Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7023.

This bill significantly restricts the oversight and regulatory authorities of the EPA and Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act, enacted over 50 years ago, is the Nation's bedrock environmental law for restoring and maintaining the ``chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' and water resources.

However, the changes in H.R. 7023 defy the act's overarching intent and gut the independent authority of both agencies to ensure that projects and activities are carried out with only minimal impacts to water resources.

This partisan bill weakens clean water protections while providing exemptions, legal shields, and limited oversight to special interest polluters and large-scale projects that demand higher scrutiny.

The bill disregards congressional intent in establishing EPA's independent oversight authority over clean water permits, undermines permitting requirements, eliminates judicial review and public engagement, rolls back oversight of mining companies and industrial polluters, inadvertently slows down permit processing with increased bureaucracy, and complicates State-determined decisions.

Mr. Chairman, this bill would also significantly reduce remaining Clean Water Act protections over critical rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands that survived last year's Supreme Court ruling.

Not satisfied with the Court's Sackett decision that eliminated protections for more than 50 percent of the wetlands and up to 70 percent of the streams, this package of anti-clean water proposals would further hamstring the EPA's and Corps' abilities to operate independently to protect our Nation's waterways.

These proposals go in the wrong direction by giving even more to polluters and sacrificing the needs of communities that depend on clean water.

After Sackett, Congress should be working to restore the protections of the Clean Water Act that worked for over 50 years and to move H.R. 5983, the Clean Water Act of 2023, a bill that I have cosponsored with over 130 of my colleagues, to restore clean water protections over our waters, many of which serve as irreplaceable sources of water for families, our communities, our farms, our businesses, our industries, and our quality of life.

We have made too much progress in cleaning up the rivers and streams for Congress to give up now. Mr. Chairman, that is why I am opposed to the proposed changes in H.R. 7023 that weaken bedrock Clean Water Act protections.

The bill will add additional hurdles to EPA's ability to issue water quality standards. It will reduce, if not eliminate, opportunities for the public to seek redress when they are harmed by violations of the Clean Water Act. It would effectively eliminate EPA's ability to oversee and block dangerous projects.

Communities will not benefit from these changes, but mining companies, the oil and gas industry, and other toxic polluters will.

My colleagues would like to approve projects faster, but we need to ensure that projects are built with full consideration of the impacts to human health and the environment. I support the EPA and the Corps working with local communities, Tribes, and States to make these important decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the minority views to H.R. 7023 that were cosigned by myself, Ranking Member Larsen, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats on the committee.

Minority Views

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to H.R. 7023, which states that this legislation will ``weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways that are vital to the well-being of American families, and undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes.''

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 7023--Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act--Rep.

Rouzer, R-NC

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7023, which would

weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways

that are vital to the well-being of American families, and

undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting

processes. The Administration is making historic investments

and taking unprecedented action to modernize and accelerate

permitting to ensure that infrastructure projects get

designed and built swiftly and in a way that reflects

community input and protects clean air, clean water, and

public health. H.R. 7023 would create uncertainty, confusion,

and conflict in permitting processes by: restricting

community input and environmental analysis and information

that is needed to inform Federal decisions to protect the

public; curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency's

ability to keep pollutants out of water supplies upon which

communities rely; and, weakening bedrock environmental

protections. H.R. 7023 is out of step with the type of

bipartisan permitting reforms that the Administration

supports and that Congress should pass.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 7023, including a letter from 49 organizations expressing concern that legislation containing several misguided attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Act puts polluter profits ahead of public health and would jeopardize the water that our families, communities, businesses, and wildlife depend on.

March 18, 2024.

Re Oppose H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water

protections.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and

supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose

H.R. 7023, the misleadingly named ``Creating Confidence in

Clean Water Permitting Act.'' This bill contains several

misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act,

puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would

jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and

wildlife depend on.

Numerous provisions of H.R. 7023 shield industrial

dischargers that would pollute or destroy our streams, lakes,

wetlands, and other waters from responsibility, thereby

imposing on downstream communities the burden of increased

pollution and flooding, to say nothing of the costs of

remedying those threats. In particular:

Section 2 would give polluters new ways to slow down the

Environmental Protection Agency's process for updating water

quality criteria. Criteria reflect EPA's assessment of the

scientific evidence about how pollutants in our waterways

adversely affect human health and aquatic life, and include

non-binding recommendations for water quality standards that

states can adopt to prevent those harmful effects. By

subjecting EPA's issuance of criteria to additional

administrative processes and opening them up to industry

lawsuits, this bill could delay improved protections

reflective of scientific developments--which is particularly

concerning for emerging contaminants.

Section 3 would authorize EPA to issue ``general'' permits

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

program for industrial and municipal polluters. This new

authority lacks safeguards that Congress included in the

parallel general permitting program for ``dredge and fill''

activities, namely that the activities must have minimal

adverse environmental impacts. It also would greatly limit

EPA's ability to terminate such a permit if the agency

determined it was causing unacceptable harm to the

environment.

