Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, on Roll Call No. 384, I mistakenly voted Noe when I intended to vote Aye.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Boebert

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8812, the Water Resources Development Act of 2024, referred to in short as

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to manage the remainder of the time for the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I emphasize again the importance of this WRDA 2024 bill, which delivers improvements to flood control, infrastructure, ports and harbors, and inland waterways across the country.

As I mentioned earlier, this legislation was developed based on input from nearly 350 Members of this body on Army Corps projects, programs, and policies that are important to their constituencies. As a result, this bill not only authorizes locally supported water resource projects and studies to evaluate future projects, but it also provides the Corps and local project sponsors the tools to more effectively and efficiently complete those projects, saving both time and money.

Importantly, this bill will increase American competitiveness and strengthen our supply chains. I can't overstate how important that is.

As my colleagues know, these bills could not be done without the hard work and countless hours our staff put into this process. They had their work cut out for them with this bill, with more than 1,900 requests that were made and sorted through.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee staff, Ryan Hambleton, Tim Petty, Lydia Denis, Adele Braun, Corey Kuipers, and Jacob Pratt.

I also thank the full committee staff, Jack Ruddy, Abigail Wenk, Meghan Holland, Tyler Sanderson, Chris Devine, Leslie Parker, Justin Harclerode, Kerry Goldberg, Payton Palazzolo, Tyler Micheletti, Brianna Garcia, and Rachel Sakrisson, and I thank the minority staff, led by Kathy Dedrick and Ryan Seiger. They all did a tremendous job.

Finally, I thank my colleagues here today on the committee and in this Chamber for their participation and work to develop this very important and crucial bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 8812, what we know as WRDA 2024, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 1932, North Carolina will receive a new statue representing our State in the U.S. Capitol tomorrow.

The late Reverend Billy Graham, Jr., was a very cherished Christian leader and an exemplary North Carolinian. I am proud to welcome him into the U.S. Capitol's National Statuary Hall Collection.

Born on a dairy farm in Charlotte, North Carolina, Reverend Graham came from humble beginnings. He grew up learning the value of hard work and developed an unwavering commitment to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Through his ministry, he would go on to reach more than 200 million people in 185 countries, and many of those who heard his message accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. I have no doubt he led millions to Christ, securing their salvation.

Known as America's pastor, he is one of the few private citizens to receive three of the highest honors that are bestowed by Congress: the Congressional Gold Medal in 1996, lying in honor in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in 2018, and now a statue placed in the U.S. Capitol Building.

Created by Charlotte-based artist Chas Fagan, the statue depicts Reverend Graham pointing to an open Bible. Inscribed on the pedestal of the 7-foot statue will be the verse so foundational, John 3:16. This well-known Scripture tells us: ``For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.''

At a time when America could use a spiritual revival like never before, how refreshing and great it is that we are enshrining this verse and Reverend Graham's legacy of faith within the Halls of Congress.

As noted in his 2011 book, ``Nearing Home,'' Billy Graham wrote: ``The greatest legacy you can pass on to your children and grandchildren is not your money or the other material things you have accumulated in life. The greatest legacy you can pass on to them is the legacy of your character and your faith. . . . Why is faith our greatest legacy? Because the memory of what we were like--not just our personalities but our character and our faith--has the potential to influence others for Christ.''

Mr. Speaker, Reverend Graham dedicated his life to proclaiming the Gospel throughout the world and, I might add, in places and countries that were and in many that still are hostile to Christianity. I am proud that countless visitors and lawmakers will now be able to honor his legacy and message for generations to come in the U.S. Capitol.

Magic of the Pack

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight, honor, and celebrate the NC State University men's and women's basketball teams. Both reached the Final Four of their respective NCAA Division 1 basketball tournaments this past month of April, registering a historic achievement that few schools have ever achieved.

The NC State women's team led by Coach Wes Moore displayed strength all year with a 31-7 overall record, including 9 wins over AP Top 25 teams while earning their first Final Four appearance since 1998. They had statement wins in the tournament against Chattanooga, Tennessee, Stanford, and Texas. Junior guard, Aziaha James, was the leader of the Pack with blistering accuracy from three-point range.

Not to be outdone, the men's basketball team won the school's 11th ACC Tournament championship. The Wolfpack, led by Coach Kevin Keatts clenched an 84-76 victory against incredibly talented UNC-Chapel Hill, becoming the first ACC team to win 5 games in 5 days, securing their spot in the NCAA Tournament, and launching them to their first Final Four appearance since the magical championship run of the 1983 NC State team.

