Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency--Veto Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No.

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, clean water is critical for the health and safety of our communities and our families. Our local businesses, farmers, and our economy depend on clean water for their success and their prosperity.

House Democrats have a proud and successful history of supporting clean water. House Democrats have championed investments in our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure systems, ensuring that all communities can trust in the safety of the water they drink and the treatment of the wastewater they produce.

Last Congress, House Democrats provided historic, bipartisan investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Specifically for clean water, the BIL invests almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure and is creating jobs in communities across the country.

The BIL showed what Congress can do when we focus on the needs of American families. Today, I would put to you that we are doing the opposite and putting polluters over people with this doomed veto override attempt.

In my own State of Washington, we are defined by clean water, including the health of the iconic Puget Sound and the hundreds of crystal clear lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams that run through our State.

My constituents know that rivers, streams, and wetlands are intrinsically connected. Pollution that starts in one body of water does not stay put.

House Democrats know we can protect clean water while providing certainty to businesses, farmers, and for everyone who depends upon clean water for their lives and livelihoods.

This is especially true for the 117 million Americans who depend on smaller streams as a source of drinking water at a time when many States continue to face historic droughts.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want clean water rules that are simple, clear, and easy to follow. So do we. We agree on that.

The Biden administration's Clean Water Restoration Rule does just that, following the law and the science of protecting clean water while providing regulatory certainty and stability for everyone.

Unfortunately, this resolution will do the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the administration's call for vetoing H.J. Res. 27.

The argument is that they want bright lines in the regulation of clean water, yet the only proposal that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to support is the Navigable Waters Protection Rule of the previous administration, a proposal that removed Federal protections on roughly half of the Nation's wetlands and 70 percent of its rivers and streams.

That rule was rightly rejected by a Federal court, not by this administration, but by a Federal court in 2021, as fundamentally flawed and likely to cause serious environmental harm every day that it remained in effect.

Yet, despite their call for certainty, my colleagues have failed to recognize that passage of this resolution that is before us today would leave Americans without a clear definition of waters of the United States.

By taking away this clarity, this resolution brings back the very same uncertainty and ambiguity that supporters claim to be concerned about. I know they are concerned about that uncertainty.

This resolution will adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and developers by creating regulatory chaos and eliminating important exclusions that have been codified in this administration's rule to help water-dependent businesses and farmers understand and comply with the law.

For example, because it prohibits the EPA from issuing substantially the same rule, this resolution means the elimination of two longstanding exclusions for wastewater treatment systems and prior converted crop land--exclusions that have been relied upon by communities, developers, industry, and farmers for decades.

This resolution would also eliminate six new regulatory exclusions for features considered generally non-jurisdictional, including certain ditches, artificially irrigated areas, and artificial lakes or ponds.

Ironically, this resolution will result in more uncertainty and more bodies of water being regulated than under the administration's proposal. You don't have to take my word for it. Just read the Congressional Budget Office report accompanying this resolution. It is right in there.

As I mentioned previously on this floor and in another debate on this issue, the Biden proposal will not adversely impact family farmers in this country, period. Why?

Because farmers are, by statute, largely exempt from the Clean Water Act regulation where less than 1 percent of all wetlands permits relate to ag activities nationwide.

Therefore, if a farm is engaged in normal farming, forestry, and ranching activity, that farm is exempt from regulation, and the current proposal does not change that exemption.

In short, this resolution still makes no sense. It invalidates the Biden rule and all the clarifications and all of the exceptions for business it contains in favor of a similarly structured but much less clear regulatory framework.

It increases uncertainty and the likelihood of continued legal battles and gridlock; the opposite of what businesses and farmers are looking for.

Mr. Speaker, I support this administration's efforts on clean water, both through implementation of the critical bipartisan infrastructure law investments in water infrastructure and its veto of this shortsighted resolution.

This resolution represents a step backward for clean water, increases uncertainty for businesses, and doubles down on fighting and on chaos.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to oppose this resolution and work toward real predictability for businesses that need it, and clean water for communities that cannot survive without it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter from 111 organizations opposed to overriding the veto of this Congressional Review Act resolution. April 17, 2023. Re: Vote NO on the veto override of H.J. Res. 27, the Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval of the Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the United States''.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose the attempt to override President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 27, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval targeting the Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the United States'' rule (Clean Water Restoration Rule). This dangerous legislation would invalidate the Biden administration's recently finalized regulation, which ensures protections for many of the waters that our families and communities value and depend on.