Section 4 would make it easier for industrial operations to

dump PFAS, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' and other

emerging contaminants into the nation's waters without

accountability. Specifically, the bill would shield

dischargers from Clean Water Act liability even if they are

aware of certain pollutants in their waste streams but do not

disclose it to pollution control officials who do not have

reason to expect such contaminants.

Section 5 would virtually eliminate EPA's ability to stop

mammoth polluting projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska's

Bristol Bay watershed. This rarely-used authority (invoked

only 14 times in the Act's history) is crucial to prevent the

most egregious projects from destroying precious fisheries,

drinking water supplies, and other resources.

Section 6 would require the Army Corps of Engineers to

permanently retain a fast-track permit for highly destructive

and polluting oil and gas pipelines and greatly weaken the

Corps' nationwide permitting program--a program that is

already far too lax in preventing and mitigating the harm

caused by projects that fill in the nation's waters. The bill

would double the duration of general permits, such that

advancements in best practices for the dozens of activities

covered by such permits would not be required promptly. And

it would excuse the Army Corps of Engineers from considering

the full environmental consequences of permitted activities,

as well as the effects of such activities on endangered

species.

Section 7 would prevent effective judicial review of

projects that fill in and destroy wetlands, streams, and

other waters. The bill would impose an impractically short

statute of limitations on court review of ``dredge and fill''

permits, which would likely force concerned citizens to file

suit on more permits in order to preserve their rights, in

many instances before the impacts of the permitted project

are fully understood. The bill would also severely hamstring

courts' authority to provide a remedy for illegal permits

because permits found unlawful would ordinarily remain in

effect and allow continued harm to water resources while the

Army Corps of Engineers reexamines them.

In contrast to these provisions, polling continues to show

that people actually want stronger federal protections for

our nation's waters. Too many communities, especially

Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low wealth

communities, still lack clean water. Congress should be

focused on putting people before polluters and working to

ensure everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income,

has access to clean water, rather than attempting to

undermine our critical clean water protections.

Again, we urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 7023, an attack on

our clean water safeguards that would endanger the waters our

families and communities depend on and work against the Clean

Water Act's objective ``to restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''

Sincerely,

Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alliance for the Great Lakes;

American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Appalachian Trail

Conservancy; Bayou

City Waterkeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for

Food Safety; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean

Water Action; Clean Wisconsin; Committee on the Middle Fork

Vermiliom River; Community Water Center; Earthjustice;

Environmental Justice Health Alliance; Environment America.

Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Protection

Network; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW);

Freshwater Future; GreenLatinos; Izaak Walton League of

America; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Latino Farmers &

Ranchers International, Inc.; Lawyers for Good Government;

League of Conservation Voters; Maryland Pesticide Education

Network; Massachusetts Pollinator Network; Massachusetts

Rivers Alliance; Mississippi River Collaborative; National

Audubon Society.

National Wildlife Federation; National Resources Defense

Council; New Mexico Wild; Northwest Center for Alternatives

to Pesticides; Ohio River Foundation; People and Pollinators

Action Network; PolicyLink; River Network; Sierra Club;

Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The

Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans; Toxic Free North

Carolina; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; WE

ACT for Environmental Justice; We the People of Detroit.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters expressing opposition to H.R. 7023 and its efforts to reopen Federal protections of pristine salmon habitat within and around Bristol Bay, Alaska, including a letter from the Bristol Bay Defense Fund and the United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

January 30, 2024.

Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation

Hon. Sam Graves,

Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Rick Larsen,

Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

To the Honorable Members of the House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee: On behalf of the Bristol Bay

Defense Fund, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing

Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of

the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict,

deny, or withdraw permits for destructive projects that would

pollute our nation's water resources. These changes to

Section 404(c) are a direct attack on the nation's clean

water, Clean Water Act, and the EPA. While purporting to

streamline the permitting process for development projects,

these changes to Section 404(c) would threaten the very

foundation of environmental protection for our nation's

wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, compromising their

ecological integrity and ultimately impacting water quality,

public health, and economic stability.

The provisions of H.R. 7206, Amendment to H.R. 7023, or any

similar anti-404(c) language would gut the EPA's ability

under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to stop giant

polluting projects that would have an unacceptable adverse

effect on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and

recreational areas like the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol

Bay, Alaska. By limiting the EPA to as little as 30 days to

invoke its 404(c) authority, H.R. 7206 would eliminate any

meaningful opportunity for review by the public (including

the project proponent) and would preclude the EPA from

conducting the type of careful analyses that have supported

previous 404(c) determinations. H.R. 7023 would similarly

eviscerate the EPA's authority.

These anti-404(c) provisions ignore the EPA's rare and

judicious use of Section 404(c), invoked only 14 times in the

Clean Water Act's 52-year history. They represent a blatant

attempt to green light and fast track even the most egregious

projects that would destroy our Nation's water resources.

The Clean Water Act stands as a testament to our Nation's

commitment to protecting our precious water resources.

Weakening Section 404(c) would be a detrimental step

backward, compromising environmental health, public well-

being, and economic stability. We urge you to oppose these

provisions or any similar language that would hobble the

EPA's ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most

devastating projects from destroying our nation's fisheries,

drinking water, and other natural resources.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward

to working with you to safeguard our precious water resources

for the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Bristol Bay Defense Fund.

