Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, in about 3 weeks I will mark the anniversary of my first year in Congress. I ran for Congress because I thought I could make a difference. I was concerned about the direction this country was headed and, like many of my colleagues, we thought we could make a difference, and we are making a difference. But we are frustrated because still, almost a year later, the economy is still in stagnation and many American families are suffering.

The way we fix the economy, in my opinion, is we've got to restore confidence; and the way we do that is we energize the American people. We reinsert American innovation, entrepreneurship, and the American spirit.

There's four key areas I think to restore that confidence. One is we've got to cut this deficit spending. We've got to get our spending under control. We passed a budget here in the House that cut almost $6 trillion over 10 years.

Unfortunately, the United States Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 900-plus days. That's not the way to get our fiscal house in order.

Additionally, when we passed our budget, we also put Medicare on a firm reform plan so it's here for the future.

Number two, we need to have commonsense regulatory reform. Right now, in our $15 trillion economy, it's been reported that regulations are costing our economy $1.75 trillion annually. The Obama administration, by their own admission, has over 200 new regulations in the pipeline that will cost over $100 billion annually, and that's by their own admission, so I hate to think how much more it could be.

This week, hopefully, we're going to pass a regulatory reform bill called the REINS Act, whereby any new proposal that's going to cost our economy over $100 million by a Federal agency would have to come back for an up-down vote by the United States Congress. I think that puts accountability on our Federal agencies.

Number three, we need to pass some tax reform. Unfortunately, in 12\1/2\ months we're going to see the largest--under current law--the largest tax increase in American history. That is not the proper way to go. That puts a cloud over the certainty and providing confidence for our businesses to want to grow their businesses knowing that they're looking at the largest tax increase in American history.

Fourth, we need an energy policy that encourages the development of resources here in our country. We're exporting almost $1 trillion a year and many, many jobs overseas for energy. We don't need to be doing that.

We've passed, on a bipartisan basis, our jobs plan. We currently have 25 bills that we've passed on a bipartisan basis that would restore confidence and get this economy moving in the regulatory reform areas and the budget.

I want to highlight the one at the top of the list, H.R. 872. That's a bill that I brought to this floor in March that passed by a bipartisan supermajority, nearly 300 votes. The thing that I don't understand that's very frustrating to me, that bill, as with the other 24 bills, have gone over to the United States Senate and they're stacking up like cord wood. They haven't been acted on.

I think the American people deserve to have a full, open debate on the floor of the United States Senate on these bills and vote on them. They deserve that. And that's our jobs plan. And it's a jobs plan that moves us forward.

I cannot implore enough that we need to have action on these bills that will restore confidence and grow our economy. The future of our kids, the future of our country, our national security is at stake; and we must pass the jobs plan.

Spending more money and growing government is not the answer. The answer is commonsense regulatory reform, tax reform, balanced budget, and an energy policy that develops and creates jobs here in America and moves us towards national security and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Balanced Budget Caucus, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment we are going to take up on the House floor today.

I've heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this is not the time to take this up, but now is exactly the time we should be taking this up.

In 1995, a balanced budget amendment passed the House with bipartisan support, only to lose by one vote in the United States Senate. Then, the national debt was $4.8 trillion. This week, the national debt hit $15 trillion. We have added $10 trillion to our debt in 16 years. That is $10 trillion in debt that threatens our job growth, our national security and our sovereignty, and our Nation's children. And that's $10 trillion in debt that could have been avoided had the balanced budget amendment passed.

We simply must stop spending money we don't have if we are going to give our economy a chance to grow and create jobs. Past attempts like Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act, and Pay-As- You-Go requirements have failed to bring Federal spending under control. America needs a permanent, long-term solution. We must hold Congress' feet to the fire and pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment today.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011 and, in particular, title VII of the bill, the Commercial Vessels Discharge Reform Act of 2011.

Ballast water, while a necessity to maintain the stability of large vessels during water-borne navigation, has always been recognized as one of the ways invasive aquatic nuisance species are transported globally and introduced into coastal waters where they did not live before. Numerous invasive species have been introduced in U.S. waters through ballast water discharges. One of the most well-known is the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes, which has caused millions of dollars in damage in infrastructure.

Current efforts to reduce the risk of invasive species being introduced through ballast water discharges are haphazard, contradictory, and ineffective. The management of ballast water currently is governed differently by the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as an assortment of international, State, and territorial regulations.

As a result, vessels engaged in interstate and international commerce are required to meet several different standards for the management of ballast water, some of which are not technologically achievable or verifiable. Complying with this patchwork of regulations is burdensome and unacceptable. Commercial shippers are at the heart of our Nation's interstate and foreign commerce.

As we all know, interstate and foreign commerce involving navigation is the heart of the Federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause of the Constitution. If we subject vessels visiting ports in more than one State to different permit requirements in each State that they visit, they will be forced to either violate State laws or cease making port calls in those States with requirements that are inconsistent with the technology that the vessel has installed in response to an earlier enacted regulation from another State.

