Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7023.

This bill significantly restricts the oversight and regulatory authorities of the EPA and Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act, enacted over 50 years ago, is the Nation's bedrock environmental law for restoring and maintaining the ``chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' and water resources.

However, the changes in H.R. 7023 defy the act's overarching intent and gut the independent authority of both agencies to ensure that projects and activities are carried out with only minimal impacts to water resources.

This partisan bill weakens clean water protections while providing exemptions, legal shields, and limited oversight to special interest polluters and large-scale projects that demand higher scrutiny.

The bill disregards congressional intent in establishing EPA's independent oversight authority over clean water permits, undermines permitting requirements, eliminates judicial review and public engagement, rolls back oversight of mining companies and industrial polluters, inadvertently slows down permit processing with increased bureaucracy, and complicates State-determined decisions.

Mr. Chairman, this bill would also significantly reduce remaining Clean Water Act protections over critical rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands that survived last year's Supreme Court ruling.

Not satisfied with the Court's Sackett decision that eliminated protections for more than 50 percent of the wetlands and up to 70 percent of the streams, this package of anti-clean water proposals would further hamstring the EPA's and Corps' abilities to operate independently to protect our Nation's waterways.

These proposals go in the wrong direction by giving even more to polluters and sacrificing the needs of communities that depend on clean water.

After Sackett, Congress should be working to restore the protections of the Clean Water Act that worked for over 50 years and to move H.R. 5983, the Clean Water Act of 2023, a bill that I have cosponsored with over 130 of my colleagues, to restore clean water protections over our waters, many of which serve as irreplaceable sources of water for families, our communities, our farms, our businesses, our industries, and our quality of life.

We have made too much progress in cleaning up the rivers and streams for Congress to give up now. Mr. Chairman, that is why I am opposed to the proposed changes in H.R. 7023 that weaken bedrock Clean Water Act protections.

The bill will add additional hurdles to EPA's ability to issue water quality standards. It will reduce, if not eliminate, opportunities for the public to seek redress when they are harmed by violations of the Clean Water Act. It would effectively eliminate EPA's ability to oversee and block dangerous projects.

Communities will not benefit from these changes, but mining companies, the oil and gas industry, and other toxic polluters will.

My colleagues would like to approve projects faster, but we need to ensure that projects are built with full consideration of the impacts to human health and the environment. I support the EPA and the Corps working with local communities, Tribes, and States to make these important decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the minority views to H.R. 7023 that were cosigned by myself, Ranking Member Larsen, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats on the committee. Minority Views H.R. 7023

We oppose H.R. 7023. This bill significantly restricts U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) oversight and regulatory authorities under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Clean Water Act, enacted over 50 years ago, is the nation's bedrock environmental law for ``restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' and water resources.

However, the changes in H.R. 7023 defy the overarching intent of the Clean Water Act and gut the independent authority of both agencies to ensure that projects and activities are carried out with only minimal impacts to water resources. This partisan bill weakens CWA protections while providing exemptions, legal shields, and limited oversight for special interests, polluters, and large-scale projects that demand higher scrutiny.

The bill disregards Congressional intent in establishing EPA's independent oversight authority over CWA permits; undermines permitting requirements; eliminates judicial review and public engagement; rolls back oversight of mining companies and industrial polluters; inadvertently slows down permit processing with increased bureaucracy and complicates state-determined decisions.

This legislation offers these anti-CWA changes as a salve to specific projects and grievances rather than a sustainable solution to permitting. Large-scale mining proposals, such as Pebble Mine in Alaska or Spruce Mine in West Virginia, or ecologically devastating flood control projects, such as the Yazoo Pumps in Mississippi, were blocked by bipartisan presidential administrations under the EPA's Section 404(c) authority once the impacts were thoroughly evaluated. Although EPA has utilized this authority very sparingly (only 14 times since its creation in 1972), H.R. 7023 will effectively eliminate the authority altogether.

H.R. 7023 also seeks to alter the review of ``linear'' projects, which includes oil and gas pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and similar projects. These projects often span hundreds of miles and cross multiple state lines; however, H.R. 7023 will limit the consideration of the environmental impacts of these projects, in apparent violation of the Clean Water Act requirement that such projects have only a minimal cumulative adverse impact on the environment. The bill also prevents judicial review by vastly shortening the statute of limitations; limiting standing to file suit; and limiting the Court's options for recourse. In short, H.R. 7023 will greenlight large projects with minimal review while also limiting opportunities for legal challenges to ecologically damaging permits or projects.