United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay.

Businesses for Bristol Bay.

SalmonState.

Wild Salmon Center.

Native American Rights Fund.

Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no issue has more support among American families than the protection of our Nation's waters.

Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean water, as recent years have shown major water challenges across the U.S. such as drought in the West, floods in the East, and water contamination in many States.

We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our businesses, and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable supplies of water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our quality-of-life needs, and our day-to-day survival. I have dedicated much of my time in Congress to protecting our critical water supplies and making sure we capture, use, and reuse every available drop of water in our communities, and I do not plan to stop now.

Recent public surveys in the West have found that residents are more concerned than ever about inadequate water supplies. Almost 9 in 10 Westerners say that inadequate water supply is a serious problem in their State.

This is especially true in my home State of California. As the Metropolitan Water District commented to our subcommittee 1 year ago, a strong and clear Clean Water Act is important to the day-to-day operations of water agencies and source water protection efforts.

Congress should be reinstating protections to the Clean Water Act that the Supreme Court removed to continue to protect our streams and wetlands that have been protected since the inception of the act.

Streams, rivers, and wetlands are critical to capturing and storing rain and snowmelt to ensure a long-term supply of water and to recharge our underground aquifers; yet, this bill limits or eliminates protections over waters that provide the source of drinking water to over 117 million Americans.

Yes, there is a cost to protecting our communities, our sources of drinking water, and our environment. However, that cost should be borne by those seeking to pollute our waterways or fill our wetlands for their own personal gain, rather than transferring that cost to Americans or to downstream States.

This bill would increase levels of pollution in our water bodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and increase certainty that communities like mine cannot maintain sustainable sources of drinking water.

Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the pollution caused by others.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 7023, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that nothing in this act affects the existing ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.

Legislation banning the issuing of new drilling permits in the Great Lakes was passed in 2005 with support from both parties.

While legislation before us does undermine Clean Water Act protections, it does not affect the existing ban on drilling in the Great Lakes.

Republicans would like to call this week energy week, so let's look at the state of American energy today. Despite what you hear on the other side of the aisle, we are experiencing a record oil boom in the United States--a record oil boom.

There is no war on oil. The United States is the largest crude oil producer in the world, outpacing Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries.

Last fall, President Biden had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands than the previous President had at the same point in his Presidency.

Through passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden and House Democrats are addressing both the immediate needs for affordable gas prices for consumers as well as the long-term investments in a clean energy future that will also tackle the climate crisis.

Already since the Inflation Reduction Act's passage, 292 major clean energy projects have been announced that would create over 100,000 jobs across the country.

Just like America can dominate both oil production and clean energy deployment, we can promote American energy while also ensuring protection of our environment.

I have no objection to the amendment or its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).

Communities across the Nation have learned firsthand of the human health risks associated with forever chemicals such as PFAS, a pollutant that is found in wastewater of municipal treatment works as well as in industrial discharges.

EPA is actively addressing PFAS concerns both by pushing to identify and limit large-scale industrial discharges of PFAS to treatment systems as well as developing an enforcement discretion policy for municipalities that may simply have PFAS chemicals in their sewage through no fault of their own.

While I share the gentleman's concern about the health risks of PFAS, I would point out that the underlying bill may create greater incentives for discharges to underreport or look the other way when it comes to PFAS discharges.

Since 1994, EPA has had in place a ``permit shield'' policy that provides dischargers with legal protection if they are applied for in good faith, and with honest disclosures of all pollutants potentially contained in the discharge.

However, the underlying bill codifies an expanded version of the permit shield, applicable to any discharger, whether a municipal treatment plant, a mining site, or industrial discharger regardless of whether they have made good-faith disclosures of all pollutants.

EPA has indicated that this expanded permit shield creates a disincentive for permittees to identify pollutants that are part of their waste stream during the development of their permit, including

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).

Mr. Chair, for over 50 years, the Federal-State partnership created by the Clean Water Act has allowed communities to enjoy clean water and has given businesses the certainty they need to create jobs and spur economic growth.

Yet, if this amendment becomes law, both EPA and every State who has taken on responsibility for implementing the Clean Water Act would have to deny clean water permits for any--I underscore any--facility or activity associated with a foreign government of concern.

That means that any U.S. subsidiary of a company with economic ties to China, Russia, or any other foreign country of concern would, by statute, be denied the ability to operate and expand in this country if their activities trigger Clean Water Act review.

I know Representative Moolenaar is concerned about the announced $2.3 billion investment in the State of Michigan that is likely to create an additional 2,350 good-paying jobs, and that Michigan Governor Whitman has called `` . . . the biggest ever economic development project in northern Michigan. . . . ''

However, this amendment is not limited to Michigan. How many other U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will also be caught up in this amendment?

How will the General Electric appliance manufacturing plants in Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina continue to operate if this amendment is adopted? GE Appliances is a subsidiary of a Chinese-owned company.

