[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)] [House] [Pages H1782-H1788] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-18
Chamber: HOUSE
Mr. LARSEN : I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, clean water is critical for the health and safety of our communities and our families. Our local businesses, farmers, and our economy depend on clean water for their success and their prosperity. House Democrats have a proud and successful history of supporting clean water. House Democrats have championed investments in our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure systems, ensuring that all communities can trust in the safety of the water they drink and the treatment of the wastewater they produce. Last Congress, House Democrats provided historic, bipartisan investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Specifically for clean water, the BIL invests almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure and is creating jobs in communities across the country. The BIL showed what Congress can do when we focus on the needs of American families. Today, I would put to you that we are doing the opposite and putting polluters over people with this doomed veto override attempt. In my own State of Washington, we are defined by clean water, including the health of the iconic Puget Sound and the hundreds of crystal clear lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams that run through our State. My constituents know that rivers, streams, and wetlands are intrinsically connected. Pollution that starts in one body of water does not stay put. House Democrats know we can protect clean water while providing certainty to businesses, farmers, and for everyone who depends upon clean water for their lives and livelihoods. This is especially true for the 117 million Americans who depend on smaller streams as a source of drinking water at a time when many States continue to face historic droughts. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want clean water rules that are simple, clear, and easy to follow. So do we. We agree on that. The Biden administration's Clean Water Restoration Rule does just that, following the law and the science of protecting clean water while providing regulatory certainty and stability for everyone. Unfortunately, this resolution will do the opposite. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the administration's call for vetoing H.J. Res. 27. The argument is that they want bright lines in the regulation of clean water, yet the only proposal that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to support is the NavigableWaters Protection Rule of the previous administration, a proposal that removed Federal protections on roughly half of the Nation's wetlands and 70 percent of its rivers and streams. That rule was rightly rejected by a Federal court, not by this administration, but by a Federal court in 2021, as fundamentally flawed and likely to cause serious environmental harm every day that it remained in effect. Yet, despite their call for certainty, my colleagues have failed to recognize that passage of this resolution that is before us today would leave Americans without a clear definition of waters of the United States. By taking away this clarity, this resolution brings back the very same uncertainty and ambiguity that supporters claim to be concerned about. I know they are concerned about that uncertainty. This resolution will adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and developers by creating regulatory chaos and eliminating important exclusions that have been codified in this administration's rule to help water-dependent businesses and farmers understand and comply with the law. For example, because it prohibits the EPA from issuing substantially the same rule, this resolution means the elimination of two longstanding exclusions for wastewater treatment systems and prior converted crop land--exclusions that have been relied upon by communities, developers, industry, and farmers for decades. This resolution would also eliminate six new regulatory exclusions for features considered generally non-jurisdictional, including certain ditches, artificially irrigated areas, and artificial lakes or ponds. Ironically, this resolution will result in more uncertainty and more bodies of water being regulated than under the administration's proposal. You don't have to take my word for it. Just read the Congressional Budget Office report accompanying this resolution. It is right in there. As I mentioned previously on this floor and in another debate on this issue, the Biden proposal will not adversely impact family farmers in this country, period. Why? Because farmers are, by statute, largely exempt from the Clean Water Act regulation where less than 1 percent of all wetlands permits relate to ag activities nationwide. Therefore, if a farm is engaged in normal farming, forestry, and ranching activity, that farm is exempt from regulation, and the current proposal does not change that exemption. In short, this resolution still makes no sense. It invalidates the Biden rule and all the clarifications and all of the exceptions for business it contains in favor of a similarly structured but much less clear regulatory framework. It increases uncertainty and the likelihood of continued legal battles and gridlock; the opposite of what businesses and farmers are looking for. Mr. Speaker, I support this administration's efforts on clean water, both through implementation of the critical bipartisan infrastructure law investments in water infrastructure and its veto of this shortsighted resolution. This resolution represents a step backward for clean water, increases uncertainty for businesses, and doubles down on fighting and on chaos. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to oppose this resolution and work toward real predictability for businesses that need it, and clean water for communities that cannot survive without it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.