This team's collective skill, dedication to each other, and the team chemistry they solidified in the ACC Tournament enabled the Wolfpack to keep advancing, reeling off wins against Texas Tech, Oakland, Marquette, and Duke. With each round of the NCAA Tournament, the Wolfpack continued to excel and win.

As an NC State alumnus, it is with great pride that I join so many in celebrating these two teams and their accomplishments. Only a select few universities can say that both of their basketball teams made the Final Four in their respective tournaments in the same year. Both teams, as well as the individual players, will be long remembered. Their legacy is now etched in NC State basketball lore.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 524, a bill I introduced to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites.

This legislation, which passed the House Natural Resources Committee unanimously, resolves an issue for a handful of coastal communities that have unique and longstanding beach nourishment project borrow sites.

For background, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 created certain protected coastal zones, known as CBRA zones, along the Atlantic, Gulf, and coasts of the Great Lakes.

Under that law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibits Federal investment in these areas due to the risk associated with coastal natural disasters. While this is intended to protect human life and taxpayer dollars, in a few select cases for which this bill is focused, a recent revision of implementation has inadvertently created uncertainty for these longstanding projects necessary to keep these coastal communities safe during storms.

For example, and as has already been cited, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, which is in my district, has been utilizing sand from Masonboro Inlet for their beach nourishment project for more than 50 years. The natural erosion of sand from the beach is guided by the current and continually deposits south of the beach in Masonboro Inlet.

Every 4 years, just like clockwork, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has dredged the inlet of this sand and returned it to Wrightsville Beach.

For 50 years, this natural cycle has served as a reliable ecological borrow site for our coastal community and, by the way, is home to an abundance of wildlife. Placement of the sand solidifies the dunes and berms, creating a natural protective barrier for the community that protects both property and life. This process has been the most cost- effective and ecologically friendly for other coastal communities with similar natural erosion cycles as well.

To share a little more history for perspective, CBRA zones eliminated the use of these natural borrow sites for nourishment purposes with the enactment of the 1982 law. However, shortly after enactment of that law, a clarification was made to prevent communities like Wrightsville Beach to use these historic borrow sites. Literally decades later, that clarification was reversed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the request of the Department of the Interior in 2021, undoing decades of precedent and preventing these communities from using such site.

Under the current interpretation, communities such as mine at Wrightsville Beach would be forced to dredge offshore, leading to skyrocketing costs for taxpayers, not to mention changing the natural ecology of these areas in ways that may have significant unintended consequences.

Reversing this action to, once again, permit the use of a beach's natural, historic borrow site is imperative for physical resiliency and safety, as well as the local economic benefits that accrue. Further, it will save taxpayer dollars and protect the ecology of these areas that has developed over all these years.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the bill before us today resolves this issue for good by putting the original decades-old clarification into law. It allows for the use of historical borrow sites within a CBRA zone provided such site has been utilized for the past 15 years in response to an emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work with me to produce this bipartisan project that solves a real problem for many in these particular communities.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have introduced a bipartisan resolution to highlight the plight of Dr. Gubad Ibadoghlu, a respected academic and economist who taught and conducted research at several top universities in America, including Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill in my home state of North Carolina.

While on a trip to Azerbaijan to visit his sick mother back in July of 2023, he and his wife were brutally assaulted by Azerbaijani authorities, and he was arrested on politically motivated, baseless charges. To this day, he continues to be detained and cruelly denied access to regular legal counsel and critical medications. This abuse is wrong and life-threatening.

What Dr. Ibadoghlu is currently experiencing is a sobering reminder of what can and does happen in nations that have no regard for human rights with a history of jailing individuals on baseless charges. With this resolution, we join the State Department and many members of international civil society in calling for his unconditional release.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill authored by my good friend from California, Ken Calvert.

This legislation provides additional security assistance to ensure Israel, our greatest Middle Eastern ally, survives the most significant threats to its existence to date.

The Jewish people are confronting the unspeakable evil of Hamas, which perpetrated a callous, barbaric attack against the State of Israel, and continues to hold more than 132 people hostage in Gaza, including fellow Americans.

