Supporting the goals and ideals of National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. Almost four decades ago, when it enacted the Clean Water Act, Congress established a system of cooperative federalism by making the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and the States

partners in regulating the Nation's water quality and allocated the primary responsibilities for dealing with day-to-day water pollution control matters to the States.

For most of these almost four decades, this system of cooperative federalism between the EPA and the States has worked quite well. However, in recent years, the EPA has begun to use questionable tactics to usurp the States' role under the Clean Water Act in setting water quality standards and to invalidate legally issued permits by the States. EPA has decided to get involved in the implementation of State standards, second-guessing States with respect to how standards are to be implemented and even second-guessing EPA's own prior determinations that the State standards meet the minimum requirements for the Clean Water Act. EPA has also inserted itself into the States and the Army Corps of Engineers' permit issuance decisions and the second-guessing State and other agencies' permitting decisions.

The EPA's recent actions increasingly are amounting to bullying the States and are unprecedented. H.R. 2018 was introduced to clarify and restore the longstanding balance that had existed between the States and the EPA as coregulators under the Clean Water Act and to preserve the authority of States to make determinations relating to their water quality standards and permitting. The bill was carefully and narrowly crafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about their own water quality standards and permits without undue interference on second-guessing from EPA bureaucrats in Washington with little or no knowledge of local water quality conditions.

The legislation reins in EPA from unilaterally issuing a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant adopted by a State and EPA already has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant. H.R. 2018 restricts EPA from withdrawing its previous approval of a State NPDES water quality permitting program or from limiting Federal financial assistance for a State water quality permitting program on the basis that EPA disagrees with the State.

Further, the bill restricts EPA from objecting to NPDES permits issued by a State. Moreover, the bill clarifies that EPA can veto an Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404 permitting decision when the State concurs with the veto.

These limitations apply only in situations where EPA is attempting to contradict and unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-all Federal policies on a State's water quality program. By limiting such overreaching by the EPA, H.R. 2018 in no way affects EPA's proper role in reviewing State permits and standards and coordination pollution control efforts between the States. EPA just has to get back to the more collaborative role it has long played as the overseer of the States' implementation of the Clean Water Act.

Detractors of this legislation claim that the bill only intends to disrupt the complementary roles of EPA and the States under the Clean Water Act and eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public health in downstream States from actions in upstream States. In reality, these detractors want to centralize power in the Federal Government so it can dominate water quality regulation in the States. Implicit in their message is that they do not trust the States in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their citizens.

This bill returns the balance, certainty, and cooperation between the States and the Federal Government in regards to the environment that our economy, job creators, and permit holders have been begging for. Well over 100 organizations representing a wide variety of public and private entities support this legislation. Just to name a few, these organizations include the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, the National Water Resources Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the Associated General Contractors of America.

July 12, 2011.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Urging Swift Passage of the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act

(H.R. 2018)

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The

undersigned 121 organizations, representing a broad cross-

section of the American economy, are united in their strong

support for the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R.

2018), a bipartisan bill passed by the House Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee on June 22.

The bill would reaffirm the decades-old state-federal

relationship set out in the Clean Water Act (CWA) by

addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)

ongoing regulatory overreach. We urge all House members to

vote for passage of this important legislation when it is

considered on the House floor later this week.

H.R. 2018 has important job creation, economic security,

and federalism implications. Over the years, EPA has

repeatedly challenged states' authority and expertise under

the CWA and asserted its control as the sole arbiter of

evolving CWA permitting requirements and standards. The

agency's actions jeopardize more than $220 billion of annual

economic activity subject to CWA Sec. 402 and 404 permits.

H.R. 2018 would help put people back to work and create new

jobs in the sectors our members serve by restoring the proper

balance between EPA and the states in regulating the nation's

waters, protecting the CWA's system of cooperative

federalism, and preventing EPA from second-guessing or

delaying a state's CWA permitting and water quality

certification decisions.

We urge swift enactment of H.R. 2018 and look forward to

working with you to accomplish that important objective.

Sincerely,

Agricultural Retailers Association; Alabama Cattlemen's

Association; American Concrete Pavement Association;

American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association; American

Farm Bureau Federation; American Rental Association;

American Road & Transportation Builders Association;

American Sugarbeet Growers Association; Arizona Farm

Bureau Federation; Arizona Rock Products Association;

Associated Equipment Distributors; The Associated

General Contractors of America; Association of

Equipment Manufacturers; Buckeye Valley Chamber of

Commerce; Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley;

Chemical Producers & Distributors Association; Colorado

Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Livestock

Association; CropLife America; Dairy Producers of New

Mexico; Deep South Equipment Dealers Association;

Delaware State Chamber of Commerce; Edison Electric

Institute; Equipment Distributors Association of

Minnesota; Far West Equipment Dealer Association.

Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association; The Fertilizer

Institute; Florida Cattlemen's Association; Florida

Sugar Cane League; Georgia Construction Aggregate

Association; Georgia Mining Association; Greater

Phoenix Chamber of Commerce; Greater Pittsburgh Chamber

of Commerce; Idaho Cattle Association; Illinois

Association of Aggregate Producers; Illinois Chamber of

Commerce; Illinois Coal Association; Industrial

Minerals Association--North America; Iowa Cattlemen's

Association; Iowa Limestone Producers Association;

Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association; Kansas

Aggregate Producers Association; Kansas Livestock

Association; Kansas Ready Mixed Concrete Association;

Kentucky Association of Manufacturers; Kentucky Chamber

of Commerce; Kentucky Coal Association; Kentucky

Crushed Stone Association, Inc.; Lodi Chamber of

Commerce; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Aggregates

Association; Mid-America Equipment Retailers

Association; Midwest Equipment Dealers Association;

Minnesota-South Dakota Equipment Dealers Association;

Missouri Cattlemen's Association; Montana Equipment

Dealers Association; Montana Stockgrowers Association;

National Asphalt Pavement Association; National

Association of Home Builders; National Association of

Manufacturers.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Corn

Growers Association; National Milk Producers

Federation; National Mining Association; National Pork

Producers Council; National Precast Concrete

Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;

National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; National

Water Resources Association; Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc.;

North American Equipment Dealers Association; North

Dakota Implement Dealers Association; Northeast

Equipment Dealers Association, Inc.; NUCA Representing

Utility and Excavation Contractors.

