[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 454-465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
       CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 583, I call up 
the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to the definition of ``waters of the United States'' 
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 583, the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 22

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and 
     the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Clean Water 
     Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States''' (80 Fed. 
     Reg. 37054; June 29, 2015), and such rule shall have no force 
     or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 22.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The question of what is and is not waters of the United States has 
been the subject of debate for many decades. The reason this question 
is so important and contentious is because, if water or land is 
Federal, it is subject to regulation by the Federal Government.
  The Clean Water Act was originally intended as a cooperative 
partnership between the States and the Federal Government, with the 
States being primarily responsible for the elimination and prevention 
of water pollution and the oversight of waters within their borders.
  This successful partnership has given rise to monumental improvements 
in water quality throughout the Nation since the Clean Water Act's 
enactment in 1972 because not all waters need to be subject to Federal 
jurisdiction.
  Following the Supreme Court's decision of SWANCC and Rapanos, 
determining the appropriate scope of jurisdiction on the Clean Water 
Act has been confusing and unclear. Both the regulated community and 
the Supreme Court called for a rulemaking that would provide this 
needed clarity. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers voluntarily 
undertook a rulemaking to respond to the need for clarity, and that is 
when things went terribly wrong.
  If the agencies had taken the time to consult with the States and 
local governments and to actually listen up front to the issues that 
our States, counties, cities, and townships are facing, the agencies 
would not have had to admit to Congress in multiple hearings that their 
proposed rule created confusion and uncertainty, but they did not take 
this time for consultation.
  If the agencies had followed the proper rulemaking process, we 
wouldn't have had a proposed rule that cut corners on the economic 
analysis, used incomplete data, and took a cursory look at the economic 
impacts of the rule on just one of the many regulatory programs under 
the Clean Water Act, but they did not follow the rulemaking process.
  If the agencies had done things right, the substantive comments filed 
on the rule would not have been nearly 70 percent opposed to the rule.
  If the agencies had done things right the first time, the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure wouldn't have had to respond to 
the more than 30 States and almost 400 counties which requested the EPA 
withdraw or significantly revise the proposed waters of the United 
States rule and move H.R. 1732, a bill the House passed in May of 2015 
that was a bipartisan bill, that would have sent the rule back to the 
agencies so they would go through the correct process.
  If the agencies had properly developed the rule in a joint fashion, 
the Army Corps of Engineers would not have been cut out of the process 
and would not have had to send last-minute letters through the chain of 
command that questioned decisions that were being made in the final 
rule and that pointed out multiple issues that would make the rule 
nearly impossible to implement and legally questionable.
  If the agencies had actually set out to clarify jurisdiction and not 
to simply gift themselves unlimited discretion to regulate whatever 
they wanted, they would not have needed to have conspired to influence 
and skew the public comments during the open rulemaking process or to 
promote and justify an agenda that the majority of States opposed and 
have sued to stop.
  Recently, the Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion 
related to its investigation of the EPA regarding the waters of the 
United States rule that drastically increases the agencies' authority 
at the expense of the States.
  The GAO's findings are plain and simple: The EPA broke the law. By 
using social media tactics, the GAO called ``covert propaganda'' and 
``grassroots lobbying,'' the EPA undermined the integrity of the 
rulemaking process and violated the trust of the American people.
  The agencies simply did not do things right. In fact, they did things 
very, very wrong. And now we have a rule on the books that is 
reflective of a completely flawed process.
  Today the waters of the United States rule goes far beyond merely 
clarifying the scope of the Federal jurisdiction under Clean Water Act 
programs. It vastly expands Federal power. The clarity this rule 
provided is simple: Everything is Federal.
  The rule misconstrues and manipulates the legal standards announced 
in the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court cases, effectively turning 
those cases that placed limits on the 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 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 vagueness will continue to lead the regulated community without 
clarity and certainty as to their regulatory status and leaves them 
exposed to citizen lawsuits and massive government fines.

[[Page 455]]

  In addition, since many of these jurisdictional decisions will be 
made on a case-by-case basis, they will give the Federal regulators 
free rein to find jurisdiction.
  This rule, in essence, establishes a presumption that all waters are 
jurisdictional and shifts the burden to prove they are not to the 
property owners and to others in the regulated community. This rule 
will set a very high bar for the regulated community to overcome.
  The administration even explicitly acknowledged that it wants maximum 
discretion in its Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 1732, 
stating that it opposed the bill because it would constrain the 
agencies' regulatory discretion.
  The rule undermines the successful Federal-State partnership and 
erodes State authority by granting sweeping, new Federal jurisdiction 
to waters never intended for regulation under the Clean Water Act.
  In justifying the need for this rule, the agencies claimed 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 would be 
covered by the rulemaking, which raises the question of how the rule 
can protect these supposedly unprotected waters without vastly 
expanding Federal jurisdiction over them. The agencies are talking out 
of both sides of their mouths.
  The reality is that States care about and are protective of their 
waters, and wetlands and stream miles are not being left unprotected.
  More than 30 States have sued the Federal Government over this rule. 
Who can blame them? States and local governments and the regulated 
community all repeatedly expressed concern that the agencies have cut 
them out of the process and have failed to consult with them during 
every step in the development of this rule.
  The agencies engaged in a flawed process from the beginning, ignoring 
their State and local partners and ignoring each other, and gifted 
themselves virtually limitless authority over land in this country that 
could contain water.
  Furthermore, they broke the law by illegally influencing both the 
public comment period and lobbying against congressional efforts to get 
them to change their course.
  S.J. Res. 22 halts this appalling overreach by the executive branch. 
The stakes are simply too high not to act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are ultimately here because of a failure by the United States 
Congress to act. The last time Congress revisited the Clean Water Act 
was in 1987. There are very few Members here today who were elected at 
that time.
  The reason we have the Clean Water Act is that--I remember a time 
when I was young when the Cuyahoga River caught fire because of 
industrial waste and when the Willamette River in my State was an open 
sewer because it was a convenient place to dump your municipal human 
waste.
  It was a disaster for our country, and we decided to deal with that 
problem under Republican leadership, which we did quite successfully. 
But now we realize it is a little more complicated than just keeping 
out the point source pollution from industrial waste and/or municipal 
waste.
  There are other threats to our clean water, one of the most precious 
things we have. Read the CIA documents or the planning by the Pentagon. 
Wars will be fought over water. We can't sully this precious resource, 
and I think there is pretty substantial agreement on that. The question 
is: What, where, and how do we protect the waters of the United States?
  This is incredibly confusing. We have a split Supreme Court, with 
contradictory decisions out of the Supreme Court, and we are now, 
today, living under Bush-era guidance regarding the Clean Water Act.
  That unfortunately is described by people from the extremes of the 
debate--from the American Farm Bureau Federation to the Natural 
Resources Defense Council--as totally unworkable, inconsistent, 
incomprehensible, and it provides no certainty to farmers or to 
conservationists or to developers or to anybody else. That is what we 
are living under. We are living under those rules today.
  Here is a quote from the American Farm Bureau:

       A hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional 
     theories, which, ultimately, will result--and is resulting--
     in increased delays and costs to the public at large.

  That is what we are living under because this new rule, which the 
House today will act to overturn, is not in effect. What is in effect 
today is Bush-era guidance.
  If this legislation were to pass and become law, which it won't 
because the Senate has already failed to muster a veto-proof majority 
over there on this issue--so this is all kind of a show--the provisions 
of this resolution or disapproval are so broad that all of the work 
that went into constructing this new rule could not be replicated in 
any manner.
  Essentially, we would be stuck forever unless we change the law, and 
Congress hasn't acted on the Clean Water Act for 30 years. Unless we 
change the law, we would be stuck forever with an ad hoc, inconsistent 
hodgepodge of jurisdictional theories, which are resulting in increased 
delays and costs to the public at large. That is the ultimate result, 
were this to pass and become law.
  Now, I will admit that the administration caused a good deal of the 
problem here today. The rule, as initially promulgated by the EPA, was, 
I would say, turgid at best, and it caused incredible confusion. It 
seemed to have jurisdictional theories, et cetera, et cetera, very much 
like the Bush rule.
  There was an uproar from Members of Congress, farmers, developers, 
and conservationists. Everybody had concerns about their initial rule. 
So what did they do? They went out and they listened. They had a 
massive number of comments to which they meaningfully responded, and 
then they found a few areas where they did make major improvements.
  Do I think it is a perfect rule? No. But the courts will decide where 
it is adequate or inadequate, and then that would give direction to a 
future Congress to actually act and do its job on the Clean Water Act. 
That would be desirable.
  It does deal with roadside ditches. There are huge concerns about 
roadside ditches. A good change. It has the explicit exemption of 
municipal separate storm sewers from the Clean Water Act. Again, that 
was the confusing part of their first rule.
  It permanently exempts groundwater and water-filled depressions 
related to fill or gravel mining activities. There is a huge concern 
with gravel extraction activities in my State.
  Also, a litany of erosional features, artificial ponds, and 
artificially irrigated areas were exempted from the Clean Water Act, 
which very explicitly and clearly benefit farmers and developers.