How will this amendment affect Smithfield Foods' operations in Maryland and Virginia if these facilities are

forever denied clean water permits because of their association with a Chinese owner?

Motorola is one of the world's leading manufacturers of smartphones; however, this Chinese-owned company has numerous offices and manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S., including a new 136,000- square-foot facility in Richardson, Texas.

Will the Moolenaar amendment make it logistically impossible for Motorola to continue to operate in the U.S.?

House Democrats have been leading the charge to ensure that the Clean Water Act continues to accomplish both goals--clean water and job creation.

House Democrats will continue to build a strong record of sustainable job creation and support of domestic manufacturing.

Prohibiting the issuance of Clean Water Act permits for projects that have investment from certain foreign entities is likely to be unimplement able, will increase the potential for litigation and delay, and ultimately only threatens clean water.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Chair, the Clean Water Act was specifically enacted as a Federal-State partnership.

Today, EPA has approved 47 States to implement the point source discharge program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Their status as coregulators makes comprehensive implementation of the programs possible.

However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill materials under section 404 of the act, with only New Jersey and Michigan currently approved to implement this authority.

This amendment is directly related to whether Florida followed the rules in seeking approval of its own section 404 program.

Recently, a Federal district court struck down the previous administration's approval of Florida's 404 permit authority on the grounds that both State and Federal agencies failed to follow the rules in approving the State's program.

I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to manage 404 authority within its border. However, this amendment seeks to legislatively mandate approval of a program, without changes, that was adopted without proper oversight and review.

The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program, but through the proper approval process, and Congress should not mandate a program that has been deemed deficient by the courts.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, House Democrats support including local input in the development of large-scale infrastructure projects directly affecting local communities. During committee consideration of this bill, we opposed attempts to curtail local input.

This amendment is another example of curtailing local input to push through large-scale projects. However, this amendment picks winners and losers for what types of projects get to be jammed through the process.

I proudly supported the investments in our infrastructure and clean energy future contained in the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act last Congress. These critical bills were about creating jobs, advancing infrastructure investments, and accelerating the economy of the future.

House Democrats are committed to improving the quality of life for all Americans by building the economy from the middle out and bottom up. However, this amendment gives a fast lane for Clean Water Act permits to fossil fuel-related linear infrastructure projects.

It purposefully excludes renewable energy projects, including solar and wind, and other clean energy alternatives that benefited from the Inflation Reduction Act. It also excludes efforts to bolster energy reliability and resilience and nationwide efforts to upgrade the Nation's energy grid. I suspect this is why several energy companies, including the American Clean Power Association, Edison Electric, and the Chamber of Commerce are also opposed to this amendment.

Again, I remain concerned that under H.R. 7023, local voices are excluded from the development of linear projects generally. Adding Mr. Graves' amendment, which doubles down on the fast-tracking of fossil fuel-related energy infrastructure, only strengthens my opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1085 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

House Resolution 1085 provides for consideration of six measures: H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, H. Con. Res. 86, H. Res. 987, and H.R. 7023.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1023, the Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1121, the Protecting American Energy Production Act, that being under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6009, the Restoring American Energy Dominance Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 86, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy, that being under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees.

The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 987, denouncing the harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7023, the Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act, under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule makes in order eight amendments.

Mr. Speaker, since President Joe Biden took office, energy costs for Americans have risen by 28.6 percent. On January 20, 2021, a gallon of gasoline was--wait for it--$2.39.

During President Biden's Presidency, the average price has reached a record high of $5 a gallon. This is a direct result of the President's dangerous, extreme, far-left agenda, the Green New Deal agenda that spent trillions of dollars and enacted costly regulations on the American family.

The underlying legislation before us this week will help unlock and unleash American energy independence and block President Biden's war on the American worker and American energy.

For example, H.R. 1023 will eliminate $27 billion of Green New Deal slush funds for coastal elites and Chinese Communists. We know China dominates the extraction, processing, and production of rare earth elements and critical minerals. Solar panels, windmills, and EVs all rely heavily on these materials, which further deepens our dependency on Communist China.

This legislation will also repeal the proposed natural gas tax that will burden so many American energy producers in southwestern Pennsylvania and across this Nation.

In addition, H.R. 1121 will block the President from declaring a moratorium on hydraulic fracking. In 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden expressed his support to ban fracking. The President said: ``We would make sure it is eliminated,'' when asked about the future of coal and fracking. Then, in March 2020, he said: ``No more new fracking.''

That is why, this week, House Republicans will block his ability to ban fracking.

Lastly, H.R. 7023 will build upon the progress under H.R. 1 and the Fiscal Responsibility Act to help reform our permitting process. This bill will streamline the permitting process under the Clean Water Act, instructing the administration to issue guidance that complies with the Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA and protect permit holders from frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear my colleague talk about all the wonderful things that Democrats have done for the oil and gas industry, but it is shocking because Democrats want to ban fracking. Don't believe me. Take their word for it.

Here is Kamala Harris: ``There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking.''

Here is Bernie Sanders: ``The only safe and sane way to move forward is to ban fracking nationwide.'' He then literally introduced a bill banning fracking shortly after that comment.

