed a Clean Water rule to clarify the jurisdictional 
     scope of the Clean Water Act. This proposal was intended to 
     simplify and improve the process for determining what waters 
     (and wetlands) are, and are not, protected by the Act, 
     consistent with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, 
     critics of this proposed rule have questioned the science 
     behind the proposal.


                                MYTH #2

       The proposed rule is not based on sound science.


                                 FACTS

       In January 2015, EPA's Office of Research and Development 
     released its ``Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to 
     Downstream Waters'' report--a review and synthesis of more 
     than 1,200 existing peer-reviewed publications from the 
     scientific literature.
       This Connectivity report noted that ``the scientific 
     literature unequivocally demonstrates that streams, 
     individually or cumulatively, exert a strong influence on the 
     integrity of downstream waters. All tributary streams, 
     including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, are 
     physically, chemically, and biologically connected to 
     downstream rivers via channels and associated alluvial 
     deposits where water and other materials are concentrated, 
     mixed, transformed, and transported.''
       The Connectivity report also noted that ``the incremental 
     effects of individual streams and wetlands are cumulative 
     across entire watersheds and therefore must be evaluated in 
     context with other streams and wetlands.''
       In October 2014, EPA's Science Advisory Board completed its 
     own scientific review of the Connectivity report, and 
     concluded that the report is ``a thorough and technically 
     accurate review of the literature on the connectivity of 
     streams and wetlands to downstream waters'' and found that 
     the scientific literature provides enough information to 
     support a more definitive statement on the degree of 
     connection between certain, geographically-isolated waters 
     and downstream waters.
       If you have any questions or would like to learn more about 
     the proposal, please see (http://
democrats.transportation.house.gov/legislation/waters-united-
 states) or call the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
     Environment.

                                  Eddie Bernice Johnson, M.C.,

                                      Ranking Member, Committee on
     Science, Space, and Technology.
                                  ____

                                                    March 24, 2015

   Myths vs. Facts: EPA and Corps' Clean Water Rule Myth #4--EPA Is 
                 Seizing Greater Power Over Agriculture

       Dear Colleague: Last April, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
     proposed a Clean Water rule to clarify the jurisdictional 
     scope of the Clean Water Act. This

[[Page 6433]]

     proposal was intended to simplify and improve the process for 
     determining what waters (and wetlands) are, and are not, 
     protected by the Act, consistent with two decisions of the 
     U.S. Supreme Court. Since that time, a number of questions or 
     misconceptions about this proposal have been raised.


                                MYTH #4

       The proposed rule is a ``power grab'' by the EPA to exert 
     greater Federal authority over farming, ranching, and 
     forestry operations.


                                 FACTS

       The proposed rule provides greater certainty to farmers, 
     ranchers, and forestry operations and would preserve existing 
     statutory and regulatory exemptions for common farming, 
     ranching, and forestry practices, including exemptions for 
     prior converted cropland, irrigation return flows, and normal 
     farming, ranching, and silvicultural activities.
       The proposed rule would not affect an existing Clean Water 
     Act exemption for the construction and maintenance of farm or 
     stock ponds constructed on dry lands, and would, for the 
     first time, specifically exclude artificial stock watering 
     and irrigation ponds constructed on dry lands from Clean 
     Water Act jurisdiction.
       The proposed rule does not just respect the current 
     exemptions for ditches but it would expand the definition of 
     ditches to make the exemption clearer.
       No Clean Water Act permit is required today for the 
     application of pesticides or fertilizer to dry land, and this 
     will not change under the proposed rule.
       Puddles on crop fields are not subject to the Clean Water 
     Act today, and this will not change under the proposed rule.
       In short, if you can plow, plant, or harvest today without 
     a Clean Water permit, you will not need a permit for these 
     activities under the proposed rule.
       If you have any questions or would like to learn more about 
     the proposal, please see http://
democrats.transportation.house.gov/legislation/waters-united-
 states or call the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
     Environment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Donna F. Edwards,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                                    April 13, 2015

 Myths vs. Facts: EPA and Corps Clean Water Rule Myth #5--EPA and the 
                    Corps Did Not Consult the States

       Dear Colleague: Last April, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
     proposed a Clean Water rule to clarify the jurisdictional 
     scope of the Clean Water Act. This proposal was intended to 
     simplify and improve the process for determining what waters 
     (and wetlands) are, and are not, protected by the Act, 
     consistent with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. 
     However, questions and misconceptions about this proposal 
     continue to be raised.


                                MYTH #5

       During the rulemaking process, EPA and the Corps did not 
     adequately consult with states and did not take local 
     concerns into consideration when developing this rule.