                              {time}  0930

  In fact, this subject came up at our joint hearing on this issue. 
Senator Inhofe brought this up. This was subjected to the Clean Water 
Act regulatory process. They wanted to turn this into a warehouse 
facility to develop the land. It is very marginal at best as farmland.
  Army Assistant Secretary Darcy confirmed, upon a question from me, 
that, in fact, under her new rule and guidance, this property would be 
exempt; but under the Bush rule, it isn't. So they can't develop it 
under the Bush rule, but they could develop it under the new rule, 
which we seek today to overturn.
  So this new rule is an improvement. Is it perfect, no. In fact, I 
think the courts might find it wanting in a number of ways, which would 
require further action by Congress. To merely say we reject it, we want 
to live under the Bush rule--which everybody hates and says doesn't 
work--forever doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, acting here

[[Page 456]]

today, when the Senate has already made it clear that they don't have a 
veto-proof majority, shows that we are wasting time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, just for a little bit of clarity, H.R. 7232 
that was passed out of the House, it was to rescind this proposed rule 
and for the agencies to start over. That is actually the position of 
the American Farm Bureau. They do not support this proposal. They want 
to start over and get a rule that does have clarity.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 
22, the resolution of disapproval for the waters of the United States 
rule. The ranking member pointed out that the Bush rule creates 
tremendous uncertainty. He is correct, absolutely correct. We need to 
make sure we change it.
  This rule that the President has put forward has 32 States that have 
filed lawsuits against it. Thirty-two States have said: no, this 
doesn't work.
  For decades, the Federal regulators worked as partners with the 
States to significantly improve water quality across this country. 
Those situations that the ranking member talked about that happened 40 
and 50 years ago aren't happening today. The States have worked very 
closely with the Federal Government to make sure that we have clean 
water, that we are protecting that precious resource we have.
  Now, I will say right up front, because I know someone is going to 
call me out on it, the Governor of Pennsylvania did not file a lawsuit. 
Well, he is a liberal Democrat who has an extreme environmental agenda. 
He doesn't really care about the farmers of Pennsylvania, nor does he 
care about the building industry in Pennsylvania. This Governor is 
wrong on this issue.
  Again, 32 States have said ``no'' to this rule. The Federal 
Government shouldn't be regulating every drop of water. Again, 
Pennsylvania, like every other State, is supposed to bear primary 
responsibility for regulating the waters within its own borders, but 
that will change when the EPA and the Corps of Engineers blatantly 
ignore Pennsylvania and the other 49 States, the limits of the Federal 
jurisdiction published in this rule.
  The gentleman knows full well, across this country, there are 
protests going on, and also in the State of Oregon. The Federal 
Government, again, has an overreach, keeps pushing out there. This rule 
will be the same thing. The Federal Government will push out and reach 
out and do things that weren't intended to be in the law.
  Just about every wet area in the country is open to Federal 
regulation under this rule. Jobs will be threatened, the rights of 
landowners and local governments will be trampled. That is the 
frustration out in America today. The Federal Government keeps pushing, 
pushing, pushing, and doing things that really don't have a significant 
impact on the environment or other areas of their jurisdiction, and 
they cause great harm to individuals out there. So that is why there is 
tremendous frustration in this country today.
  There are clear problems with this rule. Again, the administration 
basically concocted this proposal in a vacuum. Pennsylvania and the 
other States were asked about this rule. As I said, 32 States have 
filed suit against it. That is significant. That is almost three-
quarters of the States that have said ``no'' to this rule. That is a 
prime example, again, of why Americans are sick and tired of this.
  Every day I hear from farmers, homebuilders, small businesses, and 
others in my district. Some farmers have said they won't be able to 
pass on their family farm because of the cost associated with this 
power grab. As I said, I have no doubt that is what is going to happen. 
This will continue to expand if we don't stop it here today and send a 
strong message to the President to, as the subcommittee chairman said, 
take this rule back.
  Let's start over. Let's include the States in the development of this 
rulemaking. The EPA and the Corps need to listen to the States as 
partners as they have done for many, many years
  Just last night, the President of the United States stood on this 
House floor and talked about the need for eliminating rules that are on 
the books. Well, how about let's not put rules on the books that are 
going to cause great harm and great damage to many sectors of the 
economy, to many American people. This is a time when the President can 
show us that those words last night weren't hollow, that they were 
meaningful, and that he wanted to reach across the aisle. Here is a 
chance.
  There were a number of Senators on the other side of the aisle who 
voted for this. The last couple of times we have passed WOTUS bills 
here in the House, we have had bipartisan support. Here is an 
opportunity for us to work together.
  Again, last night we listened to the President. We heard him say some 
words, some words good. Again, if they are not willing to listen to the 
Congress on this issue, the very first order of business after he stood 
there last night and talked about, as I said, the need to reduce rules, 
as I said, how about let's not put a rule in place that is going to 
cause great harm to this country.
  The Congressional Review Act was put in place for just this very 
purpose. This is an opportunity for us to all join and do exactly what 
the ranking member has asked for, certainty in the rule. Reject 
President Bush's rulemaking. Let's put a rule in place the States can 
support and the American people can support
  I urge all Members to support S.J. Res. 22.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, the chairman and I have established a good record of working 
together. I would love to get a commitment here to work together, to go 
through a full reauthorization of the Clean Water Act and clarify these 
many issues, what we want to protect and what we want to be excluded 
from the jurisdiction. The Congress has the authority to do that. I 
think we should undertake that. It would be very difficult.
  To say that repealing this rule, which does have some clarifications 
of the Bush rule--that would return us to the Bush-era regulations, a 
hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional theories that are 
resulting in an increase in delays caused to the public at large, 
doesn't seem like a good result. So unless we choose to act and clarify 
the law, that is what we are going to be stuck with.
  Under this resolution, absent another specific action by Congress, 
they can't use any of the work that went into developing this rule or 
the data. It can't be substantially the same. We would have to further 
authorize them to begin a new rulemaking.
  There was unprecedented public comment, 207 days of public comment. 
There were 1 million comments received. There were 400 public meetings. 
There was a special consultation process for the States and local 
officials. Now, my State and the State of Pennsylvania apparently were 
pretty satisfied with that. There are other States that weren't, but 
maybe they didn't go to the meetings.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 22, 
the Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution on the EPA and 
Corps of Engineers clean water rulemaking.
  I thank my ranking member, Peter DeFazio, for his strong advocacy and 
dedicated leadership in protecting the waters of the United States.
  Congress has a long history in supporting the Clean Water Act. Back 
in 1972, Congress overrode President Nixon's veto of the Clean Water 
Act, demonstrating bipartisan support for the Federal regulation of our 
Nation's waters.
  The message was very clear: Human health would no longer take a back 
seat to big business. We need to protect our people. Never mind 
business, agriculture, and some others, what about

[[Page 457]]

the people who drink the water and use it for everyday purposes?
  Now, more than 40 years later, we are set to vote to overturn the 
clean water protection rule, a rule that for the first time in over a 
decade provides clarity for regulated parties and protection for our 
Nation's rivers and streams.
  What message are we sending out today? Clearly, we are not telling 
the American people that what water the American people have left is 
not worth protecting.
  Mr. Speaker, when developing the clean water protection rule, the 
administration went to unprecedented lengths to engage with 
stakeholders, including ranchers, farmers, and municipalities. They 
held over 400 stakeholder meetings on the rule and reviewed close to a 
million public comments on the rule. I say public, because the public 
was also partly commenting on this.
  It is evident that EPA and the Corps wholeheartedly considered these 
comments and concerns because many of the clean water rule's reforms 
benefit industry, agriculture, and municipalities. These reforms 
include limiting permits for ditches and municipal storm water sewers 
and codified exemptions for certain agriculture, construction, and 
mining activities.
  Let us not forget that farmers and developers alike call the Clean 
Water Act's current--I am talking again about the current one--
regulatory process ad hoc, inconsistent, and costly.
  The rule we are attempting to overturn would keep the old Bush 
administration-era confusing regulations in place and potentially 
prohibit the President and his future successors from developing a 
clean water rule in the future.
  As we stand here today, I can't think of one good reason to pass this 
resolution. The same groups that asked for this rule actually benefited 
from the rule, but they are now asking us to do away with that rule. 
The only thing I can surmise is that those who oppose this rule would 
oppose any rulemaking that did not drastically limit the application of 
the Clean Water Act or, to put it another way, these groups are simply 
opposed to the Clean Water Act entirely.
  In California, 99.2 percent of the population gets its water from 
drinking water systems that rely on water bodies protected by this 
rule. With numbers like that on the line, intervening now is simply 
reckless.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in strong opposition 
to the resolution.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gibbs and certainly 
the entire committee, Chairman Shuster and others, for their work on 
this issue.
  I rise today in strong support of this legislation. I certainly 
appreciate clean water.
  However, the EPA's waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS, is one of the 
largest abuses of executive power in modern history and poses a 
significant threat to America's economy. Under the rule, the EPA and 
the Army Corps of Engineers will have the power to dictate land use 
decisions and farming practices of agricultural producers and 
businessowners all across the country.
  To give you an idea of the scope of the overreach and to illustrate 
why my colleagues from urban districts should also be concerned about 
this rule, I want to share with you an example of EPA and the Army 
Corps' abuse in Douglas County, Nebraska, with a population of over 
500,000, in my home State. The President also happens to be visiting 
this county today.
  In 2005, the county began the process of submitting the proper 
environmental permit applications needed to extend a section of road 
about 1 mile. The project was designated as having the lowest level of 
environmental impact. However, construction is not slated to begin 
until at least 2019.
  Why the delay? There is a small ditch which runs adjacent to the 
proposed project. Within the ditch, there is a small rut about 6 to 8 
inches wide and no more than an inch deep. It has no ordinary high 
water mark, and there are no wetland plants growing in the ditch. 
However, the Corps declared this ditch a water of the United States, 
costing the county thousands of dollars and numerous years.
  This was never the intent of Congress when the Clean Water Act was 
passed. The act clearly limits Federal jurisdiction to navigable 
waters. In fact, the term ``navigable'' appears more than 80 times in 
the Clean Water Act. There is no way one can tell me that an inch-deep 
ditch is a navigable water.
  Congress has a responsibility to guard against these bureaucratic 
power grabs by executive agencies. This is why I introduced the 
companion bill to this legislation immediately after the rule was 
finalized. My resolution gained more than 70 cosponsors, with 
supporters from both sides of the aisle.
  Thanks to the expedited procedures established under the 
Congressional Review Act, after we vote on this legislation the bill 
will proceed immediately to the President's desk. My hope is the 
President will listen to the American people and roll back this new 
rule.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 19\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman just made an excellent point. It is absolutely 
unbelievably stupid and absurd that that ditch should have held up a 
needed project in an urban area, but that is because of the Bush rule, 
the rule that today we are saying should be in place indefinitely or 
perhaps forever.

