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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Res. 27.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to once again rise in support of H.J. Res. 27, which I introduced to negate an ill-timed and ill-conceived rule coming out of the Biden administration.

I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that since I last spoke on the floor of this Chamber in support of H.J. Res. 27, the resolution passed both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support.

While the Clean Water Act has greatly improved the health of our Nation's waters in the 50 years since it has become law, this administration's rule defining a ``water of the United States,'' or WOTUS, is just the latest in a string of examples of executive overreach beyond the intent of the Clean Water Act.

Decades of agency interpretations and misinterpretations of WOTUS have created a lot of uncertainty for rural communities, farmers, businesses, and industries that rely on clean water, and this rule does absolutely nothing to provide clarity.

In his message to the House regarding the veto of this legislation, the President claims that H.J. Res. 27 ``would leave Americans without a clear definition of `waters of the United States.'''

This is simply untrue and disingenuous, especially considering it was his own administration that decided to get rid of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which provided long-awaited clarity on the scope of WOTUS, in favor of this new overreaching and unclear definition.

This issue matters to everyday Americans all over the country, and I hear about it all the time.

I am disappointed to see the President favor radical environmental activists over America's families, small businesses, farmers, builders, and property owners.

That being said, I am hopeful that the Members of the House and Senate can come together to override this veto, terminating this ambiguous and burdensome rule in favor of greater economic prosperity for Americans nationwide.

Recently, two Federal courts halted enforcement of the administration's rule, granting relief to farmers, homebuilders, and landowners in 26 States.

Every Member today has the opportunity to vote to override the President's veto and ensure all 50 States are relieved of the burdens this rule has created.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto of H.J. Res. 27, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WILLIAMS of New York. Mr. Speaker, the redefinition of these waters of the United States rules is really only about one thing, and that is Government overreach.

When faced with a crisis, the Government is given a broad mandate and loves very vague rules.

Just recently, we remember the incredible rules of the COVID crisis and the extraordinary powers granted to Government to effect this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, if you remember the definition of essential businesses, essential personnel, essential services, then you have some idea really of what the waters of the United States redefinition desired by activist courts and desired by current administration means.

You can imagine the effect it will have on our lives, Mr. Speaker.

The Clean Water Act was a broad power given in 1974 to clean up polluted waterways.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker?

It worked. We have clean waters and clean rivers. It has been an extraordinary success since the high point of pollution in the 1970s. With a government that is hungry for power, as we learned most recently in COVID, bureaucrats remembered that vague rules allow for extraordinary powers. You are not a farmer; you are a polluter. You are not a homeowner; you are a polluter. You are not a home builder; you are a polluter. You are guilty until proven innocent.

My colleagues across the aisle say that this provides clarity, and it does.

But clarity for whom?

This rule provides clarity only to EPA regulators who will have extraordinary authority. It doesn't provide clarity to homeowners, farmers, and home builders.

Mr. Speaker, the administration's definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act is an onerous, burdensome, and ambiguous rule that is going to create even more issues for hardworking farmers, builders, small businesses, and property owners throughout the Nation.

While the President claims that the rule is going to help advance infrastructure projects, economic investment, and agricultural activities in his veto message, this simply is not the case. Instead, this costly, overreaching rule favors radical environmentalists at the expense of infrastructure, agriculture, and economic growth and those who depend on these activities.

Last month, Members from both parties in the House and Senate came together to stand up for everyday Americans by rejecting this flawed rule. Today, we have the opportunity to do so again.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto and vote in support of H.J. Res. 27, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The previous question was ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source