                                 FACTS

       EPA consulted with various stakeholders, particularly with 
     those from the agricultural community, and received over 
     900,000 public comments. Of these, approximately 19,000 
     provided substantive comments on the proposed rule.
       In total, EPA held over 400 meetings throughout the country 
     on the proposed rulemaking, and the agencies extended the 
     public comment period twice for a total of 207 days, to 
     listen to concerns and draft a better, clearer rule.
       EPA developed a special process for engaging the states 
     during the public comment period, engaging with Environmental 
     Council of the States, the Association of Clean Water 
     Administrators, and the Association of State Wetland 
     Managers.
       At a March 22, 2015, hearing before the Subcommittee on 
     Water Resources and Environment, the EPA's Deputy Assistant 
     Administrator for the Office of Water characterized EPA's 
     outreach efforts as ``unprecedented.''
       Further, when describing EPA's meetings with state 
     representatives, the Deputy Assistant Administrator stated, 
     ``At the last meeting, which was scheduled for two hours, it 
     was a little over an hour, and that meeting ended because, 
     quite frankly, the states (ran) out of things they wanted to 
     talk about.''
       Since 2003, the agencies have received an estimated 
     1,429,000 total public comments during six separate 
     rulemakings, lasting a total 700 days, or approximately 2 
     years.
       ``Quite candidly, I will tell you that there is not a lot 
     of new in the way of issues that are being raised. Many of 
     the issues that are being raised are the same ones that have 
     been raised for several years.''--Quote from Ken Kopocis, EPA 
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water (3/18/
     15 Hearing of the Water Resources and Environment 
     Subcommittee)
       If you have any questions or would like to learn more about 
     the rule, please see 
     (http://democrats.transportation.house.gov/legislation/
waters-united-states) or call the Subcommittee on Water 
     Resources and Environment.
           Sincerely,
                                            Eleanor Holmes Norton,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Also, for the Record, I submit the Statement of 
Administration Policy from the Office of the President, which states at 
the end: ``If the President were presented with H.R. 1732, his senior 
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.''
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2015.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


             h.r. 1732--regulatory integrity protection act

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1732. If the 
     President were presented with H.R. 1732, his senior advisers 
     would recommend that he veto the bill, which would require 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department 
     of the Army (Army) to withdraw and re-propose specified draft 
     regulations needed to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries 
     of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agencies' rulemaking, 
     grounded in science, is essential to ensure clean water for 
     future generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking 
     from Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well 
     as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The proposed rule has 
     been through an extensive public engagement process.
       Clean water is vital for the success of the Nation's 
     businesses, agriculture, energy development, and the health 
     of our communities. More than one in three Americans get 
     their drinking water from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that 
     are at risk of pollution from upstream sources. The 
     protection of wetlands is vital for hunting and fishing. When 
     Congress passed the CWA in 1972, to restore the Nation's 
     waters, it recognized that to have healthy communities 
     downstream, we need to protect the smaller streams and 
     wetlands upstream.
       Clarifying the scope of the CWA helps to protect clean 
     water, safeguard public health, and strengthen the economy. 
     Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 focused on specific 
     jurisdictional determinations and rejected the analytical 
     approach that the Army Corps of Engineers was using for those 
     determinations, but did not invalidate the underlying 
     regulation. This has created ongoing questions and 
     uncertainty about how the regulation is applied consistent 
     with the Court's decisions. The proposed rule would address 
     this uncertainty.
       If enacted, H.R. 1732 would derail current efforts to 
     clarify the scope of the CWA, hamstring future regulatory 
     efforts, and deny businesses and communities the regulatory 
     certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean 
     water. H.R. 1732 also would delay by a number of years any 
     action to clarify the scope of the CWA, because it would: (1) 
     require the agencies to re-propose a rule that has already 
     gone through an extensive public comment process; and (2) 
     create a burdensome advisory process that would complicate 
     the agencies' rulemaking and potentially constrain their 
     discretion. The agencies have already conducted an extensive 
     and lengthy outreach to a broad range of stakeholders who 
     will continue to be engaged in the current process. 
     Duplicative outreach and consultation would impose 
     unnecessary burdens and excessive costs on all parties.
       The final rule should be allowed to proceed. EPA and Army 
     have sought the views of and listened carefully to the public 
     throughout the extensive public engagement process for this 
     rule. It would be imprudent to dismiss the years of work that 
     have already occurred and no value would be added. The 
     agencies need to be able to finish their work.
       In the end, H.R. 1732, like its predecessors, would sow 
     more confusion and invite more conflict at a time when our 
     communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around 
     clean water regulation. Simply put, this bill is not an act 
     of good government; rather, it would hinder the ongoing 
     rulemaking process and the agencies' ability to respond to 
     the public as well as two Supreme Court rulings.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There you are, Mr. Chairman.
  We still oppose H.R. 1732, but I would really like to ensure that we 
continue to work with the EPA to get in place something that is really 
going to help America's farmers and industry.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Forty years ago, the Clean Water Act established a partnership 
between States and the Federal Government to regulate waters. The 
limits on Federal power under this partnership have also been 
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court not once, but twice, and I might add 
that my colleagues, when they were the majority party, tried twice to 
do what this rule is going to do, but they couldn't get it out of 
committee because there was not the support for it.