                              {time}  0945

  That ditch is specifically exempt under the newly adopted rule, which 
has been suspended by litigation. If the gentleman wants to deal with 
the ditch problem, it has been dealt with. Unfortunately, the courts 
have put a stay on it. But now the gentleman wants to throw out the new 
rule, which would exempt ditches like that, and go back to the Bush era 
rule, which is what caused that problem--cause and effect.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, please, Members, vote 
``no'' on this resolution. It is a very bad idea. What is happening 
here, for the folks listening, is that the EPA has come up with a rule 
that is going to strengthen protections for drinking water for 117 
million people.
  Our Republican colleagues have brought forth a resolution to 
disapprove of the rule, leaving people vulnerable to the status quo. 
This comes out to about one in three Americans across the country and 
perhaps one in five Minnesotans in my home State.
  Now, I am critically concerned about all of America--I am a U.S. 
Congressman--which leads me to the situation in Flint. The fact is 
that, by clarifying that waters are protected under the Clean Water 
Act, the rule would reduce the amount of pollution entering major 
rivers and waterways. This would mean less corrosive water, which is 
part of what led to the water crisis being seen in Flint, Michigan, 
right now.
  When the highly corrosive water of the Flint River passes through 
Flint's service pipes, it leaches lead out of the pipes and into 
residents' drinking glasses, bathtubs, and swimming pools. The water 
crisis in Flint reminds us that failure to step up and protect our 
water supply puts the lives of the public in danger. Eight thousand 
children are now facing poisoning because of this nasty situation.
  In Flint, residents were forced to pay for water that was poisoning 
them, by an unelected emergency manager. A mother and Flint resident, 
Lee Ann Walters, started bathing her children with bottled water, as 
she learned that her children were showing signs of lead poisoning and 
that the lead levels in her tap water were seven times higher than the 
minimum safety standard. The entire city has been exposed to dangerous 
lead levels, including as many as 8- to 10,000 children.
  If this does not compel us to stand up and fight for clean water, I 
don't know

[[Page 458]]

what will. We absolutely need to say ``no'' to this resolution that 
would expose us to dirty water.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back down memory lane just 
a second. My good friend from Oregon, when we were debating H.R. 1732, 
the bill that said let's stop this rule and work up a rule that will 
bring clarity, he said that was a bipartisan-supported bill. But the 
gentleman said we didn't need to pass H.R. 1732 because whenever the 
rule comes out, we have the Congressional Review Act to take care of 
the problem. That is what we are doing today.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Congress gave the EPA jurisdiction over 
navigable bodies of water large enough to support ship traffic. This 
EPA rule takes control over virtually every body of water in the United 
States, including many agricultural and drainage ditches, ornamental 
lakes, and small creeks and streams on private property.
  Now, in 2010, Mr. Oberstar introduced a bill to grant them this 
power, and the Pelosi Congress refused to pass it; so the EPA simply 
decided to seize that power anyway.
  This not only threatens to upend 150 years of State water and 
property rights laws, it also presents us with a grave challenge to our 
Constitution. If it is allowed to stand, this rule means that Congress' 
exclusive legislative powers have now passed unrestricted to the 
executive, including the power to repeal existing laws that guarantee 
to States supremacy over their own waters and the power to amend laws 
to seize vast new executive authority in direct defiance of this 
Congress.
  This rule must not stand. It cannot stand.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my 
ranking member and the chair of the committee for their diligence in 
running this committee and overseeing some of the most important 
legislation for our Nation.
  The Clean Water Act is the key Federal law used to protect our 
Nation's waters and ensure that millions of Americans have access to 
clean water. The resolution of disapproval being considered today would 
block the implementation of important administrative reforms aimed at 
clarifying key components of this Clean Water Act. These reforms 
include considerations on how we define tributaries to traditionally 
navigable waters and sets out clear exclusions to the definition of 
waters of the United States, among other changes that will help 
streamline the regulatory process.
  Countless municipalities, businesses, and industry stakeholders have 
expressed concern around the confusing and outdated regulations 
established under the Bush administration. In fact, more than a million 
public comments submitted to EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers have 
contributed to the formulation of this final rule. The final rule would 
provide much-needed predictability and clarity for these groups, and 
that has got my attention.
  In my home State of Texas, 43 percent of the residents get their 
drinking water from sources that rely on small streams protected by the 
most recent Clean Water Act and rule. The rule also restores 
protections to more than 12,000 miles of streams that feed into Texas' 
drinking water sources. Further delaying the implementation of this 
rule will continue to have a dramatic impact on my State of Texas and 
other States around the country.
  I see a number of immediate problems with this resolution. For one, 
S.J. Res. 22 would block any future administration from ever clarifying 
the regulatory confusion related to the Clean Water Act unless Congress 
authorizes a new rule. In my opinion, that does not bode well for our 
ability to protect such an essential resource as clean water for 
Americans.
  Thankfully, President Obama has already expressed his intention to 
veto this resolution if it were to reach his desk. Based on a vote on 
this resolution in the Senate last year, Congress lacks the support to 
override a veto.
  This resolution is simply another attempt by this Congress to block 
this administration from carrying out its regulatory duties to protect 
Americans. I do not think that there is a single Member of this House 
who would disagree that access to clean water is absolutely essential 
for our well-being and health.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Here we are, dedicating even more 
time to consider legislation that would block our ability to protect 
important waterways and wetlands from pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution amounts to nothing more than a misguided 
direction. No one thinks that any American should be subjected to a 
questionable quality of water. For this reason, I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am hearing a lot of comments made about the comment period. I just 
want to reiterate that, of the substantial comments made, 70 percent of 
them were opposed to the rule.
  I think what is even more important and needs to really be made clear 
here, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, did an 
investigation, and they said the EPA broke the law because they used 
covert propaganda through social media to skew the comments and biased 
them to their agenda.
  This creates a huge problem for me because this violates the 
integrity, goes to the integrity of the comment period. The reason we 
have a comment period is for stakeholders--in this case, States, 
farmers, developers--and a whole array of different people to have the 
ability to put comments in, and it's up to the Agency to make the best 
rule possible that will work for everybody and protect the environment.
  The GAO said they broke the law, so we need to make that clear. The 
comment period was flawed, and that is why we need to pass this bill 
and resend it.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the 
Supreme Court in 2001 and again in 2006 determined that the EPA and the 
Corps of Engineers' definition of waters of the United States was too 
broad, and it directed them to narrow that rule, that definition, to 
bring it into compliance and within the four corners of the law.
  This poster here indicates the absurdity of what we are dealing with. 
Clearly, you wouldn't have folks out on a kayak in a field fishing. It 
is simply nonsensical. That is what we are facing today.
  The EPA and the Corps of Engineers didn't come back and say, ``We are 
going to reduce the footprint. We are going to reduce the area that is 
now subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps under waters of the U.S.'' 
They came out with a rule that actually expanded it. They came out with 
a rule that the cost of compliance didn't decrease, as you would 
expect, based upon the rulings of the Supreme Court. The cost of 
compliance grew, and there were many reports about discourse within the 
Corps of Engineers and the EPA in regard to the approach that is being 
taken today. This is simply absurd to come in and attempt to regulate 
snow melt and drainage and things like that.
  Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Louisiana, we drain about 42 percent 
of the contiguous landmass of North America. It is one of the largest 
watersheds in the world. You can't take a definition of waters of the 
U.S. and try and apply it to Arizona and Louisiana. Waters of the U.S. 
is our State, based upon this definition. Much of the area of south 
Louisiana would be subject to this.
  So what does this mean? It means it is an infringement upon our 
private property rights: homes, businesses, land that we bought, that 
we own. We can't have the Federal Government come in and grow 
jurisdiction beyond the scope of the law.