Ohio Aggregates & Industrial Minerals Association; Ohio

Chamber of Commerce; Ohio Equipment Distributors

Association; Ohio-Michigan Equipment Dealers

Association; Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association; Pacific

Northwest

Hardware & Implement Association; Palm Desert Area

Chamber of Commerce; Pennsylvania Aggregates and

Concrete Association; Pennsylvania Cattlemen's

Association; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and

Industry; Portland Cement Association; Public Lands

Council; Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment;

Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce; Simi Valley

Chamber of Commerce; South Dakota Agri-Business

Association; South Dakota Cattlemen's Association;

South East Dairy Farmers Association; SouthEastern

Equipment Dealers Association; South Western

Association; Tennessee Concrete Association; Tennessee

Road Builders Association; Texas and Southwestern

Cattle Raisers Association.

Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Tucson Metropolitan

Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Cattlemen's Association; U.S.

Chamber of Commerce; United Egg Producers; USA Rice

Federation; Utah Cattlemen's Association; Utah Farm

Bureau Federation; The Utah School and Institutional

Trust Lands Administration; Utah Wool Growers

Association; Virginia Agribusiness Council; Virginia

Grain Producers Association; Virginia Poultry

Federation; Washington Aggregates & Concrete

Association; Washington Cattlemen's Association;

Washington Farm Bureau; West Virginia Chamber of

Commerce; West Virginia Coal Association; West Virginia

Manufacturers Association; Western Business Roundtable;

Wyoming Ag Business Association; Wyoming Crop

Improvement Association; Wyoming Stock Growers.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Chairman, I think what this bill is addressing, we have 21st century problems and challenges, and we are looking for 21st century solutions. I want to lay out the facts to have a little more clarity, and I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia's support of the bill.

We have to realize that the State EPAs have to have an approved plan by the Federal EPA. That is the framework that they are working under, and you just can't have the Federal EPA come in during the ball game and try to change the rules and undermine the efforts of the State EPAs.

I want to comment regarding the gentleman from Oregon's comments that we are going to go backwards and we have made progress in the last 40 years, and the States didn't do anything in the last 40 years or before. Let's remember what happened prior to 1972.

I grew up 12 miles from the city of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga River. I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. I remember as a child when I couldn't go down and swim in Lake Erie any more because raw sewage was going into Lake Erie. Those events caused this Congress to pass the Clean Water Act and establish the U.S. EPA and also give authority for the States to set up their programs. Prior to that, nobody was concerned about the environment and we didn't have the so- called environmental movement where we are all concerned about having clean water.

Since then, we have made tremendous progress. On point-source pollution, we have made tremendous progress. On discharges, we don't have the discharges going into our lakes and rivers and streams like we did 40 years ago. We have made significant progress addressing nonsource-point pollution. Now, that is not to say that we don't have more challenges.

I want to talk about one size fits all, and the U.S. EPA has an agenda right now that is overreaching. They want to set policies and parameters that fit for everybody to work under. I will give you an example. The numerical nutrient standard, and let's take phosphorus and nitrogen. You hear a lot about phosphorus sediment pollution in our lakes and rivers. To go in there and set a number, a numerical number that they can't exceed that, discharge at that level, causes some problems.

For the last 40 years, we have been operating under something called the narrative standard. States can go in there and look at what is going on in that watershed or that stream or that river. I can tell you, in every river and stream in this country, there are different things happening. The biology is different. The pH is different. The water temperature, water flow is different. The sunlight. A whole host of things. They can incorporate that and come up with a plan on how to address that in their local locale.

When you set a number at such a high level, it creates a situation where the States can't attain it; it's not possible. We have seen that happen in Florida, and that is why Florida has litigation pending because they set one size fits all. Whereas Florida, ironically, was moving to a point to set a numerical standard, but they wanted to address and incorporate what I call the narrative standard so they could address what is happening in each locale and not a huge region to address those differences that are happening in that stream or that river. So one size fits all doesn't work. It causes problems, and it will make us to go back, impacting the progress we've made in the last 40 years.

Now, in this bill we also talk about the permitting issue. One of the most egregious things that I have seen since I have been in Congress since January was a revocation of a permit. Yes, it was in West Virginia. It was a coal mine operation that went through 10 years of an environmental impact study, got their permit in 2007, and then 3 years later the permit was revoked, not because they were in permit violation. The Army Corps of Engineers testified in my committee that there were no problems. The State, West Virginia EPA didn't support revoking that permit. I really don't know why they revoked that permit other than it was maybe on an agenda of somebody. But they were not in violation of the permit.

It is one thing to revoke a permit when you are in violation of a permit, but when you are not in violation of the permit, to take that permit away, it sets a very dangerous precedent; because the dangerous precedent it sets across our entire economy, if you're an entity or an enterprise and you have to have a permit from the Federal Government to be in business, and if that Federal Government at the whim of some bureaucrat or the administration comes and pulls that permit any time they want to, who is going to risk capital and make that investment, create jobs, knowing that they could be shut down tomorrow because the permit is not there to stay in business?

That is what this bill addresses. They have to get concurrence. The U.S. EPA would have to get concurrence from the State EPA to support that revocation to shut that business down.

So this is really a jobs bill. We are trying to relieve uncertainty so people know what the playing field is. I can tell you, I think the State EPAs can do a better job in their locales, because they know what is going on there, than to have a one-size-fits-all policy by the Federal Government and an overreaching and burdensome regulatory climate that kills jobs, kills economic investment, and, like I said, kills jobs.

So that is why I think it is important to move this bill forward. This is a jobs bill.

We have sent several bills over to the Senate that are jobs bills. I urge the Senate to take them up because we have unemployment at 9.2 percent and rising.

I think it is important for people to have an opportunity to have a job and economic opportunities. We need the Federal Government to create the environment for what I call the job creators to have that confidence, to make those investments and start hiring people back and growing their businesses.

This bill is really important to encourage cooperative arrangements working among the Federal EPA and the State EPAs.

I was really floored in the committee hearings we had where we had State EPAs come in--and some of them were from the other side of the aisle from me--and testify against the Federal EPA on their actions and their overreach.

You know, a strong economy--some people don't understand this, although I say this a lot. A strong and growing economy will provide the resources to invest and protect and enhance the environment. An economy that is struggling right now, it makes it tougher to have those resources. As an example, you look at some Third World countries where their biggest challenge is feeding their people, they don't have the resources to build sewage treatment plants and water filtration systems and do other things to protect the environment. We have the resources, and we have a strong, growing economy, and we should be working with those businesses because most businesses and most people want to do the right thing. Everybody wants clean water and clean air.