[[Page 6434]]

  I am not sure what has changed except for the fact that Republicans 
are in the majority, but there is still a lot of opposition out there 
to it.
  The administration's proposed rule abandons a successful partnership 
in favor of a vast expansion of the Federal Government's authority to 
regulate. This proposed rule was developed without consulting States 
and local governments or regulated communities, and it will have dire 
economic consequences.
  In fact, as the gentlewoman mentioned, there have been 20,000 
substantive comments on this, and 70 percent of them have opposed this 
rule.
  As I made the point earlier, the proposed rule is out there. If they 
were going to change it, they would have to go back and reopen the 
comment period, but they are not changing it significantly.

                              {time}  1700

  The proposed rule will be very, very similar to what the final rule 
is. That is why we need to stop it. Two-thirds of the States object to 
this law rule, two-thirds of the States object to it. Local 
governments, farmers, builders, job creators, and stakeholders object 
to this rule. As mentioned, of those 20,000 substantial comments, 70 
percent of them rejected this rulemaking. The Regulatory Integrity 
Protection Act rejects this flawed rule and flawed process that created 
it.
  This bipartisan bill restores the integrity of the rulemaking process 
and the Federal and State partnership. The agencies simply need to go 
back and do it right. We cannot protect our waters and provide more 
regulatory clarity without sacrificing common sense and balance. Mr. 
Chairman, I encourage all Members to support this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, the proposed Waters of the U.S. rule is 
critically flawed and needs to be rewritten. After following the rule-
making process very closely, I have no confidence that that the current 
rule will give any clarity for those who will be greatly impacted by 
this proposed rule. If anything, Mr. Speaker, the only clarity I can 
find in the proposed rule is that we will see an increase in the number 
of permits that the Corps of Engineers and EPA will need to issue for 
landowners to develop their land, and any litigation that may result.
  The proposed rule would automatically regulate all tributaries that 
connect to a downstream water body and all streams and wetlands in 
floodplains or riparian areas of regulated water bodies unless they are 
deemed not navigable by the EPA or Army Corps. To me, that sounds like 
a dream for lawyers and a nightmare for everyone else. We must curb 
regulatory overreach and protect our economy as well as the rights of 
landowners.
  During the public comment period, more than a million comments were 
submitted. Earlier this year during an Energy and Water Appropriations 
hearing the Corps informed us that 58 percent of the comments were in 
opposition to the rule, then later that month at an Interior 
Appropriations hearing the EPA informed us that 87% of the comments 
supported the rule. If the two agencies responsible for developing and 
implementing the rule cannot even agree on the number of comments 
submitted supporting the rule, how can they be trusted to implement the 
rule?
  In the FY15 Omnibus we included Congressional direction to the EPA 
and the Army Corps to withdraw the flawed `Interpretive Rule' that EPA 
had issued in conjunction with the proposed Waters of the US rule and 
the Administration withdrew the `Interpretive Rule'. It's now time that 
we enact Congressional direction to withdraw the entire Waters of the 
US rule as proposed, and start fresh following the comment period.
  Therefore, Mr. Chair I support this bill and I encourage all my 
fellow members to vote for it.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today on behalf of Iowans in my district 
to support H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015, 
to prohibit the implementation of the rule concerning ``Waters of the 
United States (WOTUS)'' by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
  The rule permitting the expansion of WOTUS grants EPA and U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over traditionally state regulated 
water under the auspices of the Clean Water Act. This includes water 
previously unregulated by the federal government, such as dry ditches 
and intrastate rivers.
  These regulations simply defy common sense. Every constituent in my 
district desires clean water, but the EPA and USACE are transferring 
authority from state and local officials, who know the needs of 
stakeholders, to Washington bureaucrats.
  In response, I am proud to join the 69 other Members as a cosponsor 
of this bipartisan bill along with the hundreds of organized 
stakeholders nationwide, along with thousands of individual farmers, 
raising serious concerns or issued public statements in opposition to 
adoption of these proposals. These regulations unnecessarily burden 
farmers and small business owners and prevent job creation, wage 
increases, and economic growth. I cannot permit such proposals to go 
unchallenged.
  I thank so many of my colleagues for standing with me in this effort 
and rest assured, I will continue to fight against government overreach 
on behalf of Iowa's hard working farming families.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my 
strong opposition to H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection 
Act. This harmful legislation undermines the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers' ability to regulate and 
protect our wetlands and streams, and it is an assault on the Clean 
Water Act.
  H.R. 1732 would block the EPA's current Clean Water rulemaking, 
forcing the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to go back to the drawing 
board and start over with the process, undermining years of work 
undertaken by agencies, businesses, and numerous other stakeholders. 
Every American deserves to have access to clean water, and the proposed 
Clean Water rules, under the Clean Water Act, would safeguard the 
drinking water of more than 117 million people who currently rely on 
streams lacking clear protection. The EPA has acted to protect 
America's waters under the Act before, and it is an outrage that House 
Republicans are blocking the EPA and Army Corps from doing the same 
now. Americans and businesses deserve certainty and understanding 
regarding which waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act, and H.R. 
1732 would only lead to more confusion.
  The EPA engaged in extensive public outreach and received hundreds of 
thousands of public comments on the proposed Rule, and the Rule is 
built upon peer-reviewed science. At the very least, the public 
deserves to see the final rule before Congress decides to block it. 
Congress should let the EPA and the Army Corps do their jobs and 
protect America's small streams and wetlands from pollution. I oppose 
this legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1732, a bill 
which blocks efforts to clarify the Clean Water Act before agencies 
even produce a final rule.
  There is consensus that the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act is 
confusing and has frustrated many in the regulated community. Two 
Supreme Court decisions and guidance dating from the Bush 
Administration has caused years of uncertainty and difficulty in the 
permitting process. Clarifying responsibilities under the Clean Water 
Act will ease those frustrations while protecting critical drinking 
water for our constituents.
  The Administration has undertaken a comprehensive review process to 
solicit comment from all the stakeholders to rewrite the rules. While 
today's bill argues that the Army Corps and EPA have made insufficient 
effort to obtain input from the regulated community, there have been 
over 400 public meetings and hundreds of thousands of public comments. 
The public comment period lasted 207 days.
  This bill would throw out that whole process and force the 
Administration to start from scratch, delaying regulatory certainty and 
clean water protections indefinitely. I urge my colleagues to vote no 
on this bill and evaluate the merits of the final rule when it is 
released in a few weeks.
  The 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, 
it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 114-13 
modified by the amendment printed in part A of House Report 114-98. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

