[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H335-H346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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,
[[Page H336]]
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.
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.
[[Page H337]]
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 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
[[Page H338]]
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 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
[[Page H339]]
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 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.
[[Page H340]]
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.
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 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
[[Page H341]]
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.
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
businesses are relying on you to keep this
[[Page H342]]
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 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
[[Page H343]]
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 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).
[[Page H344]]
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 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
[[Page H345]]
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.
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
[[Page H346]]
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.
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.
____________________