[[Page 459]]

  I want to be clear. I am not talking about paving all the wildlands 
and open lands that we have in the United States. We certainly want to 
protect the environment, want to protect our water quality. But the 
irony here is that this is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA 
involved.
  In my home State of Louisiana, we have the greatest rate of coastal 
wetlands loss in the United States, which I want to make note, Mr. 
Speaker, is the fault of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is their 
fault. The greatest rate of wetlands loss in the United States, their 
fault. Then here they are standing up saying: We want to protect the 
environment and be good stewards of the environment, and we are going 
to grow the jurisdiction of this amendment.
  This is absurd. This is not antienvironmental. This is simply 
complying with the law, and this rule clearly goes beyond the scope of 
the law. You are not going to see scenarios like this because it is 
absurd. That is what we are facing today.
  What is going to happen is this rule is once again going to be thrown 
out by the Supreme Court. It is once again going to be thrown out. But 
what Americans are going to face between now and when this is thrown 
out is they are going to be facing additional scrutiny. They are going 
to be facing the additional cost of compliance. They are going to face 
the additional encroachment and infringement upon their private 
property rights.
  It is wrong. This isn't antienvironmental. This is within the four 
corners of the law.
  I strongly urge you to support this resolution.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to refer back to the chairman's trip down memory lane. 
If he recalls the circumstance, we had not yet seen the revised rule. 
The initial rule, many of us had objected to, and we hadn't seen the 
revised rule. The majority wanted to stop the revised rule, again, 
sticking us with the Bush-era guidance. I guess they are in love with 
the Bush-era guidance, which everybody from the Farm Bureau to Natural 
Resources Defense Council hates and says doesn't work. The gentleman 
from Louisiana just referenced that.
  In the interim, we will be under these really contradictory and 
unworkable rules of the Bush era. Congress should act to update the 
Clean Water Act, and then we can have a vigorous debate over what areas 
we want to cover and what areas we don't want to cover and perhaps get 
a little more clarity.
  Today we are here because they have promulgated a rule. It is 
substantially different from the draft rule, and they made clear that 
many of the things that were discussed in the interim--it is going to 
regulate my bird bath, my pond on my farm, the puddles on my farm, the 
ditches on my farm; it is going to preempt land use--all of those 
things are specifically addressed in the final rule, which we want to 
override, and they are exempt.

                              {time}  1000

  It does not change exemptions for agriculture. It doesn't regulate 
erosional features.
  I am not going to read all the specific language, but it is all right 
here. The ditch issue in the urban area we heard about earlier is 
solved under this, but it is still a problem today under the Bush-era 
rule, which is still the law of the land because the new rule was 
stayed by the courts. And now we want to kill it.
  So we don't want to fix the ditch issue, I guess, and live forever 
under the Bush-era rule. It doesn't regulate land use. If it did the 
things the people on the other side were saying, I think you would find 
85, 90 percent of the Members of this House would be voting for this 
resolution of disapproval. The fact is it doesn't do those things and 
we have very specific references to demonstrate that.
  And then, on this issue of the illegal actions, again, I was getting 
emails and phone calls from people saying, my bird bath; my pond; my 
puddles; my roadside ditches. The forest industry is saying our 
roadside ditches.
  Well, those things are all exempt now. But these things were out 
there, and the EPA was trying to educate people and say: Here is what 
is in. Here is what is out. And they find the weeniest of little, 
stupid violations.
  This isn't like lawbreaking. They used Thunderclap to actually tell 
people a few things about this rule. They forgot to put on a 
disclaimer. Oh, someone should go to jail for that. The right-wing nuts 
occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Cliven Bundy 
violating Federal law, owing us a million dollars and not paying for 
grazing like other people, they shouldn't be prosecuted. In fact, the 
chairman referenced those nuts earlier.
  I find it offensive and insulting to say that there is some sort of 
protest that relates to this discussion on the floor of the House by 
right-wing extremists who have taken over illegally and are destroying 
Federal property in my State.
  And then, secondly, they had another violation beyond using 
Thunderclap. They had a link that went to someone else's site. And on 
that someone else's site, they were advocating for the rule. Wow. These 
are lawbreakers. These are the lawbreakers we want to go after.
  This administration doesn't go after any lawbreakers, from Wall 
Street criminals under the collapse or these right-wing extremists in 
the West. I discussed that earlier in a 1-minute speech on the floor.
  But the point here is that we have much better clarification now. The 
courts are going to rule whether this is adequate or inadequate, 
whether Congress needs to act further, whether the rule needs to be 
revised.
  We should let that process go forward. That would give us some 
direction because we don't seem to be able to initiate on our own a 
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act and have a fair debate over what 
we want to cover and not cover. But the default action--repealing this 
rule, doing nothing--binds us to the Bush-era rule indefinitely.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear. It was the 
Government Accountability Office investigation that said the EPA broke 
the law. Regardless of how you interpret what they said, they broke the 
law. I think that goes to the integrity of the whole rulemaking 
process, that that is a dangerous precedent, moving forward.
  We had the talk about this rule brings clarity. Yes, it does bring 
clarity because it pretty much makes everything under water all under 
Federal jurisdiction. It is like going from the frying pan into the 
fire.
  That is why the American Farm Bureau and a whole host of other 
entities and almost two-thirds or three-quarters of the States have 
sued or are opposed to that.
  So we need clarity. That is why Congress needs to commit to work to 
fix that. But this rule, going forward, is more obtrusive and is a big 
problem. Like I said, it does mean that everything is under Federal 
jurisdiction.
  There has been a lot of discussion about ditches. They exempted 
ditches, but they put five exemptions to put it back in. One I really 
like says that, if water in a ditch eventually flows out of that ditch 
and into a tributary--which they expanded the definition of tributaries 
into navigable waters--it is not exempt.
  So tell me where in the United States there is a ditch that has water 
that doesn't eventually flow into waters of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 22, which vacates 
this overreaching and, frankly, unnecessary waters of the U.S. rule. It 
prevents the EPA and the Corps of Engineers from moving forward.
  I think the problem that has made itself real prevalent--and the 
chairman just talked about this as well--is it is not what is on the 
top line. It is what is on the exemption line.

[[Page 460]]

  You can talk about whatever you want to talk about, but the problem I 
come to with this--because we have been dealing with this in my part of 
the world--and I appreciate the previous speaker from Louisiana talking 
about the watershed there--is that I am from northeast Georgia, where 
we are in the foothills of the mountains.
  So, in the bottom, you have the creeks, the tributaries. We have Lake 
Lanier, the Chattahoochee River, Lake Hartwell. We have a lot of areas 
that fall here.
  What is interesting to me--and what my friend from across the aisle 
basically said--and what is offensive to me is to come to a place and 
say that, just because we are going to work on a Clean Water Act, we 
are going to work on a reauthorization, we take it from Congress and 
say that people downtown in cubicles who do not know my district and 
who understand that they have an agenda to push will make rules and 
make regulations that affect the livelihood of people.
  When you take it from Congress, where it should be, that is 
offensive. I agree with my friend. It should be here. But we have seen 
a pattern in the last 7 years that, if it is not moving fast enough in 
Congress, go around it. That is not possible. The Constitution is not 
something you can forget every once in a while.
  Now, you can make arguments all day long. You can call it whatever 
you want to call it. I call it just plain dumb. Common sense, as my 
grandma told me one time, is not common. I see that in Washington all 
the time, especially in agencies.
  We talk about why this is confusing. We had the EPA director sitting 
in committee last year asked these very questions about the rule. She 
answered them one way, and at the very same time, back in my district, 
the Ninth District of Georgia, they were being told a completely 
opposite answer.
  Where she would say it is not affected, they would say: Oh, it is 
affected. They knew because they understood their district, and the 
Agency workers in the district understood what was going on.
  So you can have this argument all you want. This needs to be vacated. 
As previously said, the courts have already made a statement on this. 
This is an overreach. This is a policy choice.
  And I am sorry. The executive branch is to carry out the law, to work 
within the confines of the court ruling, not to determine that they 
have pins on their chests and that they are elected by the people that 
they represent. They are to follow the law.
  If we need to continue on the Clean Water Act and to make arguments 
to say that, if you are against this, you want dirty water, you want 
bad pollution, you are against this, that is just a straw man that 
needs to be burned down and buried.
  We are looking for commonsense regulation. We are looking for stuff 
that makes sense. I have a gentleman in my area whose land--100 acres--
is his main asset. When you take these rules and set them on top of it 
and he has 18 usable acres, from dry ditches and gullies, that is a 
problem.
  Don't hand me this, that this is going to destroy the world. Don't 
hand me this from the red hills of north Georgia, where just years ago 
it was the farmers and those who knew that living off the land meant 
conservation, who turned those red clay hills into green, lush farms. 
Don't tell me that Washington needs to be the one to tell them how to 
do conservation and to know what to do with a dry ditch on their land. 
This is ridiculous.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It would be interesting if the gentleman invited the EPA to come out 
and look at that farmer's land. I think they would find that he is 
exempt and he isn't down to 18 acres. There are misunderstandings.
  And, also, the gentleman did say something about the courts have 
already ruled. The courts haven't ruled. That is the problem. It is 
going to be 2 years before they get to the merits on this rule. And so 
they essentially have stayed the new rule from going into effect. So we 
don't have ditch exemptions.
  It would be interesting to contrast the existing Bush rules--which 
will be in place for at least another 2 years--to the new rules and 
have someone come out and consult with that farmer and say: Actually, 
you are kind of screwed here because of the Bush rules. But if we had 
these new rules, we could just tell you to go ahead and farm on those 
100 acres. On previously converted cropland, ditches are exempt. You 
have the agricultural exemptions. But sorry, you are stuck with 
something written in the Bush era.
  That is the effect of Congress not acting. And I would agree with the 
gentleman. The fact is we should act and we could act. The gentleman 
has jurisdiction over the committee which could reauthorize the Clean 
Water Act.
  It has not been reauthorized since 1987, which is why we are 
squabbling over administration interpretation of the Bush 
administration--I hate to have to be talking about George Bush--and the 
Obama administration as opposed to Congress having at some point done 
its job to reauthorize and clarify the Clean Water Act in those 
intervening 28 years.
  I am not aware of any plans. The chairman has told me the agenda for 
the coming year, but rewriting the Clean Water Act and debating the 
merits and demerits of certain protections is not on that agenda, to 
the best of my knowledge.
  So the effects of what the courts have done is to stick us with the 
Bush-era rules for 2 more years, and the effect of what we are doing 
here would actually stick us with the Bush-era rules indefinitely. Pick 
your poison.
  The bottom line is we are doing a disservice to the country by not 
getting these commonsense exemptions in place as soon as possible.
  I have a number of letters from groups too numerous to reference that 
I will include in the Record. Being co-chair of the House Craft Brewers 
Caucus, there is a very strong representation by the craft brewing 
industry because of their concerns about the need for clean water to 
make good beer.