[[Page 6435]]



                               H.R. 1732

       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 ``Regulatory Integrity 
     Protection Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF EXISTING PROPOSED RULE.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall withdraw the proposed 
     rule described in the notice of proposed rule published in 
     the Federal Register entitled ``Definition of `Waters of the 
     United States' Under the Clean Water Act'' (79 Fed. Reg. 
     22188 (April 21, 2014)) and any final rule based on such 
     proposed rule (including RIN 2040-AF30).

     SEC. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PROPOSED RULE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     develop a new proposed rule to define the term ``waters of 
     the United States'' as used in the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
       (b) Development of New Proposed Rule.--In developing the 
     new proposed rule under subsection (a), the Secretary and the 
     Administrator shall--
       (1) take into consideration the public comments received 
     on--
       (A) the proposed rule referred to in section 2;
       (B) the accompanying economic analysis of the proposed rule 
     entitled ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revised Definition 
     of Waters of the United States'' (dated March 2014); and
       (C) the report entitled ``Connectivity of Streams & 
     Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review & Synthesis of 
     Scientific Evidence'' (EPA/600/R-14/475F; dated January 
     2015);
       (2) jointly consult with and solicit advice and 
     recommendations from representative State and local 
     officials, stakeholders, and other interested parties on how 
     to define the term ``waters of the United States'' as used in 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and
       (3) prepare a regulatory proposal that will, consistent 
     with applicable rulings of the United States Supreme Court, 
     specifically identify those waters covered under, and those 
     waters not covered under, the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act--
       (A) taking into consideration--
       (i) the public comments referred to in paragraph (1); and
       (ii) the advice and recommendations made by the State and 
     local officials, stakeholders, and other interested parties 
     consulted under this section; and
       (B) incorporating the areas and issues where consensus was 
     reached with the parties.
       (c) Federalism Consultation Requirements.--As part of 
     consulting with and soliciting advice and recommendations 
     from State and local officials under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary and the Administrator shall--
       (1) seek to reach consensus with the State and local 
     officials on how to define the term ``waters of the United 
     States'' as used in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
       (2) provide the State and local officials with notice and 
     an opportunity to participate in the consultation process 
     under subsection (b);
       (3) consult with State and local officials that represent a 
     broad cross-section of regional, economic, policy, and 
     geographic perspectives in the United States;
       (4) emphasize the importance of collaboration with and 
     among the State and local officials;
       (5) allow for meaningful and timely input by the State and 
     local officials;
       (6) recognize, preserve, and protect the primary rights and 
     responsibilities of the States to protect water quality under 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and to plan and 
     control the development and use of land and water resources 
     in the States;
       (7) protect the authorities of State and local governments 
     and rights of private property owners over natural and 
     manmade water features, including the continued recognition 
     of Federal deference to State primacy in the development of 
     water law, the governance of water rights, and the 
     establishment of the legal system by which States mediate 
     disputes over water use;
       (8) incorporate the advice and recommendations of the State 
     and local officials regarding matters involving differences 
     in State and local geography, hydrology, climate, legal 
     frameworks, economies, priorities, and needs; and
       (9) ensure transparency in the consultation process, 
     including promptly making accessible to the public all 
     communications, records, and other documents of all meetings 
     that are part of the consultation process.
       (d) Stakeholder Consultation Requirements.--As part of 
     consulting with and soliciting recommendations from 
     stakeholders and other interested parties under subsection 
     (b), the Secretary and the Administrator shall--
       (1) identify representatives of public and private 
     stakeholders and other interested parties, including small 
     entities (as defined in section 601 of title 5, United States 
     Code), representing a broad cross-section of regional, 
     economic, and geographic perspectives in the United States, 
     which could potentially be affected, directly or indirectly, 