So I take exception to the comments of my colleague from Oregon who said that we are not protecting the environment. I think a strong, growing economy does protect the environment, and I think the regulatory policies are in place at the State levels because the States are set up to do it now, different than 40 years ago, to regulate and also enforce environmental protection laws, whether it is mountaintop mining or whatever it is. We have the rules in place.

In Ohio, when I was in the State Senate 2 years ago, we passed comprehensive legislation to add additional regulation on the oil and gas industry to protect our groundwater, our water aquifers, and our surface water. And we did.

I am really encouraged now, the potential we have with the Utica shale and the Marcellus shale to make us closer to being energy independent and not dependent and shipping almost a trillion dollars a year away to other countries, some of which don't really like us very much. We have an opportunity to have a strong, growing economy and provide the energy, but also protect the environment at the same time. We just have the regulatory process in place, and I think this enables a stronger regulatory process because it emboldens the State EPAs to do their job and work cooperatively with their partners in Washington,

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The intent of H.R. 2018 is to restore the balance between the States and the Federal Government in carrying out the Clean Water Act.

This amendment simply strikes the entire bill, as she stated, and ensures that the EPA can continue to unilaterally force its own one- size-fits-all Federal policies onto the States' water quality programs, which, by the way, they previously already approved.

Under this amendment EPA will continue to pass unfunded mandates on to the States. It ensures that EPA issues interim guidance that frustrates States and permit applicants, and ensures that the EPA will continue their legally dubious activities of revoking already legally issued permits, as I stated earlier.

I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I wish to claim the time in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

By striking section 2 of the bill, this amendment would effectively gut much of the bill.

Section 2 of the bill would limit EPA from unilaterally changing approved State water quality standards and permitting decisions, or from withdrawing approval of a State water quality permitting program or limiting Federal financial assistance for the State water quality permitting program on the basis that the EPA disagrees with the State regarding a State water quality standard that EPA has approved.

By striking section 2 of the bill, this amendment would continue to allow this administration's EPA to impose one-size-fits-all Federal policies on the States' water quality programs.

We are not in favor of the EPA continuing their regulatory onslaught on the States. I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reemphasize and restate that the States are operating under an already approved plan from the U.S. EPA which addresses these concerns, so I don't see how we go backwards, because they're operating within the framework that was set up. By the way, under the Clean Water Act, that plan is reviewed every 3 years.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I urge Members to support Mrs. Capito's amendment. Her amendment would bring transparency to the development of regulations and require the EPA to provide a more robust analysis of the economic impacts of its regulatory actions.

This will not halt the issuance of regulations, only provide better information to those who are responsible for writing the regulations, in this case the EPA. I think we can all agree the EPA could have better information to utilize to make better regulatory decisions.

I am concerned, as I believe the Administrator of the U.S. EPA has testified, that their main concern, when they look at a regulatory issue, is public health and safety of the environment, and they don't do any cost-benefit analysis and diminishing returns and all that.

I urge support of the amendment.

The Hanabusa amendment authorizes the EPA to study the effectiveness of cooperative federalism once H.R. 2018 is enacted.

While the amendment seems to carry a bias in that the EPA can only report an increase of pathogens or toxins, and not reductions, after enactment of H.R. 2018, the EPA will have very little to report upon.

H.R. 2018 will lead to better water quality decisions made at the local level, and this will benefit the environment for all of us. If H.R. 2018 would lead to water quality degradation, none of us in this Chamber would support it if that were the case.

Noting the bias in the amendment, if the sponsor would like to ask for a unanimous consent request to modify her amendment to modify line 5 after ``increase'' by adding the phrase ``or reductions,'' we then would be able to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

With the modification, I think this is a good amendment. I want to commend my colleague for offering it because I think we will get an accurate report from the EPA when they do their study on whether we're making progress because of H.R. 2018 or if we're going backwards. So I think it's important to have this amendment modified to provide those words ``or reductions.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Modification to Amendment No. 4

The gentleman from Colorado seems to suggest that States would continue to allow polluters to pollute waters of their States under H.R. 2018 unless this amendment is adopted. Nothing could be further from the truth. If H.R. 2018 degraded water quality, none of us would support this legislation.

I also question the implementation of the amendment. If you had a permit holder who is in significant noncompliance, does that negate water quality provisions for the water body the permit holder may be polluting? Of course not. Nothing in H.R. 2018 allows a permit holder to violate the terms of a permit.

I urge all Members to oppose the Polis amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I just want to reemphasize that if there is a permit holder in violation, the States have an obligation and a responsibility to step in and take action and enforcement. If they probably didn't, I'm sure that there's some organization that would file a lawsuit against that EPA.

So I don't think this amendment does anything to help the bill. I think the bill takes care of it, and the people who would be in violation would be prosecuted under the law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

The Connolly amendment says that the underlying bill will not apply to any waters for which Federal funding is provided. This would have an effect of realigning Federal funding for projects and subject States with waters for which Federal funding is provided to greater EPA imposition of Federal one-size-fits-all policies.

As drafted, the scope of the Federal funding intended to be covered under this amendment is unclear, but could be interpreted to be almost limitless in coverage. As a result, this amendment would allow EPA to determine that the amendment applies to virtually all waters, with the consequent effect of nullifying the underlying bill.

Rather than nullifying this legislation, I would rather the gentleman from Virginia join those of us who think it would be more productive to ease the burden of unnecessary regulations and provide the States more authority in carrying out the Clean Water Act. I urge all Members to oppose the Connolly amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

EPA's role in regulating pipelines is minimal as compared to the role of other agencies. This bill would have little effect on regulating pipelines. Therefore, we can accept this amendment.

I wish to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must strongly oppose this amendment because it basically aims to gut the underlying bill.

This amendment is designed to ensure that the EPA can continue to unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-all

Federal policies onto the States' water quality programs.

The underlying bill, H.R. 2018, reestablishes the States' balanced role in carrying out the provisions of the Clean Water Act; but this amendment, in effect, says that the underlying bill will not apply virtually anywhere the Clean Water Act applies.

Implicitly, this amendment also says that the States cannot be trusted in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their citizens, and the Federal Government knows best.

Once States have approved clean water programs, they are capable of administering their programs and caring for the welfare of their citizens. EPA needs to be more respectful of the decisions made by the States in those circumstances.

H.R. 2018 is a good bill that restores balance to an out-of-control U.S. EPA. The intent of this amendment is to make the bill completely unworkable. I would also add that I think that the Clean Water Act has worked until now when the States have been usurped of their authority and ability to enforce the State and Federal EPA environmental laws.