                                              American Sustainable


                                             Business Council,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2016.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 250,000 businesses, 
     and more than 325,000 entrepreneurs, executives, managers and 
     investors we represent, the American Sustainable Business 
     Council (ASBC) urges you to vote against the Congressional 
     Review Act (S.J. Res. 22) overturning the EPA's Clean Water 
     Rule.
       Clean water is good for business, and companies like the 
     ones we represent know it. They need it for their operations 
     and for the overall health of their communities. Repealing 
     this rule would not protect economic growth; it would put it 
     at risk.
       The EPA's rule comes out of a broad desire among all 
     stakeholders, following the Supreme Court's rulings in 2001 
     and 2006, to clarify what the EPA's jurisdiction is under the 
     Clean Water Act. This ruling is based on sound science, and 
     does not expand the agency's power under the Clean Water Act, 
     only clarifying of what bodies of water it protects.
       Of greatest concern to us, however, is the argument that 
     this rule will jeopardize economic growth. From our 
     experience, the real risk to our economy comes when clean 
     water protections no longer exist, and businesses lose 
     control over a crucial input in food and beverage production, 
     tourism, manufacturing, and any number of industries.
       The EPA's rule gives the business community more confidence 
     that clean water sources, including streams and rivers, are 
     protected, and removes uncertainty surrounding the agency's 
     authority to protect our waterways. This is good for the 
     economy, and vital for businesses that rely on clean water 
     for their success.
       The business community was given ample opportunity to share 
     its concerns and inform the EPA of the rule's potential 
     impact during the months-long comment period--as evidenced by 
     the more than 1 million comments submitted during that time--
     and the EPA had abundant time to take any concerns into 
     account and use them to improve the rule.
       Clean water remains a necessity for so many American 
     industries, from agriculture to manufacturing to tourism to 
     food and drink production. And it's what businesses across 
     the political spectrum want--national, scientific polling 
     from the American Sustainable Business Council found 80% of 
     small business owners favored rules protecting upstream 
     headwaters, as the EPA's rule would do, and 71% said that 
     clean water protections are necessary to ensure economic 
     growth.
       Congress needs to let this rule stand, not create more 
     uncertainty for American businesses. We urge you to vote 
     against Congressional Review Act (S.J. Res. 22). American

[[Page 461]]

     businesses are relying on you to keep this rule intact and 
     ensure they can rely on this most crucial resource.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Richard Eidlin,
     Vice President of Policy and Campaigns.
                                  ____

                                                 January 11, 2016.
     Re Hunters and anglers strongly oppose S.J. Res. 22 
         invalidating the final Clean Water Rule

       Dear Representative: The undersigned sportsmen and 
     conservation organizations strongly oppose Senate Joint 
     Resolution 22, which the House of Representatives may vote on 
     this week and would invalidate the final Clean Water Rule. 
     This important rule clarifies Clean Water Act jurisdiction in 
     a manner that is both legally and scientifically sound.
       This joint resolution is an extraordinary and radical 
     action to overturn a fundamental, once-in-a-generation final 
     rule that is critical to the effective implementation of the 
     1972 Clean Water Act, and that was adopted following an 
     exhaustive public rulemaking process. The resolution would 
     overturn a rule that finally resolves longstanding confusion 
     and debate, promotes clarity and efficiency for regulatory 
     programs promoting river health, and preserves longstanding 
     protections for farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
       By using the Congressional Review Act, this joint 
     resolution not only wipes out the final Clean Water Rule but 
     also prohibits any substantially similar rule in the future. 
     It locks in the current state of jurisdictional confusion and 
     offers no constructive path forward for regulatory clarity or 
     clean water. America's hunters and anglers cannot afford to 
     have Congress undermine effective Clean Water Act safeguards, 
     leaving communities and valuable fish and wildlife habitat at 
     risk indefinitely.
       This joint resolution dismisses the voices of the millions 
     of Americans, including businesses that depend on clean 
     water, who support the new rule and are eager to reap its 
     benefits. The agencies engaged in a very transparent and 
     thorough multi-year rulemaking process that included over 400 
     stakeholder meetings and an extended public comment period 
     that produced over one million comments. Nearly 900,000 
     members of the public commented in support of the Clean Water 
     Rule. A recent poll found that 83 percent of sportsmen and 
     women think the Clean Water Act should apply to smaller 
     streams and wetlands, as the new rule directs.
       The Clean Water Rule clearly restores longstanding 
     protections for millions of wetlands and headwater streams 
     that contribute to the drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans, 
     protect communities from flooding, and provide essential fish 
     and wildlife habitat that supports a robust outdoor 
     recreation economy. The sport fishing industry alone accounts 
     for 828,000 jobs, nearly $50 billion annually in retail 
     sales, and an economic impact of about $115 billion every 
     year that relies on access to clean water. The Clean Water 
     Rule will translate directly to an improved bottom line for 
     America's outdoor industry.
       Opponents claiming the rule goes too far and protects water 
     too much have filed a barrage of nearly identical legal 
     challenges in numerous district and appellate courts across 
     the country. On October 9, 2015, the 6th Circuit Court of 
     Appeals temporarily stayed the Clean Water Rule nationwide. 
     The Clean Water Rule and those who oppose it will have their 
     day in court.
       Meanwhile, we want Congress to know that despite these 
     legal challenges, conservationists across the nation are 
     steadfast in our support for the Clean Water Rule. After 
     nearly 15 years of Clean Water Act confusion, further delay 
     is unacceptable to the millions of hunters and anglers eager 
     to have their local waters fully protected again. We are 
     confident that, when the dust settles in the courts, the 
     Clean Water Rule will withstand challenges saying it protects 
     our water too much.
       The Clean Water Act has always been about restoring and 
     maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 
     of the Nation's waters. It is bedrock support for America's 
     more than 40 million hunters and anglers and for the 117 
     million Americans whose drinking water depends on healthy 
     headwater streams.
       We thank all of the members of Congress who stand with 
     America's sportsmen and women to block attempts to derail the 
     rule, and ask you to reject S.J. Res. 22 and any other 
     legislative action against the rule that may follow this 
     year.
           Sincerely,
       American Fisheries Society, American Fly Fishing Trade 
     Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, International 
     Federation of Fly Fishers, Izaak Walton League of America, 
     National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
     Partnership, Trout Unlimited.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                 Washington, DC, January 12, 2016.
     Re Oppose extreme attack on clean water, S.J. Res. 22