There is also Pete Buttigieg. He said: ``I favor a ban on new fracking and a rapid end to existing fracking.''

Finally, here is Biden's Department of the Interior Secretary Deb Haaland:

``I am wholeheartedly against fracking and drilling on public lands.''

Those are some of the most influential Democrats in the country, and their goal is simple. They want to ban fracking.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing that the Biden administration's extreme far-left positions on energy hurt the American economy and by extension the American worker and the American family, but the extremism also hurts our allies abroad.

President Biden has clearly weakened our position on the international stage. Shortly after canceling our own Keystone XL pipeline, which, by the way, crushed tens of thousands of union jobs, the Biden administration greenlit Nord Stream 2.

Before the 2022 midterm elections, the Biden administration released roughly 180 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or roughly 40 percent of that Reserve, that included at least 2 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to--are you ready for it?--China.

After pausing new LNG export approvals, the President then waived sanctions on Iranian energy imports into Iraq. I will talk about that momentarily, though.

It is clear from the administration's actions for these far-left extreme positions that President Biden favors Chairman Xi, Vladimir Putin, and the Ayatollah over the American worker.

Now, let's go back and talk about the Iraq-Iran waiver. After pausing the new LNG export approvals, the Biden administration waived sanctions on Iranian energy imports into Iraq. This unlocks $10 billion in frozen funds for the Iranian Government who helped fund the October 7 terrorist attack on our number one ally in the world, Israel.

It is clear to me that the White House's energy platform is the following: Yes to our enemies, no to America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, today, the EPA released their tailpipe rule, which is a de facto ban on gas-powered vehicles.

President Biden is setting performance standards for tailpipe emissions that automakers can only meet by producing EVs. This will do serious damage to the American family and the American worker.

Through a series of rules, the Biden administration is eliminating gas-powered vehicles in less than 10 years. For example, the EPA is set to approve California's outright ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035.

Additionally, the Department of Transportation is proposing CAFE standards that force fleets to switch to EVs.

What does this mean?

For all the talk about building the middle class, this is an attack, a direct attack, on the middle class. Your average EV driver is making well over six figures a year.

Middle-class Americans will struggle to be able to purchase a family car that can't travel long distances, has limited access to reliable fuel sources, and has components that are predominantly sourced from China.

So there are the Democrats' priorities: harming the middle class while benefiting China.

Also, if you think that it is cute to talk about so-called reliable energy sources, do some research and look at the power grid in Texas. Tell me how well that worked out.

But under President Donald Trump's leadership as opposed to Joe Biden's extreme far-left leadership and agenda, under President Trump's leadership, our Nation actually became energy independent. This was thanks to the progrowth, projob, pro-American energy policies that facilitated an energy renaissance and lowered energy costs for hardworking American families.

Just in my home State of Pennsylvania, we are second in the Nation for natural gas production. The industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Commonwealth, including roughly 130,000 union jobs that the Democrats falsely claim to care about.

Our Commonwealth has such an abundance of natural resources that we lead the Nation in electricity exports to other States.

Last year, Pennsylvania's impact fee revenue reached an historic level at $278.9 million, which helps to alleviate tax burdens on our local communities.

When the Biden administration bends the knee to the climate change mob by stopping new LNG export approvals, by taxing natural gas production, by proposing bans on fracking, and placing a de facto ban on gas-powered vehicles, what are they doing?

These actions are hurting American families and American workers, and

local communities are being harmed in States like Pennsylvania.

That is why we must pass this underlying legislation, which will strengthen our position on the international stage and when the final votes are tallied this week, you are going to see on display the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans.

If you stand with the American worker, the American family, and the American job creator, vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

If you support energy resources from Chairman Xi, Vladimir Putin, and the Ayatollah, then vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.

The choice couldn't be any clearer, and you will see the stark difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a partisan package of pro-polluter energy and environmental bills. Half of these bills have already been considered by the House last year, and the other half are toothless resolutions simply declaring a sense of Congress, albeit a partisan sense of Congress. A package like this is what we have come to expect from this Republican majority in the House.

In the 118th Congress, Republicans can rarely find agreement with each other, let alone negotiate bipartisan legislation capable of being passed by both Houses and signed into law by the President. Therefore, what we get week in and week out are old bills chopped up and repackaged to give Republicans something to talk about for the week while we all wait for the next budget crisis deadline.

Republicans have run the House for the past 15 months and have used that precious time not to lead but to pick fights and air grievances. As my Republican colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas, keeps reminding us, House Republicans have nothing to show for their majority. They haven't done anything to address the most important issues confronting America.

Let's look at the record of this feckless Republican majority thus far.

House Republicans spent a month fighting with each other to pick a Speaker, only to kick out Kevin McCarthy a few months later and spend another month selecting the current Speaker.

House Republicans brought the country to the brink of fiscal calamity to extort a budget deal that they then failed to honor.

House Republicans walked out of a bipartisan deal to overhaul the immigration system after claiming it was their number one priority.

House Republicans are blocking bipartisan legislation to provide military aid to Ukraine and our allies.