Vessels involved in interstate and foreign commerce are mobile and cannot be expected to comply with potentially scores of inconsistent State requirements as they navigate from one jurisdiction to the next. These inconsistent State requirements will impose serious economic burdens on interstate and foreign commerce. There simply is no reason to interfere with interstate and foreign commerce in such ways, particularly in more sensible, uniform, and environmentally protective approaches available under this bill.

Title VII of H.R. 2838 aims to address both the needs for standards to reduce the risk of introducing invasive species in our Nation's waters through discharges of ballast water, and the need for vessels that navigate from one jurisdiction to another to have a uniform set of requirements to comply with.

The bill establishes a commonsense approach for regulating ballast water, which will protect the environment, grow maritime jobs, and promote the flow of maritime commerce.

I urge passage of H.R. 2838.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Cut, Cap, and Balance. Out-of-control spending by the Federal Government has driven our country to the brink of financial meltdown.

Our Nation's debt crisis was easily predictable. In recent years, America has watched as the size of the Federal Government has ballooned and deficit spending has reached dangerous levels. Yet despite the warning, Congress stuck with business as usual--more spending, more regulations, and bigger government. It's time to put an end to business as usual for the good of the country. Our country needs it, the American people demand it, and the future of our grandchildren depends on it.

This legislation puts us on the path of fiscal responsibility, brings certainty, and restores private sector confidence. The naysayers say we can't do this. They argue for tax increases on our job creators. This measure will unleash the private sector and result in more revenues to ensure strength in Social Security, Medicare, and other needed programs.

Just raising the debt ceiling without spending cut reforms according to Moody's and Standards & Poor's will probably lead to a downgrade of U.S. paper and a downhill spiral, higher interest rates, higher taxes, and less opportunities. I urge the support of this and to cut spending now instead of 6 to 10 years from now.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gosar-Gibbs-Altmire amendment, to prohibit funding the Secretary of the Army to enforce a regulation that prohibits firearm possession in compliance with State law on Corps projects and lands.

Earlier this year, Representative Altmire from Pennsylvania, Representative Gosar from Arizona, and myself introduced H.R. 1865, a stand-alone bill that would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulation that keeps an individual from possessing firearms on Army Corps of Engineer water or resource development projects.

Gun owners need to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights when they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on Army Corps property. Last Congress, this House passed national parks language that became law to allow for guns on national parks land; and the Army Corps of Engineers immediately issued the following release: ``Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or facilities. The passage of this new law does not affect application of title 36 regulations.'' This policy preempts State regulatory framework from transporting and carrying firearms, thus invalidating concealed weapon permits and other State laws that allow law-abiding citizens to transport and carry firearms.

This amendment is a bipartisan effort that would put a temporary fix to end the patchwork of regulations that govern different lands managed by different Federal agencies.

I urge all Members to support the Gosar-Gibbs-Altmire amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2018 and to also include extraneous materials and letters of support into the Congressional Record.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I yield back 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 yield back the balance of my time.

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.

I continue to 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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen time and time again, this motion is nothing more than a partisan political move.

There has been ample time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to suggest amendments to this bill in regular order. As we've been doing all year, our Republican majority is openly considering bills through the committee process and full consideration by the House. This bill is no exception. And yet here we have a last-minute motion that is designed to ensure that 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 motion, in effect, says that the underlying bill will not apply virtually anywhere the Clean Water Act applies. Implicitly, this motion 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.

The fact is that our bill is the result of bipartisan work that will protect against unwarranted intrusions by the U.S. EPA. It ensures the continuation of longstanding cooperation between the Federal Government and the States to appropriately issue regulations. Passage of the underlying bill will stop the EPA from repeatedly creating regulatory uncertainty and forcing unnecessary and endless delays, and the time to act is now.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 872) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 872.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011.

I recently introduced H.R. 872 to clarify congressional intent regarding how the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should be regulated. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, also known as FIFRA, has long been the Federal regulatory statute that governs the sale and use of pesticides in the United States. However, more recently, as a result of a number of lawsuits, the Clean Water Act has been added as a new and redundant layer of Federal regulation over the use of pesticides. As a result, an additional set of permits will be required for the use of pesticides.

H.R. 872 is aimed at reversing a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in National Cotton Council vs. EPA. In this ruling, the Sixth Circuit substituted judge-made policy choices for reasonable agency interpretations of the law. In the process, the court undermined the traditional understanding of how the Clean Water Act interacts with other environmental statutes, and it judicially expanded the scope of Clean Water Act regulation further into areas and activities not originally envisioned or intended by Congress.

EPA has estimated that approximately 365,000 pesticide users, including State agencies, cities, counties, mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and even everyday citizens who perform some 5.6 million pesticide applications annually, will be affected by the court's ruling. This will virtually double the number of entities currently subject to NPDES permitting under the Clean Water Act.