I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on the comments from my colleague from Oregon talking about a new pollutant. Well, under H.R. 2018, if there's a new pollutant out there and it comes in and it is not in an already State-approved plan, the State has to take action, and the EPA and the State have to work cooperatively to develop a new plan to address that issue. So I think if the issue of arsenic came up, they would have to work that out cooperatively.

And the comment about States won't take action, I can't believe that a State EPA is not going to take action. Oregon--maybe they're not going to take action in Oregon. It's hard for me to believe that. But I don't think this amendment is necessary, and I oppose the amendment.

Under the gentleman from Missouri's amendment, if a State has made a disaster declaration any time in the last 5 years, H.R. 2018 would not be applicable to waters in the area. This amendment would continue to allow the EPA to overturn State-established and U.S. EPA- approved water quality standards and unilaterally impose federally dictated permitting and other regulatory requirements on States and other disaster responders. This, in turn, would impact on the ability of States and other disaster responders to respond to and conduct cleanups after major flood disasters and would discourage States from seeking disaster assistance.

I urge all Members to oppose the Carnahan amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Let me thank the chairman very much.

I definitely support cooperation between the Federal Government and the State government. That is absolutely the best partnership and one that I encourage.

Having been a member of the local city council of my own city of Houston, I also know that unfunded mandates are very much difficult to overcome. But I argue vigorously against the underlying legislation because it does equate to undermining the health of Americans. We need clean water, not dirty water.

So this amendment strikes the entire legislation that causes us to ignore a partnership that has been established between the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which is a State system. And to my count, some 47 States have initially gotten into the system and have worked to ensure that they have clean water.

Why do I suggest that this is a very challenging approach to take that the underlying legislation has? Because it prevents the EPA from taking actions to revise outdated State water quality standards. It makes a State the final arbiter of whether an NPDES permit, a license for better water quality, is in fact to be implemented so that one State may do something that impacts negatively on another State.

These are the people we're concerned about: a working nurse and a healthy baby, or we are concerned about a gentleman by the name of Mr. Caldario, who is a resident of Crestwood, who indicated some years ago that he was worried about the water he drank for years without knowing what it was contaminated with--``Cancer Study Triggers Fears in Crestwood,'' which I will submit for the Record. His final sentence states, ``I can't help but wonder if what happened to me had something to do with the water.''

My amendment is straightforward. It strikes the language of this bill. It says let's go back to the drawing table. I want to be able to help Members, but if you have 47 States that have been engaged in this process, let's find a way that we can come together and have clean water and not dirty water.

This is a straightforward amendment that says that this is overreaching. The EPA would be prohibited from resolving conflicting State decisions on protecting water quality. Join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the good intentions of the gentleman,

but I am concerned by the interpretation.

Let me just share with you very briefly my own State. In my own State, I'm aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones.

We are the protectors of America's assets, its waterways, its drinking water, the ability to have the opportunity for clean water for our fish and fishing. I ask you, let's go back to the drawing board. If we have States that are already participating, let's demand, in an administrative process, for EPA to restrain itself, but let's not take away the underlying power that is going to allow us to have clean drinking water and for someone who lives in Crestwood to be able to be possibly cancer free.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 ``The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.'' My amendment restores the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with state governments to establish standards ensuring all Americans have access to clean and safe water.

My amendment strikes the entire bill. The Clean Water Act (CWA) was designed to encourage collaboration between state agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to develop acceptable standards for maintaining the safety of our nation's bodies of water. The EPA was created in 1970 to ensure that our air, land, and water receive adequate protection from pollution and we must allow them to do so for the benefit of all Americans.

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is absolutely not the way to protect our nation's water bodies. The EPA has the expertise and resources for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards: air and water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems.

Seeking to limit the extent to which the EPA can oversee the safety of our water supply threatens the health of American citizens across the country. The EPA has not only the right, but the responsibility to update state water pollution regulations and permit procedures if they discover new threats to health or the environment.

The EPA must remain involved in regulating water pollution to ensure a cohesive policy that protects all states from pollution. Should the authority to regulate water pollution levels be given solely to the states, there would be no way to regulate waterways that pass through multiple states.

As a Representative from Texas, a Gulf Coast state, I am aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently, there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones.

My Republican colleagues feel we must pass this bill urgently. They will tell their constituents, and all of the American people that the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is necessary to issue permits and avoid backlog in mining facilities, factories, agriculture, and other businesses. What my friends on the other side of the aisle will not tell you is that this legislation is helping business at the risk of our nation's health.

Those who support this bill will not mention that EPA regulation prevents toxic chemicals and biological agents from entering our surface water bodies and groundwater. Apparently, those championing this legislation do not feel the American people deserve to know the serious health risks that can result from drinking or bathing in polluted water. Breathing the vapors of a polluted water source, consuming meat or vegetables affected by polluted water, and consuming fish that have been exposed to polluted water are all potentially harmful.

Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment to strike the entire Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act to protect not only my constituents in the 18th district of Texas, but Americans across the nation from the diseases that result from water pollution. Diseases such as typhoid, hepatitis, encephalitis, and others caused by pathogens in water.

Surely the EPA, the states, and the industries involved can work together to prevent pollution levels in surface and groundwater from causing cancer, or serious damage to the liver, kidneys, nervous system, reproductive system, or endocrine system. Surely, we are not willing to sacrifice the health of this nation to pass a bill to benefit industry.

A study conducted by Cornell University concluded that water pollution accounts for 80% of infectious diseases, and 5 million deaths per year. I urge my colleagues on either side of the aisle to consider the enormous gamble this Congress is taking by reducing regulations to keep our water safe.

Supporting my amendment will strike the dangerous Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, and provide an opportunity for new legislation that fosters compromise between the EPA, the states, and stakeholders, without compromising water quality and endangering the health of American citizens.

[From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

I thank the distinguished chairman, and again I thank my friends on the floor of the House, and I did not acknowledge my friend the ranking member.

I offer myself as a person who seeks to collaborate and fix problems. So my second amendment says let's work together, but there are times when the heart of the matter has to be addressed.

My amendment strikes the language that really is the heart of the matter. It strikes the language in the bill, ensuring that the vital role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants enter our waterways can still exist. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States disagree.

My amendment strikes the language that allows States, 50 States, to conflict against each other and one-upmanship--I'm going to do this; no, you're going to do this. This standardizes the issue of clean water. This stands up for people like those in Crestwood, Illinois, that wonder whether the water caused cancer, kidney cancer, in a 30- year-old.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I thank the gentleman.