Also, House Republicans are blocking a funding package for increased border security.

Although we hope to finish the 2024 budget this week, it is already 6 months late.

All of which is to say, this majority has done nothing. My Republican colleagues have squandered their majority. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have squandered the country's time and taxpayer dollars and have nothing to show for it.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation in this rule, if enacted, would be disastrous for our environment and would set back much of the progress we have made to tackle the climate crisis.

Legislation in this rule would make it easier for companies to pollute our water. These bills roll back important Clean Water Act provisions that prevent companies from dumping waste and harmful chemicals into our public waterways.

This rule would also make it easier for oil and gas companies to avoid responsibility for cleaning up drilling sites after finishing production. The rule would block efforts by the Biden administration to make Big Oil companies pay their fair share to remediate the environmental damage they have caused.

The rule would cut billions of dollars in funding to help communities like mine mitigate the harmful effects of air pollution. Time and again, we see that the Republican energy agenda means putting polluters and their profits over regular people.

Bills like this make my colleagues wonder just who exactly House Republicans represent. The vast majority of Americans support making energy and mining companies financially responsible for site cleanup. The vast majority of Americans want clean air and clean water. They want to protect their health, and they want their kids to have a healthy future.

Yet, these partisan Republican policies would mean more pollution in our communities so that Exxon and Chevron can boost their stock prices. That doesn't seem like a fair trade for the American people. We need to solve the climate crisis, not enable it. We need to put people over profits and polluters.

Congressional Democrats and President Biden are united behind that goal. In stark contrast to our Republican colleagues, Democrats have passed landmark legislation to combat the climate crisis, grow domestic energy production, and bring our energy infrastructure into the 21st century.

Democrats passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Combined, these bills used tax credits, lending programs, and public-private partnerships to invest billions of dollars in electric vehicles, renewables, energy production, and improvements to the electric grid.

This investment is growing our economy, creating good-paying jobs in green manufacturing, and helping to lay the foundation for the mass adoption of renewable energy sources. Already, the Inflation Reduction Act has created over 170,000 jobs, and it is projected to create more than 1.5 million jobs over the next 10 years.

The Inflation Reduction Act puts America on pace to cut our carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030 so that we can meet our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The Inflation Reduction Act also caps abandoned oil wells, cleans up Superfund sites, and provides funding to communities to mitigate the effects of industrial pollution.

In the long run, the Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill will save American families up to $38 billion on electricity bills, reduce industrial and manufacturing emissions, double the share of American electricity generated by renewables, and accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles.

That is what a real energy agenda looks like. It is not grandstanding, and it is not handouts to oil and gas companies.

The Democrats' energy initiatives and agenda have been wildly successful. Right now, the United States is the number one energy producer in the world. We produce more energy from both renewables and fossil fuels than any other country. This is directly translated into lower energy prices for Americans, more jobs, and higher economic growth, and it has allowed us to provide natural gas to our allies in Europe who have been squeezed by a belligerent Russia.

Under President Biden's leadership, the United States is more energy independent today than at any time in our history. This is an amazing achievement and one that should be celebrated by this Chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, we keep being presented by a false choice here--a choice between being environmentally responsible and having economic opportunity, and that is just not true. We can do both.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from nearly 50 organizations in opposition to H.R. 7023.

They write, ``This bill contains several misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act, puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and wildlife depend on.''

H.R. 7023 is clearly not the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter signed by over 50 conservation, climate, and public lands organizations strongly opposing H.R. 6009.

This letter reads, in part, ``This legislation circumvents and undermines the administrative process, ignores significant public input across the West, and halts a long-overdue update to the Federal onshore oil and gas leasing program that protects taxpayers, public lands, and the wildlife and communities who rely on them.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the National Parks Conservation Association strongly opposing H.R. 6009.

Mr. Speaker, this letter reads, in part, ``The current leasing system and onshore oil and gas program is antiquated and does not offer proper oversight or ensure protections and fair returns to American taxpayers. Passing this legislation would leave BLM unable to properly oversee this program and could cause unnecessary harm to our special places.''

Finally, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Forbes article

entitled: ``U.S. Energy Independence Soars to Highest Level in Over 70 Years.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit difficult to believe these crocodile tears for our allies when the House Republicans are holding up the National Security Supplemental, which passed weeks ago in the Senate by a 70-30 vote, it is broadly bipartisan legislation that our allies deserve an up-or-down vote on, and we should see that on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to energy, House Republicans are also presenting us with a false choice. They would have us believe that renewable energy and energy independence are at odds. They want us to think that sustainability and a strong economy are a tradeoff. It is simply not true, and we cannot afford to make this false choice.

As we have seen with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, we can have it both ways. We can lower emissions while creating jobs and growing the economy. We can make the transition to solar and wind without displacing businesses or workers.

The Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill demonstrate that not only does a green transition come hand in hand with economic growth, but also that that growth can be spurred from the middle out and the bottom up.

All over the country, new manufacturing facilities for batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles are being built. These factories are offering long-term, good-paying jobs that will drive economic development for years to come. It is an American manufacturing renaissance that has been made possible by legislation passed by Democrats and President Biden.