     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters 
     (LCV) works to turn environmental values into national 
     priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the media.
       LCV urges you to vote NO on S.J. Res. 22, the Congressional 
     Review Act ``Resolution of Disapproval'' of the Clean Water 
     Rule. This radical legislative measure would threaten 
     critical clean water safeguards for the waterways that 
     millions of Americans depend on for drinking water by 
     permanently blocking the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' final Clean Water Rule.
       Since two confusing Supreme Court decisions over a decade 
     ago, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of 
     streams that contribute to the drinking water of one in three 
     Americans have been left vulnerable to toxic dumping and 
     destruction. After an extensive and thorough process, the 
     final Clean Water Rule provides clarity and certainty on the 
     waters covered under the Clean Water Act. These waterways 
     serve as habitat for wildlife, guard against flooding, filter 
     pollution, and help provide the clean water that our 
     families, communities, and economy depend on. The Clean Water 
     Rule enjoys wide support from businesses, conservationists, 
     sportsmen, farmers, state and local leaders, and the public, 
     including the over 800,000 people who weighed in during the 
     comment period and 80% of voters from all sides of the 
     political aisle.
       S.J. Res. 22 is an extreme dirty water resolution that 
     would not only stop the Clean Water Rule, but would prohibit 
     the agencies from developing any ``substantially similar'' 
     measure in the future. This vague and harmful language could 
     prevent the agencies from ever issuing rules that establish 
     protections for the waters covered by the Clean Water Rule, 
     leaving our streams, wetlands, lakes, and rivers vulnerable 
     to pollution for generations to come.
       We urge you to REJECT S.J. Res 22 a dangerous bill that 
     would block the Clean Water Rule and jeopardize the waterways 
     our children and grandchildren drink, swim, and play in. We 
     will strongly consider including votes on this bill in the 
     2016 Scorecard. If you need more information, please call my 
     office at (202) 785-8683 and ask to speak with a member of 
     our government relations team.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
     President.
                                  ____

                                               Healing Our Waters-


                                        Great Lakes Coalition,

                                                 January 11, 2016.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-
     Great Lakes Coalition, I ask you to vote against S.J. Res. 
     22.
       The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps 
     have spent years talking to the public, including state and 
     local governments, about providing clarity to which water 
     bodies will be covered by federal law. After being asked to 
     propose a rule by stakeholders from all sides, the EPA and 
     Army Corps did so after receiving nearly one million comments 
     regarding what they proposed. Many of these comments 
     suggested substantive changes on how to define what a water 
     of the United States is. The EPA and Army Corps incorporated 
     many of the suggestions in the rule finalized last year.
       S.J. Res. 22 stops these clean water protections from going 
     into force. More radically, it prohibits the EPA and Army 
     Corps from proposing anything that would be substantially the 
     same as what has already been developed after years of 
     deliberation.
       For years the Clean Water Act protected all wetlands and 
     tributaries in and around the Great Lakes. However, Supreme 
     Court decisions in 2001 (SWANCC) and 2006 (Rapanos) left many 
     of these wetlands, small streams, and lakes at increased risk 
     of being polluted and destroyed. This lack of protection in 
     particular left intermittent and headwater streams vulnerable 
     to pollution and adjacent wetlands open to be filled and 
     destroyed. Half of the streams in Great Lakes states do not 
     flow all year, putting them, and adjacent wetlands, at risk 
     of increased pollution and destruction. Over 117 million 
     Americans get their drinking water from surface waters, 
     including nearly 37 million people in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
     Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New 
     York. More importantly, 83 percent of the population in Great 
     Lakes states are dependent on public drinking water systems 
     that rely in intermittent, ephemeral, and headwater streams.
       Protecting and restoring wetlands and streams is critical 
     to the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes. 
     According to a review of more than a thousand publications 
     from peer-reviewed scientific literature conducted by an EPA 
     Science Advisory Board, streams, tributaries (e.g., 
     headwater, intermittent, ephemeral), and wetlands are 
     connected to downstream waters. The science overwhelmingly 
     concludes that upstream waters in tributaries (intermittent, 
     ephemeral, etc.) exert strong influence on the physical, 
     biological, and chemical integrity of downstream waters. 
     Common sense

[[Page 462]]

     also tells us this is true. Pollution in a tributary is 
     carried downriver into bigger and bigger waterways. Upstream 
     waters also feed water to Great Lakes rivers and streams.
       We need clean water protections now for our Great Lakes. 
     Wetlands and tributaries provide vital habitat to wildlife, 
     waterfowl, and fish; reduce flooding; provide clean water for 
     hunting, fishing, swimming, and paddling; and serve as the 
     source of drinking water for millions of Americans. Healthy 
     waters around the Great Lakes also fuel tourism and other 
     industries that sustain jobs because of clean Great Lakes 
     water. The Clean Water Rule is an important part of our Great 
     Lakes restoration efforts.
       Please vote against S.J. Res. 22. For more information 
     about our Coalition's position, please contact Chad Lord.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Todd Ambs,
     Coalition Director.
                                  ____


 Statement Opposing Senate Joint Resolution 22 to Roll-Back the Clean 
                     Water Rule, January 12, 2016.

    Allagash Brewing Company (Maine), Andersonville Brewing Company 
 (Illinois), Arbor Brewing Company (Michigan), Arcadia Brewing Company 
(Michigan), Bear Republic Brewing Company (California), Brewery Vivant 
(Michigan), Brooklyn Brewery (New York), Central Waters Brewing Company 
 (Wisconsin), Corridor Brewery & Provisions (Illinois), DryHop Brewers 
  (Illinois), Engrained Brewing Company (Illinois), Founders Brewing 
   Company (Michigan), Great Lakes Brewing Company (Ohio), Greenstar 
Brewery (Illinois), Half Acre Beer Company (Illinois), Harmony Brewing 
  Company (Michigan), Hops & Grain Brewing Company (Texas), Horse and 
   Dragon Brewing Company (Colorado), KelSo Beer Company (New York), 
Lagunitas Brewing Company (California and Illinois), Lakefront Brewery 
 (Wisconsin), Maine Beer Company (Maine), New Belgium Brewing Company 
  (Colorado and North Carolina), Oak Park Brewing Company (Illinois), 
  Odell Brewing Company (Colorado), Old Bust Head Brewery (Virginia), 
  Portsmouth Brewery (New Hampshire), Revolution Brewing (Illinois), 
 Right Brain Brewery (Michigan), Rising Tide Brewing Company (Maine), 
Sierra Nevada Brewing Company (California and North Carolina), Short's 
Brewing Company (Michigan), Smuttynose Brewing Company (New Hampshire), 
   Temperance Beer Company (Illinois), Two Brothers Artisan Brewing 
               (Illinois), Wild Onion Brewery (Illinois).

       Our breweries cannot operate without a reliable, clean 
     water supply. We strongly support the Clean Water Act, one of 
     our nation's bedrock environmental laws, as well as the Clean 
     Water Rule, which provides important clarity regarding which 
     waterbodies are covered by the Act.
       That is why we urge you to oppose Senate Joint Resolution 
     22, that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from doing ``a new 
     rule that is substantially the same'' as the Clean Water 
     Rule. That could be read to prohibit EPA and the Army Corps 
     from issuing any rule that establishes protections for waters 
     that the Clean Water Rule protects, like lakes, streams, and 
     wetlands.
       Our breweries--and the communities in which we operate--
     need a strong Clean Water Act, as well as the clarity 
     provided by the Clean Water Rule.
       For more information, please see www.nrdc.org/brewers or 
     call Karen Hobbs, Senior Policy Analyst, Natural Resources 
     Defense Council.
                                  ____