If this sounds familiar, that is because it is. The changes proposed in H.R. 7023 will remove opportunities for local communities to review and, where appropriate, challenge the ecological, economic, and public health effects of projects with potentially significant local impacts. H.R. 7023 seeks to allow private industry and development to steamroll through towns and states, constructing projects with minimal review and disregard of local perspectives. If H.R. 7023 is enacted, the potential adverse impacts to waterbodies (such as reduced water quality or availability); to the environment (such as increased greenhouse gas emissions or other contamination); and to residents (such as perpetuating environmental justice concerns) will be borne by the local and surrounding communities without a voice or venue to have their concerns heard.

Lastly, H.R. 7023 contradicts itself by slowing down permitting processes, sowing uncertainty, and decreasing flexibility. As one example, Section 2 of H.R. 7023 will add a formal rulemaking process in place of an existing and more efficient guidance process. This will slow down the issuance of water quality standards without increasing transparency or public participation and remove flexibility for updates. It will also open the standards to judicial review.

The impacts of the CWA rollbacks in H.R. 7023 are exacerbated by the context in which this bill is considered. In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA severely restricted the waters that are subject to CWA protections. It is estimated that the decision removed protection nationwide from at least 50% of wetlands, and at least 60% of streams. With a much smaller number of waters subject to permitting or CWA requirements, additional limitations, expediting, and loopholes to the process are the opposite of what Congress needs to be doing to protect our water resources. Exposing the waters and wetlands that remain under Clean Water Act protections to additional pollution or destruction will do nothing to restore and maintain water quality.

During consideration of H.R. 7023, Committee Democrats sought to lessen the negative impacts of this legislation and require EPA to verify that the changes in the bill would not have negative impacts to water quality and availability issues that communities currently face nationwide.

Representative Pat Ryan (NY) offered an amendment to delay the effective date of the bill until the EPA Administrator determines that the changes will not result in increased discharges of forever chemicals (such as PFAS) or nutrients that cause harmful algal blooms. Providing legal cover for chemicals in waste streams from mines or other industrial polluters and limiting technologies that could remove pollution could certainly lead to increased discharges and pollution levels. The amendment would have ensured that communities are not left with the environmental and economic burden of cleaning up and removing such pollutants.

Representative Greg Stanton (AZ) offered an amendment to prohibit changes made by the bill from taking effect until the EPA Administrator determines that the bill will not result in contamination of state-designated drinking water sources, reduce surface water availability or reduce water quality in drought-prone areas. Additional fill activities or pollutants could severely limit public drinking water sources for communities in arid or drought- stricken areas.

Representative Chris Pappas (NH) offered an amendment to require permittees to conduct proactive monitoring for emerging contaminants and forever chemicals at wastewater treatment plants in order to receive the permit shield offered under the legislation. Industrial polluters should not be incentivized to hide potential discharges of forever chemicals, such as PFAS pollution. Instead, we must work to identify and measure these chemicals in our waste streams.

The Clean Water Act has been an effective tool for improving the health of our rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. Unfortunately, progress restoring impaired waterbodies has slowed and, in some areas, reversed. Communities face new challenges from emerging contaminants, impacts of climate change, and declines in Federal assistance. Waterbodies subject to the CWA have already shrunk significantly. H.R. 7023 ignores all these realities and provides additional loopholes for polluters, industry, and developers.

In our view, this legislation is unnecessary, unwarranted, and a further attack on clean water nationwide. For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 7023.

Rick Larsen, Ranking Member.

Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Jared Huffman, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Valerie Foushee, Frederica S. Wilson, Andre Carson, Julia Brownley, Dina Titus, Mark DeSaulnier, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Jesus ``Chuy'' Garcia, Rob Menendez, Steve Cohen, Val Hoyle, Hillary Scholten, Pat Ryan, Seth Moulton, Marilyn Strickland, Salud O. Carbajal, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chris Pappas.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to H.R. 7023, which states that this legislation will ``weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways that are vital to the well-being of American families, and undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes.'' Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 7023--Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act--Rep. Rouzer, R-NC

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7023, which would weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways that are vital to the well-being of American families, and undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes. The Administration is making historic investments and taking unprecedented action to modernize and accelerate permitting to ensure that infrastructure projects get designed and built swiftly and in a way that reflects community input and protects clean air, clean water, and public health. H.R. 7023 would create uncertainty, confusion, and conflict in permitting processes by: restricting community input and environmental analysis and information that is needed to inform Federal decisions to protect the public; curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to keep pollutants out of water supplies upon which communities rely; and, weakening bedrock environmental protections. H.R. 7023 is out of step with the type of bipartisan permitting reforms that the Administration supports and that Congress should pass.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 7023, including a letter from 49 organizations expressing concern that legislation containing several misguided attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Act puts polluter profits ahead of public health and would jeopardize the water that our families, communities, businesses, and wildlife depend on. March 18, 2024. Re Oppose H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water protections.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 7023, the misleadingly named ``Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act.'' This bill contains several misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act, puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and wildlife depend on.

Numerous provisions of H.R. 7023 shield industrial dischargers that would pollute or destroy our streams, lakes, wetlands, and other waters from responsibility, thereby imposing on downstream communities the burden of increased pollution and flooding, to say nothing of the costs of remedying those threats. In particular:

Section 2 would give polluters new ways to slow down the Environmental Protection Agency's process for updating water quality criteria. Criteria reflect EPA's assessment of the scientific evidence about how pollutants in our waterways adversely affect human health and aquatic life, and include non-binding recommendations for water quality standards that states can adopt to prevent those harmful effects. By subjecting EPA's issuance of criteria to additional administrative processes and opening them up to industry lawsuits, this bill could delay improved protections reflective of scientific developments--which is particularly concerning for emerging contaminants.

Section 3 would authorize EPA to issue ``general'' permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program for industrial and municipal polluters. This new authority lacks safeguards that Congress included in the parallel general permitting program for ``dredge and fill'' activities, namely that the activities must have minimal adverse environmental impacts. It also would greatly limit EPA's ability to terminate such a permit if the agency determined it was causing unacceptable harm to the environment.

Section 4 would make it easier for industrial operations to dump PFAS, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' and other emerging contaminants into the nation's waters without accountability. Specifically, the bill would shield dischargers from Clean Water Act liability even if they are aware of certain pollutants in their waste streams but do not disclose it to pollution control officials who do not have reason to expect such contaminants.

Section 5 would virtually eliminate EPA's ability to stop mammoth polluting projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska's Bristol Bay watershed. This rarely-used authority (invoked only 14 times in the Act's history) is crucial to prevent the most egregious projects from destroying precious fisheries, drinking water supplies, and other resources.

Section 6 would require the Army Corps of Engineers to permanently retain a fast-track permit for highly destructive and polluting oil and gas pipelines and greatly weaken the Corps' nationwide permitting program--a program that is already far too lax in preventing and mitigating the harm caused by projects that fill in the nation's waters. The bill would double the duration of general permits, such that advancements in best practices for the dozens of activities covered by such permits would not be required promptly. And it would excuse the Army Corps of Engineers from considering the full environmental consequences of permitted activities, as well as the effects of such activities on endangered species.

Section 7 would prevent effective judicial review of projects that fill in and destroy wetlands, streams, and other waters. The bill would impose an impractically short statute of limitations on court review of ``dredge and fill'' permits, which would likely force concerned citizens to file suit on more permits in order to preserve their rights, in many instances before the impacts of the permitted project are fully understood. The bill would also severely hamstring courts' authority to provide a remedy for illegal permits because permits found unlawful would ordinarily remain in effect and allow continued harm to water resources while the Army Corps of Engineers reexamines them.

In contrast to these provisions, polling continues to show that people actually want stronger federal protections for our nation's waters. Too many communities, especially Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low wealth communities, still lack clean water. Congress should be focused on putting people before polluters and working to ensure everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income, has access to clean water, rather than attempting to undermine our critical clean water protections.

Again, we urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water safeguards that would endanger the waters our families and communities depend on and work against the Clean Water Act's objective ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' Sincerely,

Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alliance for the Great Lakes; American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Appalachian Trail Conservancy; Bayou City Waterkeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Food Safety; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean Water Action; Clean Wisconsin; Committee on the Middle Fork Vermiliom River; Community Water Center; Earthjustice; Environmental Justice Health Alliance; Environment America.

Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Protection Network; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW); Freshwater Future; GreenLatinos; Izaak Walton League of America; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Latino Farmers & Ranchers International, Inc.; Lawyers for Good Government; League of Conservation Voters; Maryland Pesticide Education Network; Massachusetts Pollinator Network; Massachusetts Rivers Alliance; Mississippi River Collaborative; National Audubon Society.

National Wildlife Federation; National Resources Defense Council; New Mexico Wild; Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides; Ohio River Foundation; People and Pollinators Action Network; PolicyLink; River Network; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans; Toxic Free North Carolina; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; WE ACT for Environmental Justice; We the People of Detroit. ____ National Parks Conservation Association, Washington, DC, March 19, 2024. Re Vote no on bills that could result in harm to national parks

Dear Representative: Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and supporters nationwide, I write to share NPCA's thoughts on select legislation being considered by the House of Representatives the week of March 18, 2024.

H.R. 6009--Restoring American Energy Dominance Act: NPCA opposes this legislation, which stops the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from updating its onshore oil and gas program for the first time in 35 years. Not only does this legislation halt a public regulatory process partway through, it prohibits BLM from proposing any substantially similar rules. This effectively prohibits BLM from updating this program in the future, making it harder for the agency to oversee the federal onshore leasing program.

The proposed rule follows recommendations by the Government Accountability Office and implements reforms already passed into law. In the rule, BLM makes the leasing process more straightforward and streamlines paperwork and filing requirements for industry, making the leasing and auction processes more consistent while updating it for the 21st century. The proposed rule also ensures that BLM considers proximity to national parks and other special places during the parcel selection process. By taking a holistic approach to parcel selection, BLM can avoid conflicts later in the leasing process and costly and time-consuming lawsuits while protecting irreplaceable cultural and natural treasures. This approach also ensures that lands used for conservation and recreation purposes by millions of Americans are not impeded by oil and gas development.

During the comment period for the proposed rule, over 99% of all comments were supportive. The current leasing system and onshore oil and gas program is antiquated and does not offer proper oversight or ensure protections and fair returns to American taxpayers. We urge a No vote on H.R. 6009.

H.R. 1023--the Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act: NPCA opposes this legislation, which repeals implementation of the Methane Emissions Reduction Program (MERP). MERP is critical to ensuring the successful and efficient reduction of oil and gas methane emissions and spurring economic innovation in methane mitigation. Methane is a greenhouse gas that traps over 80 times more heat on our planet than carbon dioxide in the short term. Methane is often leaked and vented during oil and gas operations, degrading air quality around national parks, driving climate change, threatening public health, and harming unique resources that national parks protect, like dark night skies. We urge a No vote on H.R. 1023 to protect national parks, visitors and communities and our climate from harmful and wasteful methane emissions.

H.R. 7023--the Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act: NPCA opposes this legislation, which weakens or delays the protection of our waterways under the Clean Water Act. Over 220 national park units do not meet water quality standards for visitor health and park resources. Instead of creating more protections that help clean up park waterways, this bill slows down EPA's ability to set and revise water quality standards. It also creates new general permits for discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System without the safeguards of a similar program. The bill essentially eliminates EPA's ability to apply a rarely used, but necessary authority under Sec. 404(c) to stop large, polluting projects like the Pebble Mine near Lake Clark National Park and Preserve in Alaska's Bristol Bay watershed. Finally, the bill prevents effective judicial review of projects that fill in wetlands, streams and other waters. We urge a No vote on H.R. 7023 to prevent rolling back clean water protections for our parks and communities.

Thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, Kristen Brengel, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters expressing opposition to H.R. 7023 and its efforts to reopen Federal protections of pristine salmon habitat within and around Bristol Bay, Alaska, including a letter from the Bristol Bay Defense Fund and the United Tribes of Bristol Bay. January 30, 2024. Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

To the Honorable Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: On behalf of the Bristol Bay Defense Fund, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict, deny, or withdraw permits for destructive projects that would pollute our nation's water resources. These changes to Section 404(c) are a direct attack on the nation's clean water, Clean Water Act, and the EPA. While purporting to streamline the permitting process for development projects, these changes to Section 404(c) would threaten the very foundation of environmental protection for our nation's wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, compromising their ecological integrity and ultimately impacting water quality, public health, and economic stability.

