hazylavender/hi huggingface dataset:
[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)] [House] [Page H1789] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-18
Chamber: HOUSE
Mrs. FISCHBACH: over the weekend, while responding to a domestic violence call, Deputy Sheriff Josh Owen of Pope County was tragically shot and killed. It was his 44th birthday. Deputy Owen spent nearly 12 years with the sheriff's office and recently received a Distinguished Service Award. He was also a military veteran, serving with the Minnesota National Guard and deploying to Iraq for 22 months. He leaves behind a wife and son. This is a devastating, heartbreaking reminder that our men and women in law enforcement put their communities above all else every single day. We are praying for Josh's family and for the Pope County community as they mourn the loss of a local hero. I ask now that we have a moment of silence in honor of Pope County Deputy Sheriff Josh Owen.
[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)] [House] [Pages H1788-H1789] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-18
Chamber: HOUSE
Ms. BUSH: due to a medical emergency, I was unable to vote during today's vote series. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 187.
[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)] [House] [Pages H1788-H1789] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-18
Chamber: HOUSE
Mrs. LEE : during rollcall Vote number 187 on H.J. Res. 27, my vote was recorded as a ``yea'' when I intended for it to be a ``nay.'' Let the record reflect that I oppose H.J. Res. 27.  personal explanation
[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)] [House] [Pages H1788-H1789] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-18
Chamber: HOUSE
Mrs. BOEBERT: I had to fly back home to be there for the birth of my first grandchild. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 185, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 186, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 187.  personal explanation
[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)] [House] [Pages H1788-H1789] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-18
Chamber: HOUSE
Mr. KILDEE: I am unable to attend votes due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 185, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 186, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 187.
[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. GRAVES : for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.  General Leave
[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. GRAVES : I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.
[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. CRAWFORD: I thank the chairman for his leadership on this. Here we are again. We are here once again to speak against the Biden administration's new waters of the United States rule. This is a bridge too far. Since this issue last appeared on the House floor, a Federal judge blocked the rule, as the chairman mentioned, in 26 States. It seems that even our judicial system is signaling this is a vast overstep of Federal jurisdiction. Yet, President Biden is insistent on pushing this resolution through. There are already State and local laws in place to protect our waterways, and these entities are much better equipped to oversee small, isolated bodies of water. All this change does is create more red tape for farmers, ranchers, and landowners. What it does not do, it doesn't make our waterways any cleaner. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and give the power back to the States.
[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. GRAVES : I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), the cosponsor of the resolution and the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
[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. GRAVES : I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte), who is somebody who personally knows how disruptive this rule can be.
[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. DUARTE: I wish we were here talking about clean water. We can all agree, as we did back in 1974 when we passed the Clean Water Act and we gave the government all it needed to deliver clean water to America, the rivers no longer burn. Trains do fall in rivers, but that is a jurisdictional river. That is not what we are talking about today. What we are talking about today is how much dry land, how much farmland, and how much rolling hills and grassy fields with no frogs, no fish, and no water most of the year are going to be regulated by this administration. Back when we passed the Clean Water Act, it was bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats got together, and we gave the government jurisdiction to protect our clean drinking water. Our harbors, our rivers, and our streams are protected. Our lakes are protected. Our drinking water is protected. Nothing here today will have any impact on whether we have safe drinking water or not. As a farmer, I was prosecuted under the Clean Water Act for planting wheat in a wheat field that had been plantedto wheat with the same practices many times before. What we are talking about here today is expanding the authorities of the Clean Water Act to regulate almost every activity--construction, farm production, energy exploration--that can happen on open fields that might from one time or another pocket a little bit of water. When I went through delineation on my property, it took 2 years just to get enough rain to be able to tell where the wetlands were under the previous clean water rule. So let's not pretend this is about clean water. This is about government control of land, it is about affordable food, and it is about affordable housing. It is about use of our lands by private landowners for economic purposes. What we are doing today here is telling the President that he didn't have authority to do this back in 1974, and he doesn't have authority to do it today.