This Clean Water Restoration Rule ensures that critical waters--from small streams to rivers to wetlands--are protected from unregulated pollution and destruction when they have important downstream effects on water quality. The rule is a return to a familiar approach that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have used to identify waters that qualify as ``waters of the United States'' since President George W. Bush's administration. It also resoundingly rejects the Trump-era approach, which unlawfully and unscientifically rolled back the Clean Water Act's long standing protections and reinstates basic safeguards to ensure big polluters can be stopped from recklessly and indiscriminately bulldozing our wetlands and dumping waste into our streams. The Clean Water Restoration Rule is grounded in science, which demonstrates that the condition of waters often depends on water bodies upstream, and those upstream waters must be protected to safeguard the health of downstream communities and the environment. The rule will more effectively fulfill the purpose of the Clean Water Act: ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''

By using the Congressional Review Act to attack the Clean Water Restoration Rule, H.J. Res. 27 is employing an incredibly blunt tool in a dangerous attempt to undermine the Clean Water Act itself. When a rule is undone using the CRA process, future administrations are prevented from issuing rules that are ``substantially the same,'' which could undermine future agency action to the benefit of polluters. Despite rhetoric that this bill is being promoted to provide certainty for businesses and other stakeholders, it would actually do the opposite. For instance, should H.J. Res. 27 become law, both protections and exemptions codified in the Clean Water Restoration Rule, including ones for the agriculture industry, could be called into question in future efforts designed to define ``waters of the United States.'' The only stakeholders who benefit from this attack on our clean water protections are big polluters who dump waste into our waterways and burden our families and communities with the health and environmental costs.

Again, we ask you to oppose the veto override of H.J. Res. 27, the CRA joint resolution disapproving of the Biden-Harris administration's Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the United States.'' This harmful bill is simply a polluter- driven effort to undermine the Clean Water Act and the critical safeguards that it provides for our waters. Congress should be doing more, not less, to protect our waterways and to ensure that everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income, has access to clean, safe water. Sincerely,

350.org; A Community Voice; Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alaska Community Action on Toxics; Alliance for the Great Lakes; Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; American Geophysical Union; American Public Health Association; American Rivers; American Sustainable Business Network; Amigos Bravos; Anthropocene Alliance; Appalachian Trail Conservancy; Asociacion de Residentes de La Margaita, Inc; Atchafalaya Basinkeeper; Black Millennials 4 Flint; Cahaba River Society; California Environmental Voters; Center for a Sustainable Coast; Center for Biological Diversity.

Center for Environmental Transformation; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean Water Action; Clean, Healthy, Educated, Safe & Sustainable Community, Inc.; Coalition for Wetlands and Forests; Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River; Community In- Power and Development Association Inc. (CIDA Inc.); Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety; Concerned Citizens of Cook County (Georgia); Conservation Alabama; Earthjustice; Endangered Habitats League; Environment America; Environment Maine; Environment Michigan; Environment Minnesota; Environment Montana; Environment Nevada.

Environment New Hampshire; Environment New York; Environment Ohio; Environment Rhode Island; Environment Texas; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Working Group; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW); Freshwater Accountability Project; Freshwater Future; Friends of Buckingham; Friends of the Mississippi River; Gila Resources Information Project; Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance; Greater Neighborhood Alliance of Jersey City, NJ; Green Latinos; Groundswell Charleston SC; Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition; Harpeth Conservancy.

Healthy Gulf; Hispanic Federation; Idaho Rivers United; Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Izaak Walton League of America; Lake Erie Waterkeeper; Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance; Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG); League of Conservation Voters; Lynn Canal Conservation; Maine Conservation Voters; Malach Consulting; Michigan League of Conservation Vote; Milton's Concerned Citizens; Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Mississippi River Collaborative; Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper; Montana Conservation Voters; MS Communities United for Prosperity (MCUP).

National Wildlife Federation; Natural Heritage Institute; Natural Resources Defense Council; NC Conservation Network; NC League of Conservation Voters; New Mexico Climate Justice; New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New York League of Conservation Voters; Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition; Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness; Ohio Environmental Council; Ohio River Foundation; Our Children's Earth Foundation; Park Watershed; Patagonia Area Resource Alliance; PES; Rapid Creek Watershed Action; Renewal of Life Trust.

River Network; Save the Illinois River, Inc., STIR; Serene Wildlife Sanctuary LLC; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The Clinch Coalition; The Water Collaborative of Greater Greater New Orleans; Tookany/ Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership; Virginia League of Conservation Voters; Washington Conservation Action; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; Weequahic Park Association; Winyah Rivers Alliance.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for the time, and I also thank the managers who are on the floor today.