Is it my right to close, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me refer my colleagues again to basic facts.

Forty-seven States have entered into agreements with the EPA because they have decided, in spite of the challenges that we all have on making sure that we do the right thing, that it is the right thing to do, that clean water is our priority. And I would offer as a viable picture a recollection of Americans who had to live through histories when water was not clean. We did have that era in our lifetime, or at least in the lifetimes of many. I would argue that that is not the life we would like to go back to.

This particular section is protecting us against pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities coming from a vast variety of chemicals, industry, and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States have access to safe drinking water.

Do you want a jobs bill? Then you create the companies that are going to help us keep our waterways clean. Put people to work cleaning water. Put people to work complying with the right thing to do to ensure that we have clean drinking water, to ensure that babies and working moms and families can turn on that faucet, and to ensure that they can drink that clean water.

We want to work with industry. We want to be able to come halfway, but we don't want to return America to a time when you would dip down. You find in developing nations the enormous number of diseases that children have because they do not have clean water. Go to some of our developing nations. See what they're washing themselves in. See what they're drinking.

That's not America.

We have the opportunity to be the kind of nation that works with our businesses but also the kind that fights for our children and provides the opportunity for clean water. I ask my

colleagues to stand with us and to strike section 2 to allow us, one, to go for a compromise if we can, but also to stand for those who would welcome clean water. Let's end diseases that can be caused in this reckless manner.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to support clean water in America.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,'' which ensures the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue to have authority to oversee issues related to the standards for and issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

My amendment will strike section 2 of the bill, ensuring the vital role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants enter our waterways. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States disagree.

The EPA is a unifying body, issuing regulations that ensure all States have standards that they must follow. Bodies of water cross State lines, and the water quality standards of one State are very likely to impact neighboring States.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that all wastewater discharges to surface water receive a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 47 States, including Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, are currently authorized to issue NPDES permits. Texas has been authorized to issue these permits since September 14, 1998.

The pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities, come from a vast variety of chemicals, industry and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States have access to safe water bodies.

It is important that the EPA be able to set a universal standard that all States follow. States may lack the resources and funding to adequately implement the NPDES program and properly regulate sources of water contaminants. Additionally, States may not have the resources or expertise needed to continually evaluate regulations in order to ensure that water remains safe.

Preventing the EPA from regulating the levels of pollutants in bodies of water may give jurisdiction over the issuance of permits to the States, but it certainly will not allow States to set their own standards for water quality. If the EPA is not able to set universal standards, downstream States will be subject to the water quality of upstream States. Contaminated groundwater will spread beyond State borders, impacting the lakes, reservoirs, and agriculture of nearby States, putting the people and the economy of its neighbors at risk.

In 1906, Missouri sued Illinois for discharging sewage into a tributary of the Mississippi River that ultimately rendered drinking water unsafe in Missouri. Restricting the EPA from holding all States to the same standards will inevitably lead to many suits of this nature.

I believe this bill sends us in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting our nation's bodies of water. This bill leaves a false impression that the EPA is an organization that arbitrarily picks and chooses what chemicals States can and cannot permit to enter our precious waters. Rather, the EPA has a broad responsibility for research, standard-setting, monitoring, and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards: air pollution, water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. The EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems, including an important standard for clean water.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge opposition to this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, for the last seven months this nation's economy has stagnated while the Republican majority has passed a litany of bills repealing environmental standards on behalf of oil and coal companies. Today we have another anti-environment bill before the House, predictably mis-named, in the finest Orwellian tradition, the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.'' This bill is a case study in irony: After seven months of blaming economic malaise on regulatory ``uncertainty,'' this bill would eliminate predictable and consistent national clean water standards in favor of an uncertain state-based patchwork of regulations. This bill would be more appropriately titled the ``Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Small Minds Act,'' because its elimination of any regulatory certainty flies in the face of seven months of Republican rhetoric. On the other hand, as an assault on the environment which benefits Republican campaign donors, it is utterly consistent with the majority's modus operandi.

The majority claims to support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, and that is accurate if we accept the Republican premise that coal and oil constitute the totality of America's energy portfolio. After passing countless bills to repeal clean air and water regulations for oil companies, this bill is focused on repealing clean water standards for the coal and mining industry. My colleagues who are not from Virginia, West Virginia, or Kentucky may not be familiar with the ravages of mountaintop removal, and if they aren't I would encourage them to look at a satellite photo of our region before they vote for this bill. Following Bush Administration abrogation of its responsibility to administer the Clean Water Act, destruction of the Southern Appalachian mountains has accelerated. For example, Wise County, Virginia has had 25 percent of its land area obliterated by mountaintop removal: According to the Nature Conservancy, Southwest Virginia is one of the two most biodiverse regions in America, along with Hawaii. Mountaintop removal is eliminating that region's biodiversity very efficiently. What used to be extraordinarily productive mountains in my state now resemble a moonscape of man-made plateaus and valleys filled in with rubble.

The purpose of this bill is to prevent Clean Water Act regulation of those ``valley fills'' which mining companies use to dispose of former mountains. Valley fills should be a clear violation of the Clean Water Act, and under the Obama Administration the EPA and Army Corps have finally begun to comply with the law and regulate them. This legislation would block that federal regulation which is necessary to protect life and property in Southwest Virginia and other parts of Appalachia.

This legislation would have other negative consequences beyond destroying one of America's greatest and most threatened regions. It is written in such a broad manner that it could allow unregulated destruction of intermittent and ephemeral streams, lakes and prairie potholes, and subterranean waters such as those that are common in places like Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I failed

to note the irony of the legislation before us today. After 7 months of ranting and raving about the lack of regulatory certainty which causes economic stagnation, the Republican majority is now attempting to pass a bill which would replace a clear, predictable, national clean water standard with an utterly unpredictable patchwork of State standards. Chaos does not federalism make, nor is one State's ability to sully a downstream State's waters consistent with the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

This legislation, with the Orwellian title the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, would endanger watersheds all across America, including the precious Chesapeake Bay in our region here in the National Capital Region. As my colleagues are aware, the bay watershed encompasses six States and the District of Columbia.

Logically, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies work in tandem with States throughout the watershed to reduce pollution entering the bay. Since watersheds do not correspond easily to State lines, this kind of interagency cooperation is essential and efficient to restore America's largest estuary.