     by the new proposed rule under subsection (a), for the 
     purpose of obtaining advice and recommendations from those 
     representatives about the potential adverse impacts of the 
     new proposed rule and means for reducing such impacts in the 
     new proposed rule; and
       (2) ensure transparency in the consultation process, 
     including promptly making accessible to the public all 
     communications, records, and other documents of all meetings 
     that are part of the consultation process.
       (e) Timing of Federalism and Stakeholder Consultation.--Not 
     later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary and the Administrator shall initiate 
     consultations with State and local officials, stakeholders, 
     and other interested parties under subsection (b).
       (f) Report.--The Secretary and the Administrator shall 
     prepare a report that--
       (1) identifies and responds to each of the public comments 
     filed on--
       (A) the proposed rule referred to in section 2;
       (B) the accompanying economic analysis of the proposed rule 
     entitled ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revised Definition 
     of Waters of the United States'' (dated March 2014); and
       (C) the report entitled ``Connectivity of Streams & 
     Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review & Synthesis of 
     Scientific Evidence'' (EPA/600/R-14/475F; dated January 
     2015);
       (2) provides a detailed explanation of how the new proposed 
     rule under subsection (a) addresses the public comments 
     referred to in paragraph (1);
       (3) describes in detail--
       (A) the advice and recommendations obtained from the State 
     and local officials consulted under this section;
       (B) the areas and issues where consensus was reached with 
     the State and local officials consulted under this section;
       (C) the areas and issues of continuing disagreement that 
     resulted in the failure to reach consensus; and
       (D) the reasons for the continuing disagreements;
       (4) provides a detailed explanation of how the new proposed 
     rule addresses the advice and recommendations provided by the 
     State and local officials consulted under this section, 
     including the areas and issues where consensus was reached 
     with the State and local officials;
       (5) describes in detail--
       (A) the advice and recommendations obtained from the 
     stakeholders and other interested parties, including small 
     entities, consulted under this section about the potential 
     adverse impacts of the new proposed rule and means for 
     reducing such impacts in the new proposed rule; and
       (B) how the new proposed rule addresses such advice and 
     recommendations;
       (6) provides a detailed explanation of how the new proposed 
     rule--
       (A) recognizes, preserves, and protects the primary rights 
     and responsibilities of the States to protect water quality 
     and to plan and control the development and use of land and 
     water resources in the States; and
       (B) is consistent with the applicable rulings of the United 
     States Supreme Court regarding the scope of waters to be 
     covered under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and
       (7) provides comprehensive regulatory and economic impact 
     analyses, utilizing the latest data and other information, on 
     how definitional changes in the new proposed rule will 
     impact, directly or indirectly--
       (A) each program under the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act for Federal, State, and local government agencies; and
       (B) public and private stakeholders and other interested 
     parties, including small entities, regulated under each such 
     program.
       (g) Publication.--
       (1) Federal register notice.--Not later than 3 months after 
     the completion of consultations with and solicitation of 
     recommendations from State and local officials, stakeholders, 
     and other interested parties under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary and the Administrator shall publish for comment in 
     the Federal Register--
       (A) the new proposed rule under subsection (a);
       (B) a description of the areas and issues where consensus 
     was reached with the State and local officials consulted 
     under this section; and
       (C) the report described in subsection (f).
       (2) Duration of review.--The Secretary and the 
     Administrator shall provide not fewer than 180 days for the 
     public to review and comment on--
       (A) the new proposed rule under subsection (a);
       (B) the accompanying economic analysis for the new proposed 
     rule; and
       (C) the report described in subsection (f).
       (h) Procedural Requirements.--Subchapter II of chapter 5, 
     and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the ``Administrative Procedure Act'') shall apply to the 
     development and review of the new proposed rule under 
     subsection (a).
       (i) State and Local Officials Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``State and local officials'' means elected or 
     professional State and local government officials or their 
     representative regional or national organizations.