It is a testament to what is possible when legislators roll up their sleeves and solve problems as opposed to playing to their most extreme Members. That is what real leadership looks like.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer for working on this legislation.

Mr. Chair, the reality is that America has been wrapped in a bureaucratic morass. We have been wrapped in red tape. It is impossible to do things like build roads. It is impossible to deploy things like transmission that are critical to help to renew and update the electrical grid. This is because of what we have seen as an extreme agenda out of this White House.

Just yesterday we talked about the fact that the average American family is now spending an additional $1,000 a month just complying with rules and regulations out of this administration.

Mr. Chair, I remind you, this is the administration that said they would

not impose additional costs upon any family making less than $400,000 a year. That is exactly what their agenda is doing, whether it is blocking energy production and driving up energy costs or whether it is the shrinkflation you have seen with smaller products at the grocery store or higher utility bills. Every American family is facing this new hidden tax.

What Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer have done is they have brought together a bill that brings common sense to the Clean Water Act process.

I represent south Louisiana. We live at the bottom of one of the largest watersheds in the world and certainly the largest watershed in the United States. We go from Montana to New York to Canada and drain all of this area. Everybody's discharge, everybody's runoff, comes to our State.

Do you really think I would have an interest in dirtier water being at the bottom of the watershed, being in the area that has the greatest commercial fisheries in the continental United States and one of the biggest recreational fishing destinations in this country?

No, it doesn't make any sense.

What this legislation does is help to streamline the process. I thank the chairman for working with us to include a provision that codifies the general NPDES permits that would simply require notice if the general permit is not going to be revised. It simply lets the applicant know or the existing permit holder know if it is not going to be reissued or renewed. This is another one that helps to improve the legal process.

Mr. Chairman, I actually met with John Kerry and Brian Deese, White House officials under the Biden administration who have both left now, but who brought up to me, while they were working for the White House, they said that we have got to fix this judicial review thing. This bill does it.

What it does is something very simple that applies common sense to the situation. It says that it is fine, you can file a lawsuit if you have a problem with the decision that was made. However, first you have to try to participate and resolve your issue in the public comment process, in the public participation process, rather than waiting for the record of decision, by standing out there on the outside filing a lawsuit just as a delay tactic. These are not helpful tactics. On the contrary, these are malicious tactics. I appreciate the inclusion of that because that moves it in the right direction.

Look, in closing, Mr. Chairman, this entire bill builds upon the incredible work that was done in the revisions or the improvements in the modernization of the National Environmental Policy Act that President Biden signed into law back in June that simply tries to ensure that we shrink the amount of time and that we shrink the scope of work that is done in looking at environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.

All of this bureaucratic morass, all of this additional cost that is being heaped upon American families, all it is doing is slowing down our economy and giving strategic advantage to countries like China, which is not in our interest.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this legislation.

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

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

First of all, Mr. Chairman, after listening to the gentleman from Florida, I would like a double dose of whatever he is taking.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, what our amendment does is, it addresses something that I think both Conservatives and Liberals should be excited about. Let me explain.

Under the Inflation Reduction Act, this large, incredibly expensive energy bill, the Congressional Budget Office did an estimate to determine the total amount of subsidies that this legislation would cost the American taxpayers.

Then you have had folks like Goldman Sachs that have come in and done evaluations and determined that that assessment was likely off by a factor of three or even four. Let me say that again. The estimate was off by a factor of three or even four.

What the base text of this legislation does is it provides for an expedited processing or environmental review of Clean Water Act requirements. Our amendment simply says, once you hit that cap of how much the Congressional Budget Office said this bill was going to cost, said the Inflation Reduction Act was going to cost, you no longer get the expedited process strictly for linear infrastructure projects; otherwise, projects like transmission.

If you are a Conservative, you should be supportive because you are simply capping the cost of this project at what the Congressional Budget Office said. If you are a Liberal, you should be supporting this. You are beating up on the bill right now. This caps or stops the effect of that bill, the expedited process, once you hit the cap that you all thought you were voting for.

Mr. Chair, this should be a win-win. This should have bipartisan support. I think that this is an appropriate amendment. I think the amendment ensures that congressional intent is preserved by limiting the cost of these incredibly expensive subsidies at the rate that Members of Congress who supported this legislation believed they were spending.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentlewoman's response, and I guess I am confused. First of all, this amendment does absolutely nothing to affect public participation. It does nothing. It does nothing to affect local input.

This amendment does apply to linear infrastructure, as she noted, things like transmission, but I remind my friend across the aisle, the gentlewoman from California, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The gentlewoman can't be opposed to the bill, opposed to the underlying bill, and then when this amendment actually stops the expedited authority under this legislation from applying to projects also say that she opposes that.

Does the gentlewoman support the expedited process or does she not? I am very baffled by the comments. Either you oppose the underlying bill or you support the underlying bill. I have heard the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) both express opposition to the underlying bill.