H.R. 2018 would unravel that partnership, balkanizing water policy and undermining bay restoration. I have drafted a simple amendment, Mr. Chairman, to exempt watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay from this bill by limiting the bill's jurisdiction to watersheds which do not receive Federal aid for watershed restoration and related activities. This amendment would allow critical efforts, such as the restoration of the bay, Long Island Sound, the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, Gulf of Mexico, San Francisco Bay, and other great waters to continue. It would acknowledge the undeniable fact that water does not stop when it reaches the State line.

This amendment is important because these great waters are an integral part of our American heritage. The Chesapeake Bay was where John Smith arrived and founded Jamestown. The first colonial exploration of Virginia, also by John Smith, used the bay to explore the rivers of Virginia and Maryland. The Chesapeake is home to the French blockade of the British Navy, which enabled George Washington to have victory at Yorktown and a successful conclusion to the Revolutionary War.

For 200 years the Chesapeake Bay was one of America's most productive fisheries, fueling the growth of coastal communities such as Alexandria, Norfolk, and Baltimore, as well as an indigenous fleet of boats such as the skipjacks, deadrises, and bugeyes.

Unfortunately, development and overfishing wiped out many of the fisheries that were once so productive. When John Smith arrived in the bay, his crew had neglected to bring fishing line, but they were able to pull fish out of the bay by scooping them out of the water. Smith wrote that the oysters on the bay floor lay thick as stones and were so prolific that these filter feeders cleaned the entire volume of the bay daily. The shad runs up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac Rivers were so immense that colonial observers noted it would have been possible to walk all the way from the James from Richmond to Manchester on the backs of fish without ever touching water.

These fish were so large and powerful that, when caught, they actually shook the first Manchester Bridge on its piers. Of course, the bay is part of a much larger watershed now that is as historic ecologically as the bay is itself.

To restore this great water body, many Federal agencies have been working in partnership with States, localities, and landowners. As written, H.R. 2018 would rupture that partnership, effectively giving any one State veto authority over the region's restoration efforts. My simple amendment would protect our ability to keep working together as a region to restore the bay.

This regional effort was first started at the Federal level by a Republican, my old friend, Republican U.S. Senator Charles ``Mac'' Mathias of Maryland. To the extent we are making progress today, it's a result of the partnership between Virginia, whose general assembly is investing over $100 million annually in private land conservation, a Republican-led initiative that was expanded under a Democratic Governor. Let us not turn our backs on this 30-year partnership.

I ask for your support for this commonsense amendment to continue the improvements to America's largest and most historic estuary, as well as our Nation's other great waters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me say to my friend who is managing on the majority side, I spent 14 years in local government. We don't consider the Federal involvement in cleaning up the bay an undue burden. We actually consider it a partnership that has paid off big time, and we need more of it.

Support the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 2018

Protect these Great Waters: Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay,

Long Island Sound, South Florida/Everglades, Mississippi

River Basin, San Francisco Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Lake

Champlain, Puget Sound, Casco Bay (ME), New Hampshire

Estuaries, Massachusetts Bays, Buzzards Bay, Narragansett

Bay, Peconic Estuary, New York/NJ Harbor, Bernegat Bay,

Delaware Inland Bays, Maryland Coastal Bays, Southeast Coast,

Albermarle-Pamlico Sound, Indian River Lagoon, Gulf Coast,

Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, Mobile Bay,

Bataraia-Terrebonne Estuary, Galveston Bay, Coastal Bend Bay,

West Coast, Lower Columbia River, Tillamook Bay, Morro Bay

Dear Colleague, many of us have worked in collaboration

with partners at the state and local level to protect great

waters like the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Everglades, Lake

Champlain, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound,

Mississippi Basin, and the Gulf of Mexico.

I have drafted a simple amendment to exempt these

watersheds and others that receive federal restoration

funding from H.R. 2018. This amendment would allow critical

efforts such as restoration to continue in acknowledgement of

the undeniable fact that water does not stop when it reaches

a state line. A more complete list of watersheds that would

be protected by this amendment can be found at the end of

this letter.

This amendment is important because these great waters are

an integral part of our American heritage. The Chesapeake

Bay, for example, was where John Smith arrived and founded

Jamestown. The first colonial exploration of Virginia, also

by John Smith, used the Bay to explore the rivers of Virginia

and Maryland. The Chesapeake is home to the French blockade

of the British Navy, which enabled George Washington's

victory at Yorktown and a successful conclusion to the

Revolutionary War. For two hundred years the Chesapeake was

one of America's most productive fisheries, fueling the

growth of coastal communities such as Alexandria, Norfolk,

and Baltimore, as well as an indigenous fleet of boats such

as the Skipjacks, Deadrises, and Bugeyes.

Unfortunately, development and overfishing wiped out many

of the fisheries that were once so productive. When John

Smith arrived in the Bay, his crew had neglected to bring

fishing line, but they were able to pull fish out of the Bay

by scooping them out of the water with frying pans. Smith

wrote that the oysters on the Bay floor ``lay thick as

stones'' and were so prolific that these filter

feeders cleaned the whole volume of the Bay daily. The shad

runs up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac were so immense

that colonial observers noted it would have been possible to

walk across the James from Richmond to Manchester on the

backs of fish without ever touching water. These fish were so

large and powerful that, when caught, they shook the first

Manchester Bridge on its moorings. Of course, the Bay is part

of a much larger watershed that is as historic and

ecologically valuable as the Bay itself.

To restore this great water body many federal agencies have

been working in partnership with states, localities, and land

owners. As written, H.R. 2018 would rupture that partnership,

effectively giving any one state veto authority over the

region's Bay restoration efforts. This important amendment

would protect our ability to keep working together as a

region to restore the Bay and other great waters across

America.

Please support this amendment and contact

zack.fields@mail.house.gov (3-3122) with any questions.

Sincerely,

Gerald E. Connolly,

11th District, Virginia.

Watersheds and States that would be protected from H.R.

2018:

Great Lakes--NY, PA, OH, IL, IN, MN, WI, MI

Chesapeake Bay--NY, PA, MD, DE, VA, WV

Long Island Sound--CT, NY, RI

South Florida/Everglades--FL

Mississippi River Basin--MN, ND, SD, WY, CO, NM, TX, OK,

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. Despite some of the arguments I have heard in favor of this legislation, H.R. 2018 has not been narrowly crafted to address issues related to nutrient criteria and surface coal mining. I echo the administration's opposition to this bill when I say that H.R. 2018 would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment.

While proponents of this legislation argue that the changes to the clean water permitting structure are targeted to address the development of nutrient criteria, such as in the State of Florida, the fact that this legislation is drafted to include any pollutant means that its reach extends to any discharge from any point source in any water body in the United States.