                                                 January 12, 2016.
       Representative: The undersigned organizations, and our 
     millions of members and supporters, oppose the Dirty Water 
     Resolution (S.J. Res. 22). The ``Resolution of Disapproval'' 
     under the Congressional Review Act attacks the Clean Water 
     Rule, the Obama administration's landmark initiative to 
     restore safeguards against pollution and destruction for 
     lakes, streams, wetlands and other water bodies.
       The Clean Water Rule restores important safeguards that 
     once existed for a variety of water bodies. Those safeguards 
     were eroded after a pair of Supreme Court decisions and by 
     policies the Bush administration adopted, which left many 
     water bodies inadequately protected or lacking the pollution 
     control requirements of the Clean Water Act. The rule 
     restores prior protections for many critical wetlands, which 
     curb flooding, filter pollution, and provide habitat for a 
     wide variety of wildlife, including endangered species and 
     wildfowl and fish prized by hunters and anglers.
       The Dirty Water Resolution is an extreme action that seeks 
     to kill the Clean Water Rule using the Congressional Review 
     Act, which goes far beyond stopping a disapproved 
     administrative action. The Congressional Review Act says that 
     an agency may not adopt ``a new rule that is substantially 
     the same'' as the disapproved rule, and the breadth of that 
     requirement is very unclear.
       In the context of the Clean Water Rule, it could be read to 
     prohibit EPA and the Army Corps from issuing any rule that 
     establishes protections for waters that the Clean Water Rule 
     covers, like lakes, streams, and wetlands. The Dirty Water 
     Resolution radically undermines the agencies' ability to 
     clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act--despite 
     urging from industry associations, conservation groups, 
     members of Congress, state and local leaders, and Supreme 
     Court justices for such a clarification.
       By pursuing this anti-clean water resolution, pro-polluter 
     members of the House of Representatives are seeking to kill a 
     commonsense and modest rule containing scientifically-sound 
     and legally-valid protections for the nation's waters, 
     including critical drinking water supplies.
       Restored clean water protections enjoy broad support. In 
     polling for the American Sustainable Business Council, eighty 
     percent of small business owners--including 91% of Democrats, 
     73% of Independents and 78% of Republicans--said they 
     supported the then-proposed Clean Water Rule. A strong 
     majority, 71%, also said that clean water protections are 
     necessary to ensure economic growth; only six percent said 
     they were bad for growth. Similarly, a bipartisan research 
     team polled hunters and anglers nationwide and discovered 
     that 83% surveyed thought that the Environmental Protection 
     Agency should apply the rules and standards of the Clean 
     Water Act to smaller, headwater streams and wetlands. Support 
     for this policy was strong across the political spectrum, 
     with 77% of Republicans, 79% of Independents and 97% of 
     Democrats in favor.
       We ask that you oppose the Dirty Water Resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 22) because it will undermine protections for our 
     drinking water supplies, flood buffers, and fish and wildlife 
     habitat. This attack on clean water is not only a waste of 
     the House's time but also an excessive and dangerous act that 
     jeopardizes clean water for generations to come.
           Sincerely,
       Alliance for the Great Lakes, American Rivers, American 
     Whitewater, Amigos Bravos, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, 
     BlueGreen Alliance, Central Minnesota Chapter of Audubon, 
     Clean Water Action, Conservation Minnesota, Earthjustice, 
     Endangered Habitats League, Environment America.
       Environment California, Environment Colorado, Environment 
     Connecticut, Environment Florida, Environment Georgia, 
     Environment Illinois, Environment Iowa, Environment Maine, 
     Environment Maryland, Environment Massachusetts, Environment 
     Michigan, Environment Minnesota, Environment Montana.
       Environment New Hampshire, Environment New Jersey, 
     Environment New Mexico, Environment New York, Environment 
     North Carolina, Environment Oregon, Environment Texas, 
     Environment Virginia, Environment Washington, Freshwater 
     Future, Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Park, Friends of 
     the Mississippi River.
       Great Lakes Committee--the Izaak Walton League, 
     GreenLatinos, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration Network, Hoosier 
     Environmental Council, Iowa Environmental Council, Kentucky 
     Waterways Alliance, League of Conservation Voters, Michigan 
     Wildlife Conservancy, Midwest Environmental Advocates, 
     Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota 
     Conservation Federation, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, 
     Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
       Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Abounds, Ohio 
     Wetlands Association, PennEnvironment, Prairie Rivers 
     Network, Religious Coalition for the Great Lakes, River 
     Network, Save the Dunes, Shaker Lakes Garden Club, Sierra 
     Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider 
     Foundation, Tennessee Clean Water Network, Wisconsin 
     Environment, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.
                                  ____

                                                 January 11, 2016.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
     U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned public 
     health organizations urge you to oppose a piece of harmful 
     legislation: S.J. Res. 22, a Congressional Review Act 
     resolution to block the Clean Water Rule proposed by the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers. This resolution is a sweeping attack on the Clean 
     Water Act that could not only impair the Clean Water Rule, 
     but also our ability to protect clean water in the future. 
     The public health community recognizes that clean water and 
     healthy populations are inextricably linked and that polluted 
     water can expose Americans to harmful contaminants in 
     numerous ways. The public depends on water not only for basic 
     survival, but for recreation, bathing, cleaning and cooking. 
     The EPA and Army Corps should be allowed to implement a rule 
     that will improve water quality and protect the health of 
     America's families and children.
       The Clean Water Act was designed to keep pollution, 
     including carcinogens, nutrient runoff, sewage and oil, out 
     of the nation's water. The EPA and Army Corp's rule seeks to 
     clarify the protection of streams and wetlands under the 
     Clean Water Act, including

[[Page 463]]

     streams that provide some portion of water to drinking water 
     systems that serve nearly 117 million people. The rule, which 
     is based on peer reviewed science, clarifies which waters are 
     protected and which are not, allowing EPA and the Army Corps 
     to best protect water quality and public health. 
     Unfortunately, this bill would block their efforts and 
     prevent them from implementing the law and ensuring the 
     protection of water quality for millions of Americans.
       Clean water is one of our greatest necessities and a 
     cornerstone of public health. EPA and the Army Corps should 
     be allowed to better protect public health from water 
     pollution through this important science-based rule.
           Sincerely,
       American Public Health Association, Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, Trust for America's Health.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure really 
for three reasons. One, I come from the Lowcountry of South Carolina. 
The First Congressional District is called the Lowcountry. It is called 
so for a reason, which is our land lies low.
  I think of the farm I grew up on. My father got it about the time I 
was born. The reality of this measure, if these rules promulgated by 
the administration simply move forward, as has been referenced by 
several different speakers, that which he thought he got, he would have 
gotten a lot less of.
  I think that, fundamentally, this is about private property rights. 
It is about what Philip Howard talked about years ago in his book ``The 
Death of Common Sense.'' I don't think it makes common sense to 
classify as navigable waters of the U.S. so many of these dry 
streambeds or dry areas in any part of this country.
  I also think that this is fundamentally about the rule of law. We 
have a real tension in this country, particularly during the time of 
this administration, on: Do we stick with this 200-year tradition we 
have had in place or do we move toward rule by edict?
  I think it would be a huge mistake to go down the other avenue. But, 
fundamentally, that is what this debate is about. It is about how do we 
decide things? There will always be disagreement. But how do we decide 
things?
  Finally, I think this is about taking something that wasn't partisan. 
I go back to the Clean Water Act, in its origination, was a bipartisan 
bill, but making it partisan by, again, executive overreach.
  So my colleague from Oregon, who is a dear friend and I think a 
strong advocate, mentioned the fact that he has strongly advocated for 
craft brewers back home. It would take me many beers to buy into the 
notion of moving forward without change.
  I think this is about upholding a 200-year tradition in this country 
on rule of law. I think it is about protecting farmers, whether they be 
in Johns Island, South Carolina, or the outskirts of Texas, or, for 
that matter, it is about those of us who love the environment, but 
sticking with this tradition of deciding these things in this Chamber.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 
22, a resolution to disapprove the waters of the U.S. rule, a rule that 
amounts to a massive overreach by the Obama administration's EPA.
  This rule and the process in which the EPA developed it ignored 
stakeholders, ignored States, and, as reports have shown, even ignored 
concerns from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal agency that was 
supposed to be co-developing the rule.

                              {time}  1015

  Through hearings, letters, and public forums, we repeatedly asked the 
administration to simply start over with a process that works with 
stakeholders to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act, rather than 
act like a schoolyard bully. We all want clean water, and we can and 
should work together to achieve it.
  Unfortunately, all of these requests fell on deaf ears, and the 
administration, in what has become an all-too-common pattern, moved 
forward to ram this bill through with little regard to the comments or 
the concerns of Americans.
  The final rule ignores the spirit and the intent of the law in that 
EPA has claimed Federal jurisdiction over essentially any body of 
water, such as a farm pond, or even a ditch that is dry most of the 
year.
  America's farmers and ranchers deserve a government that will review 
and consider their thoughts, not a government that refuses to engage 
stakeholders and hands down orders from on high.
  The process of developing the rule was flawed from the get-go, and 
the final product was right on par with an administration that wants to 
impose its authoritarian will on every inch of this great land.
  That is why the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of H.R. 1732, the 
Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015. That is why I stand before 
you today to ask my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 22. Americans 
deserve better.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, we want to expedite this, but just really, I mean, we should 
deal with reality on the floor.
  Rule text 230.3(S)(2)(iv)(B): ``The following are not `waters of the 
United States' . . . ''--to go to this--``artificial, constructed lakes 
and ponds created in dry land such as farm and stock watering ponds . . 
. ''
  There had been language in the original rule which said that they 
would have to be used exclusively for farm purposes. This rule said 
they can be used for farm purposes or any other beneficial purposes. So 
ponds are not regulated.
  How many times do we have to say it?
  There are questions and interpretations and problems and, again, 
Congress should act. Congress should have hearings and write 
legislation to reauthorize the Clean Water Act for the first time in 28 
years. Otherwise, we are going to be waiting 2 years for the courts to 
make a decision and, in the interim, we are stuck with the Bush rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me time, and I support S.J. Res. 22, which rejects the 
Environmental Protection Agency's waters of the United States rule.
  This rule is just another one of EPA's many attempts to expand its 
jurisdiction and increase its power to regulate American waterways, 
even if that means invading Americans' own backyards.
  The Science, Space, and Technology Committee's oversight hearings 
revealed that the EPA made arbitrary decisions in writing this rule and 
justified it with phony science. And the Government Accountability 
Office found that the EPA's use of social media to promote the rule 
actually violated the law.
  The Obama administration will do anything and say anything to impose 
its liberal agenda on the American people. I urge my colleagues to 
support S.J. Res. 22 and disapprove the waters of the United States 
rule.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GIBBS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, I think this is the fifth time we have debated this issue on 
the floor, clearly, subject to widely disparate interpretation in terms 
of where we are and how we best move forward.
  I am not going to regurgitate the arguments. They have all been made. 
Not everybody has said it, but they have all been made.
  But, again, I think that the best way forward--I mean, first off, 
this resolution is going to be vetoed. It will go