Israel needs our support to ensure they can win this war and bring every hostage home, as well as counter the other threats to their national security. This bill reaffirms the United States' strong commitment to supporting the people of Israel by providing critical funding to reinforce the Israeli defense system and does so without compromising our own readiness.

In addition, it ensures our ability to protect U.S. citizens and personnel in Israel. We cannot, and must not, turn our back on our ally. Doing so would only embolden Hamas, incentivize Iran to continue funding ruthless attacks on Israel, and weaken the security of American personnel in the region, not to mention the harm it would eventually bring to our own Nation here at home.

We either ensure that Israel has the resources to win, or we will eventually be forced to fight the same enemies here. Those who want to annihilate Israel wish to do the same to America.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply makes a technical change to the underlying language suggested by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Committee. To be specific of what those changes are, it takes the word ``borrow site'' and changes it to ``borrow source,'' and then takes the phrase ``for a period of more than 15 years'' and replaces it with ``at least once prior to December 31, 2008.''

There literally is no change to the substance of the underlying text. This is just an accommodation of the request of the Army Corps of Engineers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Brunswick County Sheriff John Ingram, who recently retired from his long and distinguished service in law enforcement.

A proud native of Brunswick County, Sheriff Ingram has continually dedicated his life to his community. He joined the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office in 1991, starting as a patrol deputy. He quickly rose through the ranks and served in many different capacities, including in the warrant and detective divisions, and then became lieutenant in the narcotics division and commander of the department's SWAT team.

Mr. Ingram later joined the Columbus County Sheriff's Office, where he was named chief deputy before returning to Brunswick County in the same role. Shortly thereafter, he was appointed Brunswick County sheriff and has earned reelection to the post in each and every election since.

During his tenure leading the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office, he expanded the department to accommodate the fastest growing county in the State. He increased recruitment efforts

and brought in additional 911 telecommunicators and detention officers to increase safety.

He also offered a variety of community programs to further the sheriff's office mission to enhance public safety and education and promote community-based relationships between law enforcement and the public, including his support for establishing drug courts where those battling addiction could be better treated and find the pathway to healing, productivity, and success.

To facilitate those missions, he created the Sheriff's Citizens' Academy along with the Sheriff's Volunteer Program. He also launched the Anchor Initiative Program in 2018 to help those suffering from addiction start their recovery, providing a hopeful future to break the typical cycle of continued drug use and crime.

Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Ingram has been recognized for his leadership on all these fronts. He was elected to the board of directors for the National Sheriffs' Association and served as president of the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association.

Most recently, he was awarded the prestigious Order of the Long Leaf Pine, a recognition considered North Carolina's highest civilian honor.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize a no-nonsense individual and one with such a sense of duty, integrity, and distinguished service to the people of Brunswick County, North Carolina.

On behalf of the citizens of North Carolina's Seventh District, I thank him, and I am proud to recognize him for his extraordinary service and commitment to his fellow man.

May God continue to bless him, his family, and the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office. I am proud to call him my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career and service of Brunswick County Sheriff John Ingram, who recently retired from his long and distinguished tenure in law enforcement.

A proud native of Brunswick County, Sheriff Ingram dedicated his life to his community by joining the Brunswick County Sheriff's Department in 1991. Starting as a patrol deputy, he quickly rose through the ranks and served in many different capacities, including in the warrant and detective divisions, and then became lieutenant in the narcotics division and commander of the department's SWAT team.

Mr. Ingram later joined the Columbus County Sheriff's Office, where he was named chief deputy before returning to Brunswick County in the same role. Shortly thereafter, he was appointed Brunswick County Sheriff, earning reelection to the post in each and every election since.

During his tenure leading the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office, he expanded the department to accommodate the fastest growing county in the State. He increased recruitment efforts and brought in additional 911 telecommunicators and detention officers to increase safety.

He also offered a variety of community programs to further the sheriff's office mission to enhance public safety and education and promote community-based relationships between law enforcement and the public, including his support for establishing drug courts where those battling addiction could be better treated and not only treated but provided with a path to recovery.

To facilitate these missions, he created the Sheriff's Citizens' Academy along with the Sheriff's Volunteer Program. He also launched the Anchor Initiative Program in 2018 to help those suffering from addiction start their recovery, providing hope for those suffering from their addictions and breaking the typical continual cycle of continued drug use and crime.

Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Ingram has been recognized for his leadership on all these fronts. He was elected to the board of directors for the National Sheriffs' Association and served as president of the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association from 2019 to 2020.