Under this legislation, EPA would also be prohibited from recommending stricter discharge standards for toxic pollutants such as lead or mercury, even if the protection of human health is at stake, unless the State consents to such changes. In my view, this policy does not move our Nation forward, but rather reverses our direction and moves our Nation back 40 years to before the enactment of the Clean Water Act.

Some of my friends would like to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating clean water. I would too. Luckily for us, the basic structure of the Clean Water Act already provides States enormous flexibility in setting water quality standards. Current law allows States to assume authority over day to day implementation of State permitting programs, and allows States to implement more stringent controls on pollution within their borders. The Clean Water Act merely sets the baseline minimum standard for water quality.

Prior to the Clean Water Act establishing a baseline, 70 percent of the Nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or drinking. We are now at 30 percent of our waters in such a condition. And I very much doubt that any reasonable person would want to return to the days of 70 percent.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have argued that this legislation is necessary because State authority to implement clean water programs is much improved since 1972, and States will do the right thing in protecting water quality. I agree that individual States have increased their capacity to protect the water quality within their States. However, I think it is also fair to suggest that the Clean Water Act has been essential to this Nation's efforts to double the number of waters meeting the fishable and swimmable standard since enactment of this statute in 1972.

In my view, elimination of the EPA's oversight and authority for minimum standards would allow a potential race to the bottom for the establishment of pollution discharge limits within a State border. We have seen disputes between States such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, or North Carolina and Tennessee. Among States like Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, the potential opportunities for one State to send its pollution downstream to another State are real and needs to be prevented.

Mr. Chairman, the role that Congress established for the EPA in the Clean Water Act has served our Nation well for almost 40 years. It has protected public health, and it has been an effective mechanism to protect the many businesses and industries that rely on clean water.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2018--Clean Water Cooperative

Federalism Act (Rep. Mica, R-FL, and 39 Cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2018 because it

would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act (CWA) and

could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the

environment.

Under the CWA, one of the Nation's most successful and

effective environmental laws, the Federal Government acts to

ensure safe levels of water quality across the country

through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since the

enactment of the CWA in 1972, the Federal Government has

protected the waterways our citizens depend on by using its

checks and balances authority to review and adjust key State

water pollution control decisions, where necessary, to assure

that they reflect up to date science, comply with the law,

and protect downstream water users in other States. H.R. 2018

would roll back the key provisions of the CWA that have been

the underpinning of 40 years of progress in making the

Nation's waters fishable, swimmable, and drinkable.

H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by

removing the Federal Government's authority to take action

when State water quality standards are not protective of

public health. In addition, it would restrict EPA's authority

to take action when it finds that a State's CWA permit or

permit program is inadequate and would shorten EPA's review

and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers on permits

for dredged or fill material. All of these changes could

result in adverse impacts to human health, the economy, and

the environment through increased pollution and degradation

of water bodies that serve as venues for recreation and

tourism, and that provide drinking water sources and habitat

for fish and wildlife.

H.R. 2018 would disrupt the carefully constructed

complementary CWA roles for EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers,

and States in protecting water quality. It also could

eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public

health in downstream States from actions in upstream States,

and could increase the number of lawsuits challenging State

permits. In sum, H.R. 2018 would upset the CWA's balanced

approach to improve water quality across the Nation, risking

the public health and economic benefits of cleaner waters.

If the President is presented with this legislation, his

senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding, and I also thank her for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

The amendment would strike the provisions of the underlying bill that threaten existing Clean Water Act authority related to the discharge of pollutants under the act.

I oppose these provisions in the underlying bill, and I view this amendment as an effort to improve an otherwise very bad bill. On that basis I support the amendment.

I claim time in opposition.

We have heard a great deal of how reversals on the part of the EPA have caused uncertainty in the business community--uncertainty that leads to job loss, uncertainty that leads to a lack of interest in investing. Here are the numbers:

In 40 years, the EPA has reversed 13 permits--13--out of over 2 million issued. That is a veto rate of .00065 percent.

I fail to see how a reversal rate of significantly less than 1 percent can create the kind of uncertainty that we hear about from our colleagues. In fact, that kind of reversal rate encourages a reliance on the legitimacy and the validity of a permit granted, not the questioning of it.

I would also point out that, of these 13 reversals, seven took place under the administration of President Reagan; four took place under the Presidency of the first George Bush; one under George W. Bush; and one under President Obama. I think we are hard-pressed to develop a fact- based argument that there is an assault or that there is an overreach on the part of the EPA.

Now, with respect to the subject of the amendment, itself, the EPA has testified before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee that it already considers the implications of its actions on jobs and on the economy. In fact, many of the requirements that bring the EPA to do that were enacted by the Republican majority when they last controlled the House. I would suggest that the enactment of this amendment will only duplicate the analysis that the EPA is already undertaking.

As a result, I fear that this amendment will only increase the opportunity for litigation relating to actions on the part of the EPA, causing a new cause of action in the Clean Water Act for third-party lawsuits. If anything, I fear that the effect of this amendment will be to tie up efforts by the EPA to protect public health and the environment in a bureaucratic morass.

On that basis, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have cited, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for offering this amendment.

I just want to simply say, as I've made clear, I do not support the underlying legislation, but this is a very prudent amendment that allows us to assess as we go forward whether or not this proposed law is in the best interests of our Nation's clean water and in the interests of our Nation's health. So I commend the gentlelady for offering the amendment, and I am very happy to hear that this may be accepted.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this, I think, very well thought-out and well-conceived amendment.

I support the amendment offered by the gentleman because it suggests that the most appropriate place for retaining Federal oversight is against polluters who have a track record on the most serious violations of the Clean Water Act, those found to be in significant noncompliance; and, thus, the retention of a Federal oversight role I think is very wise.

And let me just amplify that. In September of 2009, The New York Times ran a front-page story highlighting that, from 2004 to 2008, 506,000 violations of the Clean Water Act were reported for both major and minor facilities; and during that time, the States only took 11,000 enforcement actions, or what is basically a 2 percent enforcement rate. We need to have the Federal Government retain its oversight role. This amendment would do that.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, along with Mr. Markey and Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. Chairman, if H.R. 2018 were enacted as drafted, it would restrict the EPA's ability to protect the Nation's waters from pollution. As we know, if pollution is allowed to increase due to the dueling interests of States, many sources of clean drinking water would be imperiled, valuable fish and wildlife habitat would be endangered and coastal recreational waters, like the shores of my Long Island, would be at risk, along with all the economic benefits these resources provide.