Let me clarify the reason for my being present as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, and one who has dealt with the issues by way of national security issues of water chemical contamination.

I rise with great opposition to H.J. Res. 27.

Let me call the roll: Flint, Michigan; Jackson, Mississippi; East Palestine, which it is known that the derailment also contaminated water; and cancer clusters in Houston where runoffs were contaminating the water.

Let me give you the basis of what this is about. The rule that we are trying to oppose reestablishes critical protections for the Nation's vital water resources by returning to the longstanding 1986 regulations with appropriate updates, exclusions, and streamlining clarifications.

In fact, the plain statement is that H.J. Res. 27 would leave Americans without a clear waters of the United States definition, which deals with the overall question of clean water.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose it because it does clarify the categories of water bodies and wetlands that would be subject to government protection under the Clean Water Act. People are suffering across America.

Mr. Speaker, to my good friend with the lawsuit by 24 States--we have 50 States. It is very clear that my good friends in the red States, the AGs, thought that they would undermine the President's direction on clean water.

H.J. Res. 27 would carelessly bind the hands of Federal agencies working to protect our country's water supply and quality while creating instability for farmers and developers. This does not work.

If H.J. Res. 27 was to become law, it may have a detrimental effect on the Clean Water Act, a law that prohibits the discharge of pollutants into our country's rivers and safeguards the quality of our water resources.

We are a smart and big country. We can definitely find ways to help our farmers. We are getting ready to do the farm bill. We definitely can find ways to help those who engage in economic development.

It is important to prevent this joint resolution in order to maintain the Clear Water Act because the CWA places restrictions on the number of pollutants that can be emitted and mandates that any plant that releases pollutants into U.S. waters acquire a permit.

Mr. Speaker, is that too onerous?

I heard someone use that term ``to save lives'' and to prevent babies from having an impact by drinking this water and having distorted growth.

The Clean Water Act also permits the use of Federal funding to support the construction and maintenance of water treatment facilities by local governments and other organizations. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, Houston, Texas, needs those resources, and so do other cities. I would hate to undermine those resources.

The Clean Water Act has been an essential tool for preserving the health of U.S. water resources and for ensuring that Americans have access to clean, safe water.

By establishing standards, funding infrastructure projects, and promoting monitoring research activities, the Clean Water Act has been a significant factor in preserving and enhancing Houston's water quality.

I have worked with the Army Corps of Engineers. They listen. If they speak up and say that this is the framework which we need and the EPA, as well, that has been on front lines of contamination, that seems to be the call of the day because our good friends in corporate America, trains, and otherwise, seemingly don't listen.

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I just rode in on a train. I believe in that mode of opportunity and transportation. Let's have everyone be fair and responsible to what we have to do to protect the water of this Nation.

The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. According to the EPA, the number of water bodies in the U.S. that were safe for fishing and swimming has increased from 36 percent to over 60 percent.

When you have something that is working, Mr. Speaker, why are you undermining it?

So I am clearly in the position to say that in 2019 the EPA awarded $4.2 million to the city of Houston to fund projects aimed at improving water quality and storm water management.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me additional time.

Mr. Speaker, we advocated for that management. We have hurricanes. And when we have hurricanes, we are always subject to the system not being able to hold the water and contamination is a possibility.

According to the Houston Public Works Department, the city's wastewater treatment plant treats an average of 304 million gallons of wastewater per day. These treatment plants are required to meet strict standards.

I will say that all cities and counties we are all working to maintain clean water. We have a situation that we are working on in my local community of Houston, wastewater and sewage.

What do you think we would do, Mr. Speaker, without the Clean Water Act?

Please don't undermine us. Don't undermine us and the local people. Listen to the roll call: Flint; Jackson, Mississippi; East Palestine; and many others.

Let us oppose this particular H.J. Res. and let us recognize that we have the responsibility. If we are doing nothing else, we have got to be responsible with H.J. Res. 27, opposing it, so that we can stand up for the children of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 27.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res 27--Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States' ''.

H.J. Res. 27 is specifically intended to oppose the ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' rule, which clarifies and broadens the categories of water bodies and wetlands that would be subject to government protection under the Clean Water Act.

In 2019, the EPA awarded over $4.2 million to the city of Houston to fund projects aimed at improving water quality and stormwater management.