[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. TONKO: I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 27, the Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval targeting the clean water restoration rule. Our waterways, like the mighty Hudson and Mohawk Rivers that flow through my district in New York's capital region, are key economic engines as drivers of heritage tourism and outdoor recreation, as well as cherished gathering spaces for our communities, if we indeed care for them. The Biden administration's clean water restoration rule restores protections for the rivers, the streams, and the wetlands that constituents in all of our district areas rely upon. I will reinstate key safeguards to stop big polluters from recklessly dumping waste into our water systems and damaging the fragile wetlands that are so crucial for the resilience of our coasts. Importantly, the rule is grounded in science. An important fact. It restores the same science-based approach that Presidential administrations have utilized for decades to assess the conditions of upstream waters to protect the health of downstream ecosystems and communities. Our water systems are fragile and interconnected. As an engineer, I know the importance of using a science and data-driven approach to achieve the very best results for our communities. The dangerous legislation before us today is an attempt to overturn these finalized regulations. This is an attack on the clean water that is critical to the health of our communities, our Nation's economy, and particularly our agricultural and energy sectors. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose it.
[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. BURCHETT: I appreciate the chairman and his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 27. Overriding the veto would get rid of a Biden administration rule that hurts American landowners, small business owners, and farmers. Back in 2020, the EPA addressed a longstanding problem. It got rid of a broad and confusing definition of waters of the United States, also known as WOTUS, and replaced it with a definition that was much more specific and easier to understand. But no good deed is left unpunished. Mr. Speaker, landowners need to know if their body of water meets the definition of a WOTUS, because if it does, then it is subject to much, much stricter environmental regulations. Of course, the Biden administration is doing what it does best, and it is messing up the situation. It is like my dad used to say about education: The problem we have with education is we called in the people who created the problem to fix it. That is what they are doing. It repealed that clear definition of a WOTUS from 2020 and replaced it with a more confusing and ambiguous one. This means a lot more landowners, small business owners, and farmers will need to hire expensive lawyers and consultants just to figure out if their body of water now qualifies as a WOTUS. This is another example of bringing in the bureaucrats to fix a problem that they have created. A lot of my constituents are farmers and landowners, of course. Many are both of those. It is hard enough for them to take care of their land and follow these crazy environmental regulations without adding the burden of trying to figure out what these regulations are in the first place. Basically what we have done is we have taken this away from the mom and pop farmers, the people who have inherited the land and who respect the land. No one respects the land more than a farmer, Mr. Speaker. We are replacing it with multinational globalist corporations who control politicians like the puppet masters that they are. This administration needs to stop throwing bureaucracies at every situation it can get its hands on. Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't work. This time it will hurt Americans who work hard to take care of their land and their businesses.
[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 : before I reserve my time, I want to state, again, for the record, that the Federal courts blocked the implementation of the previous administration's navigable waters protection rule. It wasn't this administration. In response to that, the administration developed a new rule, this particular one that we are debating today. So it needs to be said for the record that the Federal courts made a decision about the previous administration's rule, not this particular administration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[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. WILLIAMS : the redefinition of these waters of the United States rules is really only about one thing, and that is Government overreach. When faced with a crisis, the Government is given a broad mandate and loves very vague rules. Just recently, we remember the incredible rules of the COVID crisis and the extraordinary powers granted to Government to effect this crisis. Mr. Speaker, if you remember the definition of essential businesses, essential personnel, essential services, then you have some idea really of what the waters of the United States redefinition desired by activist courts and desired by current administration means. You can imagine the effect it will have on our lives, Mr. Speaker. The Clean Water Act was a broad power given in 1974 to clean up polluted waterways. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? It worked. We have clean waters and clean rivers. It has been an extraordinary success since the high point of pollution in the 1970s. With a government that is hungry for power, as we learned most recently in COVID, bureaucrats remembered that vague rules allow for extraordinary powers. You are not a farmer; you are a polluter. You are not a homeowner; you are a polluter. You are not a home builder; you are a polluter. You are guilty until proven innocent. My colleagues across the aisle say that this provides clarity, and it does. But clarity for whom? This rule provides clarity only to EPA regulators who will have extraordinary authority. It doesn't provide clarity to homeowners, farmers, and home builders.
[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. GRAVES : I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), who is the chairman of the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Subcommittee.