Let me say it again: What this amendment does, it says that this expedited authority only for linear transmission projects, linear infrastructure projects, it no longer applies once you hit the financial cap that was estimated, the financial score that was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

I would think that my friend from California would actually be supportive of this legislation, of this amendment if she is opposed to the underlying bill. It caps, it curtails the use of this expedited authority that I believe Mr. Huffman indicated he believed would result in trashing the environment.

Let me say it again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should support this amendment because it stops this runaway, excessive subsidy for technologies that have been around for 40, 50 years. It stops the expedited authority for those type of projects. Why we are subsidizing technologies that have been around for 40 or 50 years, I do not understand. Other countries don't in many cases.

Secondly, if you are a Liberal, if you are out there saying that this bill is extreme, you should support this amendment because it no longer allows for the expedited authority once you hit the financial cap.

I ask my friends across the aisle: Do you want to have your cake or do you want to eat it because you only get one choice?

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I don't think I have ever heard so much nonsense in such a short period of time.

As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7023, the Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act, of which I am a sponsor.

In the five decades since its enactment, the Clean Water Act has helped improve the quality of water bodies throughout this country. H.R. 7023 is focused on improving sections 402 and 404 permitting processes under the Clean Water Act. The keyword here is ``improve,'' not remove, not eliminate, not undermine, but improve.

Improving permitting under the Clean Water Act has been a priority of mine as chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. I have heard over the course of a number of hearings about the successes and challenges of the Clean Water Act. Throughout these conversations, one theme has become clear: Years of weaponization of this law by various administrations and radical activists are hurting our economy without providing any meaningful environmental benefit.

Today, we have heard our colleagues from across the aisle say this legislation will gut the Clean Water Act by rolling back critical water protections, but the fact of the matter is that is just not so. This bill does not modify the scope of the Clean Water Act, nor does it change the current permitting requirements. Let me say that again. It does not change current permitting requirements. It simply closes loopholes to prevent the continued weaponization of the permitting process, all of which has nothing to do with water quality.

I firmly believe that regulations should be easy to understand and easy to follow, which has the added benefit, by the way, of making them easier to enforce. Our competitors across the globe often disregard any kind of regulatory structure or permitting. When they want to do something, when they want to build a canal, they just go do it.

We are better than that. We believe in environmental protection. However, this does not mean we should be forced to wait years to build a manufacturing plant, new infrastructure, or energy projects due to weaponization of the regulatory process. Such delays only give our international competitors a distinct advantage and harm our country's economy as well as our energy security, which also, by the way, directly affects our national security.

Mr. Chair, it is simple: Clear processes lead to good decisionmaking and more consistent outcomes. H.R. 7023 helps achieve that.

For example, this bill better ensures that section 402 NPDES permits are straightforward and developed in a more transparent way, from the data used to develop the permit to language

that is used within the permit. Currently, the EPA develops water quality standards through their own internal processes, routinely dismissing comments from outside stakeholders. This legislation would require the EPA to bring interested parties to the table when crafting water quality standards. It would also require NPDES permit writers to use clearer, more specific language when developing a permit and provide a liability shield for good faith actors who are adhering to their permit terms.

For section 404 dredge and fill permits, this legislation creates more consistency and provides more legal clarity. For example, it clarifies the EPA can only veto a permit when a 404 application is active, not before an application has been filed or after a permit has been issued. It also codifies many longstanding practices for the application of nationwide permits by the Corps and creates clearer standards for judicial review to protect against frivolous lawsuits.

Section 404 permits, particularly nationwide permits, are often targeted by radical environmentalists and get bogged down by litigation. This legislation helps to protect against these kinds of frivolous lawsuits.

Additionally, this bill requires the EPA and the Corps to, at long last, issue and make public post-Sackett decision implementation guidance for the definition of waters of the United States, WOTUS, so that we can finally get jurisdictional determinations moving and projects done.

This bill enjoys support from a wide range of stakeholders and constituencies, from water utilities to energy groups to farmers to Main Street businesses. This legislation will enable the law to be executed and enforced more effectively, save taxpayers money, and provide more consistency for permit holders, seekers, and writers.

I will also note this bill is a team effort representing the input of several of my T&I colleagues. In particular, I thank Congressmen Owens, Stauber, Duarte, Burlison, and Garret Graves, all of whom have contributed provisions to this package.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides energy predictability and certainty that our utilities, energy, manufacturing, and agricultural industries need to succeed, which are so critical to American greatness in energy, food production, and the manufacturing necessary to improve the standard of living of every American.

That is what this is about, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, although I claimed the time in opposition, I did, of course, note that I am not opposed. I support this amendment offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi) as it furthers the purpose of the underlying legislation by offering more flexibility and regulatory certainty to permit holders.

This amendment will provide publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities with the ability to have their permits under section 402 of the Clean Water Act issued for 10 years, up from the current 5 years.

In doing so, the amendment will reduce administrative strains and bureaucracy, while giving communities more flexibility to take on important wastewater infrastructure projects with certainty.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would help provide Congress with useful information on the staffing needs for processing Clean Water Act permits.

Ensuring the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have the necessary resources to issue permits combined with the commonsense permitting reforms included in the underlying legislation will benefit energy and other infrastructure projects in communities across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.