Most recently, he was awarded the prestigious Order of the Long Leaf Pine, a recognition considered North Carolina's highest civilian honor.

It is an honor to recognize a friend who is a no-nonsense individual with such a sense of duty, integrity, and distinguished service to the people of Brunswick County.

On behalf of the citizens of North Carolina's Seventh Congressional District, I congratulate and extend my sincere gratitude to Sheriff Ingram for his extraordinary service and commitment to protecting our communities.

May God continue to bless him, his family, and the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office. I am proud to call him my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of New Hanover County Commissioner Deb Hays.

All who knew Deb knew her steadfast devotion to her family, her faith, and to her community. Born and raised in Louisville, Kentucky, she later made Wilmington, North Carolina, home, where she was a pillar in the community and her pride for New Hanover County was unmatched.

As a New Hanover County commissioner, Deb served with the utmost integrity and honor. She loved nothing more than giving back to the citizens of Wilmington and New Hanover County and was continually improving the lives of those around her in every way. She was proud to serve as the chair of the Wilmington Planning Commission and as a member of the Wilmington Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee.

Beyond Deb's work and influence as a county commissioner, she was involved in multiple charities and community organizations, including the Airlie Gardens Foundation, the North Carolina Azalea Festival, the Wilmington Airport Authority, the Community Leaders Task Force, Lump to Laughter, Habitat for Humanity, and the Wilmington Area Rebuilding Ministry.

Now, some of her greatest charitable accomplishments include building more than 20 Habitat for Humanity homes, as well as 10 homes in Guatemala while on a mission trip, participating in the rebuilding of post-hurricane New Orleans, and helping to rebuild our own communities in southeastern North Carolina after Hurricane Florence hit.

Deb also enjoyed a very rewarding and successful career as a Realtor and will be forever loved and missed by her Intracoastal Realty family.

Now, I have no doubt Deb's spirit and love for our community will be felt for many years to come. She was a fierce and gracious force for good, always bringing so much enthusiasm and love for every facet of life. The lives that have been and will continue to be impacted by her legacy are countless. Hers truly was a great life lived.

Honoring the Life and Legacy of Donna Lee Giradot

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Donna Giradot. Donna was a fixture in the Wilmington community and will be remembered as a talented business leader, dedicated public servant, and a great friend and mentor to so many.

After moving to the Wilmington area in the late 1990s, Donna led a successful career and served New Hanover County in many different capacities. She began her career in southeastern North Carolina by working for Cape Fear Realtors. She then went on to serve as executive director of the Wilmington-Cape Fear Home Builders Association and founded the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy, also known as BASE.

Beyond her successful business endeavors, Donna held numerous leadership positions in our community, including four terms as chair of the New Hanover County Planning Board and four consecutive years as chair of the Wilmington International Airport Authority, making her the first female to chair an airport authority in North Carolina.

Donna always stood firm in her faith and enjoyed serving her fellow man through her church, as well. As a testament to her commitment to serving others, in 2020 Donna was a recipient of the Order of the Long Leaf Pine award, the State's highest civilian award for service.

Donna was a generous and great leader who will be sorely missed. Her numerous contributions to the Wilmington community will never, ever be forgotten. Hers is a tremendous legacy that will be felt for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the override of President Biden's veto of this resolution, which I was proud to introduce alongside and with Chairman Sam Graves. Of course, this repeals the EPA's new waters of the U.S. rule.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize that this administration has never seen an onerous rule it didn't like, but the President's veto of this resolution reversing one of the Federal Government's most egregious rules to date really takes the cake.

This resolution passed in both Chambers with a bipartisan vote, yet the President and his administration refuse to even consider the devastation this new WOTUS rule, if ultimately left intact by the courts, will cause.

This new rule, with all its ambiguity, and therefore subjectivity, was issued mere months before the Supreme Court is anticipated to decide in Sackett v. EPA, a decision all but guaranteed to update the definition of the WOTUS once again, making this mud puddle of complexity even muddier.

While this is clear to many Members on both sides of the aisle here in Congress, this administration continues to bow down to the demands of radical environmentalists while ignoring the commonsense calls to revoke this misguided rule.

Unfortunately, the inconsistencies so many of us have said would result from this rule has already begun. Last week, a U.S. district court judge issued a preliminary injunction on the rule after 24 attorneys general filed suit. However, this only applies in those 24 States, as well as Texas and Idaho following action within their own courts. This means half of the country is currently subject to the rule and the other half is not.