The provisions of H.R. 7206, Amendment to H.R. 7023, or any similar anti-404(c) language would gut the EPA's ability under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to stop giant polluting projects that would have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and recreational areas like the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. By limiting the EPA to as little as 30 days to invoke its 404(c) authority, H.R. 7206 would eliminate any meaningful opportunity for review by the public (including the project proponent) and would preclude the EPA from conducting the type of careful analyses that have supported previous 404(c) determinations. H.R. 7023 would similarly eviscerate the EPA's authority.

These anti-404(c) provisions ignore the EPA's rare and judicious use of Section 404(c), invoked only 14 times in the Clean Water Act's 52-year history. They represent a blatant attempt to green light and fast track even the most egregious projects that would destroy our Nation's water resources.

The Clean Water Act stands as a testament to our Nation's commitment to protecting our precious water resources. Weakening Section 404(c) would be a detrimental step backward, compromising environmental health, public well- being, and economic stability. We urge you to oppose these provisions or any similar language that would hobble the EPA's ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most devastating projects from destroying our nation's fisheries, drinking water, and other natural resources.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with you to safeguard our precious water resources for the benefit of all Americans. Sincerely,

Bristol Bay Defense Fund.

United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay.

Businesses for Bristol Bay.

SalmonState.

Wild Salmon Center.

Native American Rights Fund.

Natural Resources Defense Council. ____ Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen: On behalf of Trout Unlimited, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict, deny, or withdraw permits that are exceptionally destructive to our nation's water, fish and recreational resources. These changes to Section 404(c) undermine our country's ability to maintain and protect clean for fish, wildlife, communities and businesses. The proposed changes to Section 404(c) would jeopardize important public resources critical to fish, wildlife, public health and recreation and while favoring private industries that often don't have the best interests of the public in mind.

The provisions of H.R. 7026, which is offered as an amendment to H.R. 7008, or any similar anti-404(c) language would restrict the EPA's ability under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to restrict, prohibit or limit projects that would have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and recreational areas like the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. The 404(c) authority has only been used 14 times in the 52-history of the Clean Water Act, most often by Republican Administrations. The Clean Water Act 404(c) tool requires significant scientific, legal and public input and processes and cannot be considered a tool that is currently wielded injudiciously.

On behalf of our more than 130,000 members and supporters in Alaska and across the country, we urge you to oppose these provisions or any similar language that would weaken EPA's ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most egregious projects from destroying our nation's fisheries, drinking water, and other natural resources.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with you to safeguard our clean water resources for the benefit of all Americans. Sincerely, Nelli Williams, Alaska Director, Trout Unlimited.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no issue has more support among American families than the protection of our Nation's waters.

Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean water, as recent years have shown major water challenges across the U.S. such as drought in the West, floods in the East, and water contamination in many States.

We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our businesses, and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable supplies of water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our quality-of-life needs, and our day-to-day survival. I have dedicated much of my time in Congress to protecting our critical water supplies and making sure we capture, use, and reuse every available drop of water in our communities, and I do not plan to stop now.

Recent public surveys in the West have found that residents are more concerned than ever about inadequate water supplies. Almost 9 in 10 Westerners say that inadequate water supply is a serious problem in their State.

This is especially true in my home State of California. As the Metropolitan Water District commented to our subcommittee 1 year ago, a strong and clear Clean Water Act is important to the day-to-day operations of water agencies and source water protection efforts.

Congress should be reinstating protections to the Clean Water Act that the Supreme Court removed to continue to protect our streams and wetlands that have been protected since the inception of the act.

Streams, rivers, and wetlands are critical to capturing and storing rain and snowmelt to ensure a long-term supply of water and to recharge our underground aquifers; yet, this bill limits or eliminates protections over waters that provide the source of drinking water to over 117 million Americans.

Yes, there is a cost to protecting our communities, our sources of drinking water, and our environment. However, that cost should be borne by those seeking to pollute our waterways or fill our wetlands for their own personal gain, rather than transferring that cost to Americans or to downstream States.