     SEC. 4. NO ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act, and this Act shall be carried out using 
     amounts otherwise available for such purpose.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 114-98. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall

[[Page 6436]]

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 Ms. Edwards

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-98.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 2 and 3 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

       The Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency are prohibited from 
     implementing any final rule that is based on the proposed 
     rule described in the notice of proposed rule published in 
     the Federal Register entitled ``Definition of `Waters of the 
     United States' Under the Clean Water Act'' (79 Fed. Reg. 
     22188 (April 21, 2014)) if such final rule--
       (1) expands the scope of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) beyond those waterbodies 
     covered prior to the decisions of the United States Supreme 
     Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United 
     States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), and 
     Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006);
       (2) is inconsistent with the judicial opinions of Justice 
     Scalia or Justice Kennedy in Rapanos v. United States;
       (3) authorizes Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     jurisdiction over a waterbody based solely on the presence of 
     migratory birds on such waterbody;
       (4) increases the regulation of ditches, including roadside 
     ditches, when compared to existing Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act regulations or guidance;
       (5) increases the scope of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act with respect to municipal separate sanitary sewer 
     systems, water supply canals, or other water delivery 
     systems;
       (6) eliminates historical statutory or regulatory 
     exemptions for agriculture, silviculture, or ranching;
       (7) increases the scope of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act with respect to groundwater or water reuse or 
     recycling projects;
       (8) requires Federal Water Pollution Control Act regulation 
     of erosional features;
       (9) requires Federal Water Pollution Control Act permits 
     for land-use activities;
       (10) requires Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     regulation of artificial farm and stock ponds, puddles, water 
     on driveways, birdbaths, or playgrounds;
       (11) is inconsistent with the latest peer-reviewed 
     scientific studies;
       (12) was promulgated without consulting with State and 
     local governmental entities; or
       (13) was promulgated without public notice or comment.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 231, the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, despite nearly universal calls for 
increased clarity and certainty from certain stakeholders, my 
colleagues have made it a priority to halt the current clean water 
rulemaking and to force agencies to go back to the drawing board and 
start the process all over again, before the public will ever even see 
the final product.
  After over a year of public outreach on a scale unprecedented in the 
history of the Clean Water Act, as well as countless congressional 
hearings, the agencies have submitted a revised clean water protection 
rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final interagency 
review, which is the last step before the revised final rule would be 
released to the general public later this spring.
  This, in fact, is the basis of my amendment. You see, Mr. Chairman, 
to be fair, several of my constituents have expressed similar concerns 
with the substance of the proposed rule. In fact, Maryland farmers have 
visited with me on more than one occasion, and I have heard those 
concerns, and that is why I have pressed the agency witnesses who 
appeared before our subcommittees on several critical areas.
  Indeed, in testimony to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, the heads of both the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
Environmental Protection Agency have identified several specific areas 
where the proposed rulemaking may have lacked specificity and where the 
agencies have committed to clarifying changes in the final rule to 
address these areas.
  For example, the American Farm Bureau and Maryland farmers expressed 
concern about the distinction between ephemeral--that is rain-
dependent--streams, which are currently subject to the Clean Water Act, 
and erosional features, which are not. EPA has testified that the 
agencies expect the final rule to clarify the distinction between 
ephemeral streams and erosional features to ensure that the final rule 
does not inadvertently bring erosional features under the scope of the 
act.
  Numerous groups, including the National Association of Counties, have 
expressed concern about the impact of the proposed rule on ``ditches.'' 
In response, the agencies testified that the proposed rule not only 
codified the current exemption for ditches but also ``expanded the 
definition of ditches that would be exempt under the clean water rule 
to make it clearer, [including] ditches that basically drain dry along 
public lands and highways.'' Further, the agencies committed to provide 
greater certainty in the final rule on what ditches are and are not 
protected by the act.
  Other groups questioned whether the proposed clean water rule would 
capture municipal separate sanitary storm water sewer systems, that is, 
MS4s, or water reuse and recycling projects. The EPA Administrator 
testified before our committee that ``EPA has not intended to capture 
features . . . that have already been captured in . . . MS4 permits, 
[and it] is our intent to continue to encourage and respect those 
decisions and to encourage water reuse and recycling, which very much 
is consistent with the Clean Water Act and our overall intent.''
  Further, the Administrator testified that the EPA would make it very 
clear that these exclusions are articulated in the final rule, ``so 
that people will see in writing what they have been asking us about.''
  So my amendment simply addresses these concerns and claims. It says 
that if any of these claims prove to be true, then the Secretary and 
the Administrator are prohibited from issuing any final rule that would 
bring about these occurrences. Instead of using a legislative scalpel, 
my Republican colleagues have decided to use a meat cleaver. In my 
amendment, I have tried to address these concerns, and I have heard 
from my constituents and interested parties.
  Under the amendment, the administration cannot expand the scope 
beyond those water bodies covered prior to the decisions of the U.S. 
Supreme Court in the two cases that have been mentioned before, and it 
cannot be inconsistent with either Justice Scalia's or Justice 
Kennedy's judicial opinions in Rapanos.
  In addition to that, they can't increase the regulation of ditches, 
they can't eliminate any historical statutory or regulatory exemptions 
for agriculture, which do not exist under the 2003 and 2008 documents. 
There are questions about ditches under the 2003 and 2008 guidance, but 
they are interpreted differently in different parts of the country.
  As a fallback and an assurance to the regulated committee, I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment so that clear legislative 
restrictions on the final rulemaking addressing the range of concerns 
that have been expressed by stakeholders are included. It will ensure 
that the rule does not go further than the Supreme Court decision and 
does not exceed historical scope, while reaffirming longstanding and 
existing exclusions.
  Both agencies have made it crystal clear in their testimony before 