[[Page 464]]

back to the Senate first because it is a Senate bill, and the Senate 
showed clearly that they are far, far short of a veto override. So that 
will be the end of it, unless we want to take it up for the sixth time 
in the House and pretend that somehow, by overriding a veto in the 
House, if that could happen, that we are going to compel the Senate to 
re-re-reconsider its failure to override the veto.
  Hopefully we won't go through that charade. We don't have very many 
legislative days this year. I think that time would be better spent, 
perhaps, on initiating hearings and looking toward, in the next 
Congress, Congress exerting its constitutional authority to revisit the 
Clean Water Act, which hasn't been revisited in 27 years.
  We have learned a lot about waters of the United States in the last 
27 years, what needs to be protected and what can be exempted. We have 
certainly learned a lot since the Bush era when a rule was written that 
indiscriminately covers ditches, and other features of farms and 
roadwork. That was a mistake.
  So we could, I believe, probably, like we did with the WRRDA bill in 
the last Congress, or the surface transportation bill in this Congress, 
have a pretty vigorous debate, but come up with a decent way forward, 
because nobody disagrees over the need for clean water in this country. 
It is a precious, precious commodity.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of good discussion and 
debate today, and it is clear that we need to have clarity and 
certainty for all the stakeholders, while we protect the environment at 
the same time.
  We tried to do that with H.R. 1732, which passed with bipartisan 
support here, and, obviously, it wasn't taken up in the Senate. So we 
are here with this Congressional Review Act.
  I would like to talk about, if this rule goes through, what happens. 
Really, what happens is it greatly expands the power of the 
bureaucracy, and it gives them a lot of open, free discretion to make 
decisions on a case-by-case basis.
  But it is going to do something else. It is going to require farmers, 
States, local governments, developers, homeowners to get permits from 
the Federal Government to do pretty much anything, because they are 
under Federal jurisdiction.
  It also opens them up to citizens' lawsuits, frivolous lawsuits, but 
they will defend themselves because when the Clean Water Act was 
passed, it was passed with tough penalties to go after the polluters 
that we had back in the sixties and the seventies, and we have 
addressed a lot of that. So it is going to add costs, unnecessary 
costs.
  And I would argue, and nobody has mentioned this, but I would argue 
that this rule can make us go backwards in the improvements we have 
made in this country on water quality and protecting the environment. 
The reason we can go backwards is because most people want to do the 
right thing. Most people want to protect the water. Farmers, I am a 
farmer, I want to protect it because I am one of the first ones to 
drink it. So we want to protect that.
  But when you add up so much red tape and bureaucracy and costs, they 
are not necessarily going to do what they might have done otherwise. 
They will just do what they have to do to get by. They won't put in 
buffer strips. They won't do grass waterways. They won't do things to 
protect the environment because they have got to get a permit to do 
everything. And they will just say: No, this is just ridiculous, the 
bureaucrats are going to come out here and hassle me. And they are just 
not going to do it.
  So that is what this rule does. It actually has the potential to hurt 
the environment, and we need to protect the environment.
  So we need to rescind this rule, revoke this rule, go back to the 
table, the drawing board, and instruct our agencies to come up with a 
commonsense rule, go through the process correctly, don't break the law 
when they do it, and talk to the States.
  You know, it is incredible. As soon as they filed the new rule in the 
Federal Register, 20-some States immediately, almost 30 States 
immediately, within 24 hours, filed a lawsuit. That ought to be a red 
flag that there is a problem.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Let's go back to 
the drawing board and start over.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S.J. 
Res. 22, a bill providing for Congressional disapproval of the rule 
submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to a ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the 
United States.''
  Today, the House is debating S.J. Res. 22, a resolution under the 
Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove the Administration's Clean 
Water Act Rule issued in June 2015.
  The CRA is a blunt instrument and the resolution would not only 
strike the rule in its entirety--throwing out decades of work and 
reigniting confusion and uncertainty among industry and conservation 
communities--it would block future administrations from ever resolving 
the confusion surrounding the Clean Water Act's definition of ``waters 
of the United States.''
  This joint resolution is an extraordinary and radical action to 
overturn a fundamental, once-in-a-generation final rule that is 
critical to the effective implementation of the 1972 Clean Water Act, 
and that was adopted following an exhaustive public rulemaking process.
  This joint resolution would overturn this rule that finally resolves 
longstanding confusion and debate, promotes clarity and efficiency for 
regulatory programs promoting river health, and preserves longstanding 
protections for farmers, ranchers, and forester.
  America's hunters and anglers cannot afford to have Congress 
undermine effective Clean Water Act safeguards, leaving communities and 
valuable fish and wildlife habitat at risk indefinitely.
  Along the Texas Gulf Coast where Houston is located we have worked 
long and hard to protect essential habitats for fish, crabs and bird 
estuaries.
  This joint resolution dismisses out of hand the voices of the 
millions of Americans, including businesses that depend on clean water, 
who support the new rule and are eager to reap its benefits.
  The President has communicated that this bill will be vetoed if 
passed in its current form.
  The ``Resolution of Disapproval'' under the Congressional Review Act 
attacks the Clean Water Rule, the Obama Administration's landmark 
initiative to restore safeguards against pollution and destruction for 
lakes, streams, wetlands and other water bodies.
  The Clean Water Rule restores important safeguards that once existed 
for a variety of water bodies that are the breeding grounds for fish.
  The rule restores prior protections for many critical wetlands, which 
curb flooding, filter pollution, and provide habitat for a wide variety 
of wildlife, including endangered species and wildfowl and fish prized 
by hunters and anglers.
  We must reject this attempt to inject Congress into a regulatory 
process that is best managed by the agency experts who are well versed 
in the process and the objectives.
  Although this issue of the children of Flint haven been poisoned by 
lead contamination of drinking water it is relevant to the broader 
debate on clean water and what we must remain focused upon.
  The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United 
States governing water pollution.
  It is credited for restoring clean water levels in the United States 
that were contaminated by chemicals and pollutants being dumped into 
fresh water sources.
  The law maintains the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 
the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, 
providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the 
improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of 
wetlands.
  It is one of the United States' first and most influential modern 
environmental laws.
  The disapproval resolution would undo years of work by this and 
previous Administrations to clarify which waterways are covered by the 
Clean Water Act, reducing costly confusion and permitting delays and 
restoring protections for streams and wetlands across the country.
  The confusion surrounding which waterways are covered by the Clean 
Water Act protections originates from two Supreme Court decisions (2001 
and 2006) which called into question whether the Act protects isolated, 
intrastate, non-navigable waters and waters and tributaries in the 
upper portions of a watershed.

[[Page 465]]

  Subsequent interpretive guidance by the Bush Administration has led 
to an inconsistent, patchwork system frustrating the regulated 
community and general public concerned with health and safety of our 
waterways.
  In April 2014, in response to requests from regulated industry and 
the conservation communities, the Obama Administration published a 
proposed rule, replacing the Bush Administration-era guidance 
documents, to reduce regulatory uncertainty and establish a dear 
process for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over waters. The EPA 
held more than 400 public meetings and listened to a significant amount 
of public comment on the proposed rule. The final rule was issued on 
June 29, 2015.
  In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 
stayed the Clean Water Act Rule nationwide. Accordingly, the rule is 
tied up in Federal and state courts and, therefore, is not in effect.
  House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member 
Peter DeFazio opposes this damaging disapproval resolution and is 
urging Members to vote NO.
  The White House has threatened to veto this disapproval resolution if 
it reaches the President's desk: The Administration strongly opposes 
S.J. Res. 22, which would nullify a specified Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) final rule 
clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 
The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science and the law, is essential 
to ensure clean water for future generations, and is responsive to 
calls for rulemaking from the Congress, industry, and community 
stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  If enacted, S.J. Res. 22 would nullify years of work and deny 
businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in 
projects that rely on clean water. S.J. Res. 22 is not an act of good 
governance. If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 22, his 
senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
  There is broad opposition to this disapproval resolution from the 
conservation, consumer, science, and recreational sports communities 
including: Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, League of 
Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, 
Southern Environmental Law Center, Consortium of Aquatic Science 
Societies, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, International 
Federation of Fly Fishers, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, The Izaak 
Walton League, National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt 
Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate 
resolution S.J. Res. 22, introduced by my good friend and colleague 
from Iowa, Senator Ernst, to express my disapproval of the 
Environmental Protection Agency power grab through an expansive 
definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS).
  The WOTUS rule gives more control to federal agencies, like the EPA 
and the Army Corps of Engineers, while stripping authority from those 
who know our natural resources best such as farmers, ranchers, and 
state regulatory authorities. This is in direct contradiction of state 
laws, Supreme Court rulings, and existing compact agreements and has 
potentially devastasting consequences on our economy, our farmers, and 
the small businesses that create jobs in the First District of Iowa.
  I know the farmers and small businesses in my district do not want 
the heavy hand of Washington micromanaging their lands--especially 
without input from the state of Iowa. President Obama and the EPA must 
realize increasing regulatory burdens and compliance costs will fail to 
improve the water quality while only adding red tape for ordinary 
folks.
  Last year I voted for H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection 
Act and I intend to vote again for S.J. Res. 22 to protect Iowa's land, 
water and resources and to stop the executive overreach of the 
suffocating Obama Administration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the third reading of the 
joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________