The Markey-DeFazio-Blumenauer amendment simply restricts the provisions of this bill from endangering waters that provide flood protection for communities, our valuable fish and wildlife habitat or our coastal recreational waters that are the backbone of my district's economy. In fact, my district will face real economic danger if this bill is not amended, not to mention the environmental danger that my district and districts all over this country will face.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 2018. For far too many years now, my State and others throughout the Appalachian region that produce coal to power our Nation have been struggling under the weight of an uncertain Federal permitting process. That uncertainty has left coal miners and mining communities living in an untenable limbo. The result has been a creation of an atmosphere of worry, of distrust, and of bitterness.

I had hoped that under this administration, we would finally find our way to some clarity and common ground. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Rather than bringing sides together and fostering balance, the EPA's actions in recent months have widened the division. They have spurred the tension of divided opinion over surface coal mining to fracture what should be a cooperative relationship among the Federal and State agencies with permitting responsibility.

Not only is the EPA reaching into the Clean Water Act authorities under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers; it is also reaching into the States and attempting to control their water protection programs. Opponents of this legislation will argue that the EPA does not have statutory authority to limit or otherwise supersede the authority of the States to issue water quality permits under the Clean Water Act, section 401. But that lack of statutory authority has not prevented them from trying to do so. In its very first official step to change the rules of surface mine permitting, on June 11, 2009, the EPA entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department. It states: ``EPA will improve and strengthen oversight and review of water pollution permits for discharges from valley fills under CWA section 402, and of State water quality certifications under CWA section 401, by taking appropriate steps to assist States to strengthen State regulation, enforcement, and permitting of surface mining operations under these programs.''

The agency may claim that it is only following the law and ``assisting'' the State, but the reality is that agency is strong- arming the States, just as it is muscling in on the jurisdiction of other agencies. By creating wholly new criteria and new timeliness for Clean Water Act permits and stubbornly insisting, from on high, that the States adhere to them, the EPA is imposing its own will and its own interpretations of water quality standards on the States. It has drawn a line in the sand, and it is daring the States to cross over it.

To my mind, the most logical solution would be for all sides to come together. The Federal agencies ought to work together in cooperative partnership with the States. That was the vision of the CWA, and that's the goal of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.

Mr. Chairman, I think we would all prefer not to have to craft this kind of legislation. Certainly it would be preferable that agencies work with each other, with the States, and within the confines of their statutory authority. It would be better if they followed the rules and did not try to change the law through guidance and MOUs. But when they do so, when they abuse their powers, Congress has the constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on them. This is clearly such a time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from New York (Mr. Bishop), the ranking subcommittee member on our Water Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

I am honored to yield 1 minute to another distinguished member of our T&I Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to a former member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, now a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close. As we have no further requests on my side under general debate, I will give my closing comments now.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

This is about the process, as I described in my opening comments, not the policy. This bill is not about whether the Members of this body support clean, safe water. We all support clean, safe water. I do not know a single Member in this House that wants to turn back the clock on the gains that this Nation has made in the last 40 years to clean up our rivers and streams. This bill is about process and precedent. It is about whether we should be allowing one Federal agency to run roughshod over the law, over the States, and over other Federal agencies to set policy according to political ideology. Now, I do not think we should be allowing any agency of our Federal Government to be run in that manner.

If this Congress allows the EPA to push the envelope in circumventing the law, in circumventing public comment and public participation, it lays the legal groundwork for the next administration to do the exact same thing--maybe under the guise of cleaner air and cleaner water, maybe under the guise of lowering those standards. But the precedent that would be set could be devastating. By not taking action, the Congress is tacitly giving the EPA the authority to do what it deems politically necessary, and that is something that this and every Congress has the responsibility to resist.

So this bill, Mr. Chairman, is not about whether any Member in this institution supports the ends that the EPA is trying to reach. It is about whether or not we believe that we should be allowed to use any-- any--means to reach those ends. And I do not believe they should.

There are plenty of Members on this floor today who believe that the intentions of the EPA with respect to its mission to ensure clean water are noble. I put myself in that category. But we all have to worry when an agency goes to such lengths to circumvent the Congress and the rulemaking process so as to impose its own agenda, because after the next election or the election after that or the election after that, some future EPA may not have such noble intentions. And if we fail to stand up today, we will suffer the consequences of our inaction later.

This bill is about transparency. It does not tell the EPA they cannot effect improvements in water quality. It says that they cannot do it without letting the people--the people--have a voice in the process. That's the way the rulemaking process is intended to work. But this EPA has effectively thwarted that process and thumbed its nose at the people by issuing guidance and treating it like regulation.

As I said in my opening comments, I wish we were not here on this bill today. I wish it would not be necessary. I would much rather see a cooperative Federal relationship among the agencies and the Federal agencies with the States and with the industries involved, but that has not occurred. And, therefore, it has created an era of mistrust, distrust, and bitterness, an outright scared attitude among our coal miners whether or not they will have a job next year or even tomorrow and for how long their current job will last.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I do conclude by speaking in support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

I rise in support of the gentlelady from West Virginia's amendment; let me state that at the very beginning. My only concerns here were attaching an economic analysis amendment to the pending legislation which is directed at the Clean Water Act interpretations.

The pending amendment by the gentlelady from West Virginia--which as I say, I support--would appear to me to more broaden the direction in which this bill goes, which I think detracts from the original intent of the legislation to zero in on clean water issues.

The gentlelady's amendment should be properly--I believe it is--the subject of another stand-alone bill that's been introduced in this body to judge the economic analysis. That legislation I support as well. I might add, in addition, that I brought this issue up with Cass Sunstein, who is the head of the White House Office of Regulatory Review, whose job it is to determine and to examine the economic analysis of regulations that come out of the Federal agencies. That is the White House Office of Regulatory Review's jurisdiction, not EPA's jurisdiction, as the gentlelady has paraphrased the EPA administrator; and as we've all heard her say, job repercussions is not necessarily part of her job description.

The unfortunate fact is that the Office of Regulatory Review under the White House jurisdiction has very limited staff and does not have the staff availability to examine the economic analysis of every regulation that comes out of every agency of our Federal Government, which they are tasked to do,

but certainly don't have the resources to fully do their job.

So the bottom line, I do support the gentlelady's amendment. I do worry that it overly broadens this particular piece of legislation and should be properly, as it is, the subject of a separate stand-alone legislation on its own.