our committee and other committees of the House and the Senate earlier 
this year in a joint hearing with the Senate that many of these 
concerns were unfounded or would be addressed in the final rule, and so 
what the amendment I am offering would do, it would be a backstop in 
the unlikely event that anyone would think differently about regulating 
streams, ditches, and farmland.
  I would ask for support of my amendment under the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page 6437]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I must strongly oppose the gentlewoman's 
amendment because it seeks to gut this legislation. This amendment is 
misleading. It would allow the EPA to move forward and finalize its 
flawed rule expansion under Federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act 
regardless of the consequences. If the EPA determines entirely of its 
own discretion that the rule was consistent with the Supreme Court 
decisions and other factors listed in the amendment, the rule would be 
finalized.
  This amendment gives the EPA the authority to nullify the Supreme 
Court decisions which reined in the EPA's expansive claims to Federal 
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and legally reinterpreted those 
decisions to be as broad and expansive as it would like.
  The EPA has already stated that it believes its proposed rule is 
consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and with other factors 
listed in this amendment. Therefore, the effect of this amendment is to 
allow the EPA to finalize its flawed rule that many believe is not 
consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and the other listed 
factors.
  This amendment will put the EPA solely in charge of America's waters 
and would undermine the Federal-State partnership that H.R. 1732 seeks 
to preserve. It would allow the EPA to finalize and implement its 
flawed rule without consultation with the States.
  There has been a lot of debate and discussion today, and I want to 
just kind of address some of that because it goes to this amendment 
too, once they gut the bill. There was a lot of talk about the 
amendment that was included in the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill. That was really a backstop to stop them from moving forward on 
the current proposed rule, and they cannot repropose the same rule, but 
if this bill is passed into law, they could move forward and do what 
H.R. 1732 directs them to do.
  Administrator McCarthy said they don't need to put anything out 
because there are no new changes, or major changes; that is why they 
don't need to put out a supplemental to the proposed rule. That is the 
problem. That is why we have this bill here today, and that is why I am 
against the gentlewoman's amendment, because they are not being open or 
transparent about what changes they made.
  I have a letter from the Executive Office of the President, Office of 
Management and Budget, talking about the administration policy in 
regard to H.R. 1732, and it talks about that they believe that this 
bill, passed into law, would constrain the Agency's discretion. That is 
the problem. We can't have a bunch of bureaucrats running around the 
country and deciding what are going to be waters of the United States 
and what are not going to be waters of the United States. We have to be 
clear about that and give clarity. All that H.R. 1732 says is for the 
EPA and the Corps to go back to the States and stakeholders and work 
out a rule to satisfy the Supreme Court decisions and that brings 
clarity and certainty and allows for economic expansion and protects 
waters at the same time, but if you open it up to having bureaucrats--
--
  Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Do you have a cost estimate of what it would cost to go 
back to the stakeholders for what you have described?
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
  I know that the CBO put out $5 million or something like that. The 
problem we have here is that if this proposed rule goes forward, it 
costs at least $200-some billion to the economy. What this rule does, 
if it goes forward, under the Clean Water Act, it just makes it where 
farmers, landowners, homeowners would have to go through the Clean 
Water Act permit policy, permit provisions. All it does is create more 
red tape and bureaucracy and cost, and doesn't do anything to protect 
the water quality.
  It is very important to remember that, I believe, if this rule goes 
forward as proposed, we could actually go backward in water quality 
because at some point when you layer on costs and red tape to farmers 
and businesses out there, they are going to throw their hands up in the 
air, and they are not going to do it, so it is going to stifle economic 
activity. It will possibly make us go backwards in water quality 
because if we don't have a growing economy, we don't have the resources 
to do the environmental stuff we want to do.
  So it is very important that we kill this amendment that the 
gentlewoman offers because it guts the bill and support H.R. 1732 going 
forward. All it does is say to the EPA: Go back and work with the 
States, and don't propose the same rule you put out there that you 
won't tell us what your changes are, but go back and work with the 
States, do it in an open, transparent, and accountable process, and we 
can do something that protects water quality and the environment in 
this country and move this country forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-98.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 4. EFFECT ON STATE PERMIT PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--If the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, based on the proposed rule developed under 
     section 3, issues a final rule to define the term ``waters of 
     the United States'' as used in the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Administrator 
     shall--
       (1) not later than 90 days after the date of issuance of 
     the final rule, review each permit program being administered 
     by a State under section 402, 404, or 405 of that Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1342, 1344, or 1345) to determine whether the permit 
     program complies with the terms of the final rule; and
       (2) not later than 10 days after the date of completion of 
     the review, notify the State of--
       (A) the Administrator's determination under paragraph (1); 
     and
       (B) in any case in which the Administrator determines that 
     a permit program does not comply with the final rule, the 
     actions required to bring the permit program into compliance.
       (b) Compliance Period.--During the 2-year period beginning 
     on the date on which the Administrator provides notice to a 
     State under subsection (a)(2), the Administrator may not 
     withdraw approval of a State permit program referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) on the basis that the permit program does 
     not comply with the terms of a final rule described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to limit or otherwise affect the 
     authority of the Administrator under the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act or any other provision of law--
       (1) to withdraw approval of a State permit program referred 
     to in subsection (a)(1), except as specifically prohibited by 
     subsection (b); or
       (2) to disapprove a proposed permit under a State permit 
     program referred to in subsection (a).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 231, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, as allowed under the Clean Water Act, 
Michigan, my home State, and many other States have successfully 
attained permitting responsibility for pollutant discharges into their 
waters through their State environmental departments, as we do in 
Michigan. These programs have been long a very successful Federal-State 
partnership, allowing States, who