With this ill-advised court decision, the States and a wide range of public and private pesticide users will face increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting process, and all of this expense comes with no additional environmental protection.

This new permitting process was meant to take effect on April 9 of this year. However, just 2 days ago, the Sixth Circuit granted an extension through October 31, 2011. The court's extension only temporarily postpones the need for an NPDES permit for pesticide use, and does not completely eliminate the need for this legislation.

H.R. 872 fixes the problem. It exempts from the NPDES permitting process a discharge to waters involving the application of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, where the pesticide is used for its intended purpose and where the use is in compliance with FIFRA pesticide label requirements.

H.R. 872 was drafted very narrowly to address the Sixth Circuit's holding the National Cotton Council case and return the state of pesticide regulation to the status quo before the court got involved. This bill passed unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee and passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 46-8.

Many organizations, representing a wide variety of public and private entities, support a legislative resolution of this issue. Just to name a few, these organizations include:

The National Association of Counties; the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; the National Water Resources Association; the American Mosquito Control Association; the American Farm Bureau Federation; the National Farmers Union; CropLife America; and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague Chairman Schmidt for her leadership on this bill in both the Agriculture and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committees.

I also want to thank the ranking members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and

of Transportation and Infrastructure for their support of the bill.

In addition, I want to thank Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for their leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson of the Agriculture Committee for their leadership.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 872.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the concerns raised by my colleague, the ranking member of my committee. Sunset provision, it's not really necessary because this Congress can take it up anytime they want. They don't have to wait 5 years. They can take it up next week, next year. So I think that's just making a kind of a statement.

A couple of things I want to address. There was a reference to the geological survey. That reference was a report done over 10 years ago; and, really, with the detections we're finding in pesticides in our water bodies there are a lot of those pollutants from what we call legacy pollutants from years ago. Some of those detections are pesticides that haven't been used in the United States for many years. And, also, a majority of these detections are very, very low concentrations. We do have the technology to detect parts per trillion where not too many years it was parts per million, which are well below human health benchmarks.

As I said, the data is old. EPA, in the last 10 years or so, does regulate the pesticides. They certify pesticides coming on the market and the amounts that can be used under FIFRA. So that is working. The EPA can pull a product off the market if they deem necessary, if there's a problem.

The pesticides we're using today, and I'm speaking now as a farmer, are more biodegradable. They don't have the residue impact legacy. They don't stay around. They don't stick around in the soil. They break down in the soil. As a matter of fact, so many of our pesticides now break down so fast that farmers have to time the application to make sure they kill the weeds and there's enough--it's not too soon that the crop, what we call cover crop, shades out the sun for the weeds to come up underneath the canopy. And so that's important.

We're using less pesticides. The numbers will show that American agriculture is using less pesticides in lesser amounts and safer pesticides with the biodegradable aspect that we're seeing.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that this bill, it will help bring certainty. Agriculture producers, municipalities have to spray for mosquitos this summer; they know what the rules are. They have certainty to move forward by passing this legislation.

This legislation does not stop the EPA's having control over the regulation of pesticides and the certification of pesticides. And, again, many States also have pesticide applicator certification, depending on the pesticide, make a lot of applicators go through the same process. So there's some stringent rules and regulations in place.

And I would contend that FIFRA is working. If it's not, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel that's not working, then we need to address FIFRA and have a bill to work on that, debate that issue.

But I think you'll find out that agriculture's moving in a safer manner to protect the environment; and this bill will keep the FIFRA in place and the EPA under their authority and their control to protect the environment and public safety when it comes especially to mosquito control districts.

I urge passage of 872, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with many of my newly elected colleagues, as one of the Members that came to Washington to stop the ``red tape'' factory of regulations and help businesses get back to creating jobs.

In every community I visit in my district, I have met a business owner who is fed up with spending tremendous amounts of money to comply with unlimited, burdensome regulation--or have invested dollars that are tied up for months or even years waiting for Federal agencies to make the decisions held up by regulations and also the permitting process. This is what I came to Congress to stop. These rulemakings create uncertainty and costs, as the details of the regulations take extensive periods of time to finalize. At a time when job creation is paramount to economic recovery, businesses are being forced to postpone decisions on hiring and expansion.

A prime example of these harmful regulations is a company in my district that asked the EPA in 2001 to make changes to the Land Disposal Restrictions to ensure proper treatment and promote recycling. EPA decided to take a different track on their request, and 10 years later that company is still waiting for an answer--10 years later. This has to stop.

Another example, EPA has overextended its authority over 404 permits by allowing a permit to be issued, then years later, retroactively vetoing the exact same permit. By doing so, it not only leaves the business questioning the worth of the permit, it leaves investors wondering if they can commit funding to a project without fear of the EPA arbitrarily revoking the permit. EPA has fundamentally changed the term from ``permit'' to ``perhaps.'' This has to stop.

We need to hold our regulators accountable and make sure they are carrying out the intent of the law, not enhancing their own agenda or stifling economic and job recovery.

Section 3: ``New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.''