[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. PERRY: I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. We are not talking about the Clean Water Act. We are talking about the waters of the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, and definitionally what has happened here is the administration didn't like what was in the rule and the regulations, and it has changed the definition. They didn't like it, so they changed the definition such that under this rule, nearly every single propertyacross the entire United States that is subject to one drop of rain is now open to enforcement by the Federal Government--not your State government, and not your local government--the Federal Government coming in to tell you that you are a polluter and that you are misusing your land because a drop of rain landed on it. People say: Oh, you don't really mean a drop of rain. Yes, I do mean a drop of rain. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is the EPA that will determine the definition on a case-by-case basis arbitrarily, which is what they want. That is why it is important that we override the President's veto. You see, Mr. Speaker, he didn't veto on behalf of the United States of America. The United States of America sent the people to this Chamber to vote on what they wanted, and we passed the Congressional Review Act to say that we don't want the definition changed. The President doesn't like that. Half of the bureaucrats who work in Washington, D.C., probably don't even have a yard. They probably live in a high-rise. They don't even have grass, but yet they are going to tell you how you are going to live your life and how you are going to use your land based on the Federal Government's rule. Threats of imprisonment under ambiguous terminology and threats of financial ruin is what belies this bill and the American people if we allow this to go. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption. We must override the President's veto. We must stand for the American people and individual property rights which are the bedrock and the foundation of the United States of America.  {time}  1445
[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 1 minute just to clarify that if this passes and we override the veto message, the end result will be reverting to a rule that was created around 2007, 2008, not the last administration's rule but another rule that I don't think either side likes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[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
Mrs. BICE: President Biden's waters of the United States rule seeks to insert the Federal Government into every stream, pond, and ditch in America, even those on private property. When I am back in Oklahoma, I regularly hear from farmers, ranchers, energy producers, and small businesses about their concerns with the Biden administration's WOTUS rule. For my constituents, it is absolutely unthinkable that a Federal bureaucrat from Washington would come on their private property to regulate an intermittent stream that may only have water in it for a few days a year. This is a huge overreach. It is also worth noting that regulations such as WOTUS, along with others from Federal, State, and local governments, account for up to 25 percent of the price of a new single-family home and over 40 percent for a multifamily development. Under WOTUS, the significant nexus test would result in increased regulatory uncertainty for Oklahomans. Furthermore, the ambiguous nature of its policies will further delay vital projects on strict timelines. Despite bipartisan opposition to the WOTUS rule, President Biden still elected to veto the resolution. American families, farmers, and small businesses are suffering under the economic crises caused by President Biden's policies. The last thing they need is more burdensome regulations. Today's vote to overturn Biden's veto would empower local landowners instead of giving power to unelected Federal bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
[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. MANN: I rise today in support of the farmers, ranchers, agricultural producers, and independent oil and gas producers that have been forced to operate their businesses under three different definitions of the word ``water'' in the past 10 years alone. Congress has spoken clearly on this issue. President Biden received a bicameral, bipartisan joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act on his administration's flawed and burdensome waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule. He vetoed it, and that is inexplicable. Congress, not the executive branch, was created to legislate, and it is sad that this particular example of legislating from the executive branch serves as an outrageous instance of government overreach. While President Biden would like to federally regulate every small stream, ditch, and puddle from sea to shining sea, American producers have been the careful custodians of their own resources for centuries. They are the original conservationists, and their livelihoods already depend on their voluntary efforts to care for their own water resources. How we vote today will speak volumes. By overriding President Biden's veto, Congress has the opportunity to stand up not only for the people who feed, fuel, and clothe us all, but also for all Americans whose businesses and private lives would be affected by this Big Government encroachment onto their property. We can either tell Americans that we believe the Federal Government knows best, or we can tell them that the Federal Government should get out of their way and let them do what they do best. I know where I stand. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
[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 the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have a long, proud, and successful history of supporting clean water. Last year, House Democrats successfully made historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, providing communities with almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades and creating jobs. These clean water investments are helping everyday Americans with safe, reliable, and sustainable water and wastewater services while providing good-paying jobs that cannot be sent overseas and reinvigorating our State and local economies. Every day, more and more Americans are realizing the public health, economic, and environmental benefits of this transformative law, benefits that will continue as additional resources are implemented across the country. The bipartisan infrastructure law was what Congress can do at its best. This resolution is the opposite. Again, I support President Biden for his decision to veto this resolution. My colleagues say they want certainty, and we agree, but that certainty that we support also ensures the health and safety of our environment for current and future generations. This resolution, though, provides no certainty. I argue that it is a playbook for how to create confusion, more litigation, and continued gridlock. This resolution provides no benefits to public health. It seeks to eliminate protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands, many of which provide drinking water for millions of Americans. This resolution provides no benefits for our economy. It not only casts aside a time-tested, scientifically based tool to implement the Clean Water Act, but it also blocks any provision of additional clarity for businesses, farmers, and homebuilders going forward. In short, this resolution is a step backward for clean water, and it is a step backward for certainty. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto by voting ``no'' and to reject this attack on our clean water future. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)] [House] [Pages H1772-H1782] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-18
Chamber: HOUSE
Mrs. HOUCHIN: for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.  General Leave