I am disappointed North Carolina's attorney general did not join that effort. In North Carolina's Seventh Congressional District that I have the honor to represent, storms can bring very heavy rains, and with creeks, streams, and rivers everywhere throughout the landscape, water lingering for short periods of time could easily be classified as a WOTUS, depending on the viewpoint of the bureaucrat making the judgment. Heavy fines, litigation, and even prosecution can and does result.

Further, the overregulation and broad scope of interpretations of this rule have grave implications for cattle, poultry, and hog farmers in North Carolina. These farmers are often victims of environmentalists and trial lawyers looking for a gotcha moment in their quest to upend the efficiency and sustainability of our food system. This WOTUS rule puts a target on their backs, and it is why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that also represent strong agricultural communities supported this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this vote today is an opportunity for our legislative body to exercise one of its most basic but fundamental responsibilities, to serve as a check on the executive branch when it goes against the will and interests of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this WOTUS rule clearly does that. I urge my colleagues to support this override of the President's veto.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, which includes the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act. That bill is the one that I introduced alongside my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Garret Graves.

One of many key components in this package, this specific part of the bill helps ensure development of our Nation's energy infrastructure at a time when it is most necessary. This is accomplished by clarifying that projects subject to section 401 of the Clean Water Act are approved or denied based on water quality alone.

Unlike what my colleagues have been saying on the other side of the aisle that we are going to permit dirty water, et cetera, et cetera, if it is related to water, guess what, section 401 still applies.

The water quality certification process has been and continues to be weaponized by certain States to stifle important energy projects they oppose, particularly pipelines, for political reasons completely unrelated to water quality and outside the scope and the intent of the Clean Water Act. That is all this particular provision addresses.

Instead of fairly analyzing a project based on the Federal standards set forth by Congress, what has happened is States on the East and West Coast have increasingly weaponized section 401 for their own ideological purposes, again totally and completely unrelated to water quality.

Here are some examples: In my home State of North Carolina, the Mountain Valley Southgate project was denied, not because of water quality but because the deciding bureaucrats hold an inherent opposition to the project as a whole.

Projects in Washington and New York have been denied due to noise and cultural resources. Nothing to do with water quality.

These are just a few examples of the weaponization of section 401 of the Clean Water Act statute.

The language that is included here in this package quite simply will end this abuse.

At a time when American energy production and distribution is under tremendous assault from some in this country, ensuring that America can build the energy infrastructure necessary to responsibly utilize our natural resources, unleash American energy independence, and lower costs for American families is a top priority that this broader bill achieves.

Let me put it this way: Low cost, reliable energy is fundamental to prosperity. It isn't the only critical aspect necessary for a nation and her people to be prosperous, but it is awfully hard for a nation to be prosperous without it.

Low cost and reliable energy helps America to produce more goods and therefore put downward pressure on inflation, and, boy, do we need all the help we can get. It will enable America to be energy dominant again, increasing American strength abroad. Put another way, it is critical to our economy, our food security, and our national security. That is why this legislation is so badly needed at this critical time in American history.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Lower Energy Costs Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to some comments from my friends on the other side, and I am just going to share some examples of how section 401 of the Clean Water Act has been weaponized. Some of these I touched on a little earlier, and some of these have yet to be stated, as far as I know.

In Oregon, a proposed liquified natural gas pipeline and export terminal, which would have had the capability to liquefy over 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, was blocked by that State. The reason? After giving the project applicants the runaround, Oregon denied the certification, citing incomplete information given to the State.

Once again, that was a project that was estimated to have generated up to $100 million in revenue annually, blocked, just like that.

Despite FERC finding that the project's plan for environmental mitigation and impact minimization was satisfactory, Oregon denied certification based on reasons outside the scope of the CWA, the Clean Water Act.

My second example here comes from a proposed natural gas pipeline's 37-mile extension that New York denied. The project would have added enough additional natural gas per day to meet the needs of approximately 2.3 million homes in a region where demand for natural gas is at an all-time high. Additionally, the project would add an estimated $327.2 million to the region's economy.

Again, in this case, FERC concluded that any long-term effects would be limited to air quality and noise and that all project effects would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Once again, the State forced the project applicants to come back multiple times with more documents, continuing to move the goalposts each time.