According to the Houston Public Works department, the city's wastewater treatment plants treat an average of 304 million gallons of wastewater per day.

These treatment plants are required to meet strict standards set by the Clean Water Act, which helps ensure that the water discharged from the plants is safe for the environment and public health.

The EPA has identified several bodies of water in the Houston area as ``impaired'' due to pollution, including parts of the Buffalo Bayou and Galveston Bay. However, thanks in part to the Clean Water Act, the overall water quality in the area has improved over the past few decades.

According to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Clean Water Act has helped prevent an estimated 230,000 cases of childhood gastrointestinal illness in Texas each year by reducing water pollution.

It is important to oppose this resolution because H.J. Res. 27 will be the sixth attempt at weakening the Clean Water Act.

Over many years, Republicans in Congress and industry groups argued that the restrictions were overly broad and would have negatively impacted farmers, ranchers, and other businesses by subjecting more waters to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act.

H.J. Res 27 will carelessly bind the hands of federal agencies working to protect our country's water supply and quality. We need to help farmers have clean water with effective oversight.

If H.J. Res. 27 were to become law, it may have a detrimental effect on the Clean Water Act (CWA), a law that prohibits the discharge of pollutants into our country's rivers and safeguards the quality of our water resources.

It's important to prevent this joint resolution in order to maintain the Clean Water Act because the CWA places restrictions on the number of pollutants that can be emitted and mandates that any plant that releases pollutants into US waters acquire a permit.

The Clean Water Act also permits the use of federal funding to support the construction and maintenance of water treatment facilities by local governments and other organizations.

The Clean Water Act has been an essential tool for preserving the health of US water resources and for ensuring that Americans have access to clean, safe water.

By establishing standards, funding infrastructure projects, and promoting monitoring and research activities, the Clean Water Act has been a significant factor in preserving and enhancing Houston's water quality.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, the number of water bodies in the U.S. that are safe for fishing and swimming has increased from 36 percent to over 60 percent.

However because to statutory exclusions for routine farming, forestry, and ranching activities as well as for the building and upkeep of farm and stock ponds and irrigation ditches, farmers are mainly exempt from the Clean Water Act's regulatory requirements.

Less than 1 percent of all permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are for agricultural purposes.

Yet, this resolution will abolish elements of the Biden rule intended to provide farmers further advantages, such as the recodification of the previous converted cropland exclusion and new regulatory exclusions for specific ditches, irrigated regions, such as rice fields and erosional features.

Eliminating these agricultural exclusions will increase uncertainty rather than decrease it.

In addition, The Biden regulation reinstates the same scientifically based standards that have been used for decades by every presidential administration, including originally the Trump administration.

I would like to thank Biden Administration for keeping those rules in place that helps the resident of Houston to have a better water quality and help farmers to maintain the productivity of their land and support sustainable agricultural practices.

As a Senior member of the Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res 27 so we may keep defending the water's purity and the health of our citizens.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I want to state, again, for the record, that the Federal courts blocked the implementation of the previous administration's navigable waters protection rule. It wasn't this administration.

In response to that, the administration developed a new rule, this particular one that we are debating today. So it needs to be said for the record that the Federal courts made a decision about the previous administration's rule, not this particular administration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have a long, proud, and successful history of supporting clean water. Last year, House Democrats successfully made historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, providing communities with almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades and creating jobs.

These clean water investments are helping everyday Americans with safe, reliable, and sustainable water and wastewater services while providing good-paying jobs that cannot be sent overseas and reinvigorating our State and local economies.

Every day, more and more Americans are realizing the public health, economic, and environmental benefits of this transformative law, benefits that will continue as additional resources are implemented across the country.

The bipartisan infrastructure law was what Congress can do at its best. This resolution is the opposite. Again, I support President Biden for his decision to veto this resolution.

My colleagues say they want certainty, and we agree, but that certainty that we support also ensures the health and safety of our environment for current and future generations. This resolution, though, provides no certainty.

I argue that it is a playbook for how to create confusion, more litigation, and continued gridlock.

This resolution provides no benefits to public health. It seeks to eliminate protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands, many of which provide drinking water for millions of Americans.

This resolution provides no benefits for our economy. It not only casts aside a time-tested, scientifically based tool to implement the Clean Water Act, but it also blocks any provision of additional clarity for businesses, farmers, and homebuilders going forward.

In short, this resolution is a step backward for clean water, and it is a step backward for certainty.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto by voting ``no'' and to reject this attack on our clean water future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source