[[Page 6438]]

know their lands and waters better than anyone, to be able to keep 
local control of their permitting program to ensure protection of their 
waters in compliance with Federal law in their States. The scope and 
structure of these programs, of course, are determined by the 
definition of waters of the U.S.
  So when the EPA comes out with a new definition of waters of the 
U.S., every State's program would go under review to ensure that it is 
compliant with that new definition. Though Michigan has had its 
authority to operate its own permitting program from the 1970s, its 
program has been under review by the EPA for several years. So, in 
response to the EPA's review of Michigan's program, Michigan passed a 
bipartisan law in 2013 to improve its State-run program to align with 
Federal law.

                              {time}  1715

  Maintaining these current State permitting programs--it is 
interesting--is supported in my State and other places both by 
environmental and agricultural interests, something that we don't often 
see. So it is really important to maintain these successful programs.
  Interestingly enough, since the enactment of its 2013 law, Michigan 
has not lost any of our precious wetlands.
  What my amendment would do is ensure that States that do this will be 
able to continue to control their State permitting program so that the 
people who know the States and its waters best can comply with their 
unique application of the law. Particularly in places like Michigan 
where we have the Great Lakes, that is important.
  So here is what my amendment would do:
  First, once a rule under this bill would be finalized, the EPA would 
have 90 days to determine if a State's program is still compliant under 
the new rule.
  Second, the EPA would have a further 10 days to notify a State in 
writing if its permitting programs are compliant under that new rule.
  And finally, if a State is not compliant, the EPA must allow States 2 
years to comply with the new rule before they federalize a State's 
permitting program.
  When a new rule for definition of waters of the U.S. comes out, it 
will automatically place every State's permitting program under review, 
running the risk of ending these successful partnerships. I believe, 
and I think others agree, we have to maintain the flexibility so that 
States can comply with the new rule before the EPA would remove a 
State's program.
  Depending on the State, of course, statutory changes might be 
required. So we believe that 2 years would be a sufficient period of 
time for States like Michigan to work through the legislative process. 
It took Michigan over a year in 2013 to come to a conclusion of that 
reform.
  In practice, to be fair, the EPA has granted broad discretion when 
reviewing a State's programs. What this amendment would do is simply 
codify into law that process so that States have the ability to come 
into compliance and maintain this important partnership. It is really 
important to the underlying purpose of the act.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, though I am not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan 
for offering this thoughtful amendment. We are prepared to support this 
amendment since we believe it helps protect a State's role in 
administering the Clean Water Act, especially those States with 
delegated authorities under sections 402 and 404 of the act. We also 
believe this amendment strengthens H.R. 1732 and enhances the role of 
States in carrying out the Clean Water Act. I encourage Members to 
support the Kildee amendment.
  I would also ask the sponsor of this amendment if he would support 
this underlying bill with the amendment included. The reason I argue he 
should is because, under the current rule, without the underlying bill 
being passed, States would have to change the processes under the 402 
and 404 permitting, and they currently would have no grace period. With 
this amendment in the underlying bill and passage of the underlying 
bill, that would solve that problem. And so his amendment strengthens 
the bill, but also gives the States the flexibility that he is asking 
for. I would ask that the sponsor of the amendment support the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and 
his support. I do think it is important that whenever we can agree, we 
do express that agreement. I think this amendment is a good example.
  I know we all support the underlying purpose of the act. This 
particular amendment would ensure that, when there is a rule, States 
that do operate under delegated authority would be able to continue to 
protect the waters of the U.S. and the waters within their own States 
with the best knowledge on the ground. It has been a good experience in 
the State of Michigan. I think it is good for other States as well. I 
think that this amendment would help to ensure that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Duncan of Tennessee) having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Iowa, 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. 
1732) to preserve existing rights and responsibilities with respect to 
waters of the United States, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________