Floor Statement to H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act
May 12, 2015
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I think the American public, Mr. Chairman, must be quite confused. This rulemaking that we are talking about is actually about clean water; it is about a rulemaking process that hasn’t been completed yet, and it is about a rule that we haven’t seen, so it seems sort of odd that we are standing here commenting on it.
I just want to remind the other side that, thanks to the Clean Water Act, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, and the number of waters that now meet clean water goals nationwide has actually doubled with direct benefits for drinking water, public health, recreation, and wildlife.
This is especially true from my home State of Maryland that is within the six-State Chesapeake Bay Watershed and several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, the Patuxent, Potomac, and Severn Rivers that flow through the Fourth Congressional District.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is fed by 110,000 miles of creeks, rivers, and streams; and 70 percent of Marylanders get our drinking water from sources that rely on headwater or seasonal streams. Nationwide, 117 million people, or over a third of the total population, get our water from these waters.
However, due to the two Supreme Court decisions that have been referenced, there is, in fact, widespread confusion as to what falls under the protection of the Clean Water Act. That is precisely why this administration is working to finalize their joint proposed rule clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the act.
In fact, on April 6, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a revised clean water protection rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final review. From my understanding, the final rule may be published in the Federal Register later this spring. I share the view that we want OMB to just get on with it.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman has complained about the confusion in the litigation. That is precisely why we need to get through a final rulemaking, which has been years in the making. If the gentleman seeks clarity, let the administration just finish its job.
That is what the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Government to do 14 years ago with the 2001 SWANCC decision and, subsequently, the 2006 Rapanos case.
Along with those Supreme Court decisions, the Bush administration, as has been said, followed the exact same process in issuing two guidance documents in 2003 and 2008. In fact, they remain in force today.
It is, in fact, these two Bush-era guidance documents that have compounded the confusion, uncertainty, and increased compliance costs faced by our constituents – opponents and proponents alike – who all just say they want clarity.
You don’t actually have to take my word for it. In fact, let me quote from the comments made by the American Farm Bureau Federation, something I don’t do quite often:
“With no clear regulatory definitions to guide their determinations, what has emerged is a hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional theories.”
Those are the words of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
We all agree that it is confusing. Let the Obama administration finish what the Bush administration started and failed to do, and that is publish a rule that finalizes the rule that gives stakeholders the clarity they have been seeking for 14 years.
Quite oddly, H.R. 1732 would actually halt the current rulemaking and require the agencies to withdraw the proposed rule and restart the rulemaking process. This is after 1 million public comments, a 208-day comment period, and over 400 public meetings.
In appearances before the Senate, House, and joint committees, high-ranking Agency officials have testified that the revised rule will address many of the concerns expressed during the public comment period. They have also stated that the revised rule will provide greater clarity to the current permitting process, reduce regulatory cost, and ensure more exacting protections over U.S. waters.
The bill that we are talking about would actually force the agencies to meet with the same stakeholders again and talk about the same issues again that they have already discussed several times over the last 14 years since the first Supreme Court decision – what a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money. Actually, the other side should be ashamed if they put a cost to restarting the procedure.
In fact, the rulemaking has been more than a decade, as we have described, in development. We need to let the administration get on with its work. As others have pointed out, just 2 weeks ago, the House passed – and I opposed it; many of our colleagues opposed it – the Energy and Water Appropriations bill
It contained a policy rider that explicitly prohibits the Corps from spending any money to develop the same new clean water rule that this bill wants us to restart. Let me repeat that. The House has already passed a provision that states the Corps can use no money not just this fiscal year, but in future fiscal years, going forward in perpetuity.
Republicans try to make it sound as if all they want is for the EPA and the Corps to develop new rules right away, but it is really clear that what they want to do is stop these agencies from doing their jobs at all – no new rules and no clean water, what a shame.
H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act passed the House by a vote 235-183 on May 12th, 2015.