When the State finally gave a straight reason for denying the project, they nominally cited ``indirect effects on water resources,'' but none of these were provisions of the Clean Water Act section 401.

Those are just a couple of examples of how water quality wasn't even an issue. It was other aspects. They were just using the loopholes in the statute to achieve their end.

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

Mr. Chairman, passage of H.R. 1 is critical for boosting our domestic energy production and lowering energy costs for all Americans.

I thank Majority Leader Scalise for his leadership on this bill, as well as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources Committees and our own chairman, Sam Graves, of Transportation and Infrastructure.

As has been stated, this bill contains many provisions to help streamline the permitting process for energy projects, allowing America to unleash its domestic energy potential.

I am particularly proud of division C of H.R. 1, which passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that will stop States from using section 401 of the Clean Water Act as an excuse to block critical energy projects.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will note that you are exempt until you are not exempt.

I rise in support of H.J. Res. 27. This is a very important and crucial resolution that we pass. There is no greater example of bureaucratic overreach under the Clean Water Act than the longstanding regulatory ordeal of understanding and complying with the definition of ``waters of the United States,'' or WOTUS, as we call it.

Despite the benefits of the Clean Water Act, its history has been wrought with the tortured past stemming from regulatory headaches and overreach from bureaucrats, all because Congress never defined what a ``navigable water'' is. Many times, this combination has led to uncertainty for individuals and the more formally regulated communities.

The reality is, this resolution is only necessary because of the Biden administration's decision to publish a new definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act. It is very important that Congress ensures this overreaching definition has no force.

Now, in my mind, regulations should carry out the intent of the law in a simple, easily understood, and transparent manner, leaving no wiggle room for any bureaucrat to substitute their own biases and hijack the process. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this new WOTUS rule.

Put simply, this rule is the equivalent of a nuclear warhead aimed right at our farmers, communities, homebuilders, roadbuilders, and private property owners, among many others. The ramifications of its implementation will be far and wide, affecting the prosperity and economic opportunity of all Americans. As of March 20, that nuclear warhead is going to be launched.

Once the Federal Government has complete control over the definition of a ``water,'' because of an arbitrary and ambiguous definition, it will then have control over everything else that is applied to the land, whether it be application of pesticides or herbicides or the building of a fence or a shed or anything else.

A farmer, homeowner, or any other property owner could be prosecuted for these simple and customary actions because a bureaucrat decides that what they have done affects a ``navigable water.''

So let's be clear. Ambiguity and subjectivity enshrined by an environmental rule are no friends of freedom, the production of food or other goods, or prosperity.

Despite what supporters of the Biden WOTUS rule say, it will do nothing to

bring forth certainty and consistency, except for the trial lawyers and radical environmentalists who are most certainly consistent and persistent in their work to use the executive and judicial branches of government to essentially halt the work of, and extort from, those who produce.

I am proud to cosponsor and support this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I found out on Friday of this past week that Cuba's Border Guard and Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been hosted in the North Carolina congressional district that I am honored to represent. The Wilmington Port facilities visit was planned and authorized by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State.

As one of our Nation's oldest adversaries and a state sponsor of terrorism, Cuba's Communist Government is no friend of the United States or anyone else who believes in freedom. Cuba has a history of being a strategic Western asset to our greatest adversaries, including China, Russia, and Iran, and they regularly cooperate with narcotics traffickers, bringing cocaine, fentanyl, and other deadly drugs to our country.

Now I am told this trip, as well as others in the past, have been arranged as part of a reciprocal relationship to turn back Cubans fleeing to the United States. We apparently have this arrangement where we view their ports and security protocols, and they view ours.

There is no reason any nation with a state sponsor of terrorism designation should be hosted by the United States, let alone be allowed to analyze sensitive coastal and maritime security protocols. Ironically, the decision to designate Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and the decision to authorize this trip were made by the same agencies. This action flies in the face of the purpose of both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State and makes a mockery of American strength against our adversaries.

The shores of North Carolina's Seventh Congressional District are used and enjoyed by its residents and countless tourists from across the country. It is our responsibility to ensure the security of our maritime borders, and our Coast Guard often serves as the first line of defense against these threats.

Mr. Speaker, this visit was a clear national security risk. I don't know how one could view it otherwise. The bottom line is, this visit should never have happened, and the American people deserve to know what steps were taken to protect our national security interests.