This bill would increase levels of pollution in our water bodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and increase certainty that communities like mine cannot maintain sustainable sources of drinking water.

Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the pollution caused by others.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 7023, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that nothing in this act affects the existing ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.

Legislation banning the issuing of new drilling permits in the Great Lakes was passed in 2005 with support from both parties.

While legislation before us does undermine Clean Water Act protections, it does not affect the existing ban on drilling in the Great Lakes.

Republicans would like to call this week energy week, so let's look at the state of American energy today. Despite what you hear on the other side of the aisle, we are experiencing a record oil boom in the United States--a record oil boom.

There is no war on oil. The United States is the largest crude oil producer in the world, outpacing Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries.

Last fall, President Biden had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands than the previous President had at the same point in his Presidency.

Through passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden and House Democrats are addressing both the immediate needs for affordable gas prices for consumers as well as the long-term investments in a clean energy future that will also tackle the climate crisis.

Already since the Inflation Reduction Act's passage, 292 major clean energy projects have been announced that would create over 100,000 jobs across the country.

Just like America can dominate both oil production and clean energy deployment, we can promote American energy while also ensuring protection of our environment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).

Communities across the Nation have learned firsthand of the human health risks associated with forever chemicals such as PFAS, a pollutant that is found in wastewater of municipal treatment works as well as in industrial discharges.

EPA is actively addressing PFAS concerns both by pushing to identify and limit large-scale industrial discharges of PFAS to treatment systems as well as developing an enforcement discretion policy for municipalities that may simply have PFAS chemicals in their sewage through no fault of their own.

While I share the gentleman's concern about the health risks of PFAS, I would point out that the underlying bill may create greater incentives for discharges to underreport or look the other way when it comes to PFAS discharges.

Since 1994, EPA has had in place a ``permit shield'' policy that provides dischargers with legal protection if they are applied for in good faith, and with honest disclosures of all pollutants potentially contained in the discharge.

However, the underlying bill codifies an expanded version of the permit shield, applicable to any discharger, whether a municipal treatment plant, a mining site, or industrial discharger regardless of whether they have made good-faith disclosures of all pollutants.

EPA has indicated that this expanded permit shield creates a disincentive for permittees to identify pollutants that are part of their waste stream during the development of their permit, including PFAS.

We should not be creating incentives for permittees to ignore the discharge of these chemicals.

I support the gentleman's amendment to ensure that nothing in the act affects the EPA's authority to research PFAS chemicals. However, I do not support the provisions in the underlying bill that will undermine EPA's ability to track ongoing discharges of PFAS making it more challenging to utilize this research to help the communities threatened by PFAS.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, for over 50 years, the Federal-State partnership created by the Clean Water Act has allowed communities to enjoy clean water and has given businesses the certainty they need to create jobs and spur economic growth.

Yet, if this amendment becomes law, both EPA and every State who has taken on responsibility for implementing the Clean Water Act would have to deny clean water permits for any--I underscore any--facility or activity associated with a foreign government of concern.

That means that any U.S. subsidiary of a company with economic ties to China, Russia, or any other foreign country of concern would, by statute, be denied the ability to operate and expand in this country if their activities trigger Clean Water Act review.

I know Representative Moolenaar is concerned about the announced $2.3 billion investment in the State of Michigan that is likely to create an additional 2,350 good-paying jobs, and that Michigan Governor Whitman has called `` . . . the biggest ever economic development project in northern Michigan. . . . ''

However, this amendment is not limited to Michigan. How many other U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will also be caught up in this amendment?

How will the General Electric appliance manufacturing plants in Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina continue to operate if this amendment is adopted? GE Appliances is a subsidiary of a Chinese-owned company.

How will this amendment affect Smithfield Foods' operations in Maryland and Virginia if these facilities are forever denied clean water permits because of their association with a Chinese owner?

Motorola is one of the world's leading manufacturers of smartphones; however, this Chinese-owned company has numerous offices and manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S., including a new 136,000- square-foot facility in Richardson, Texas.

Will the Moolenaar amendment make it logistically impossible for Motorola to continue to operate in the U.S.?

House Democrats have been leading the charge to ensure that the Clean Water Act continues to accomplish both goals--clean water and job creation.

House Democrats will continue to build a strong record of sustainable job creation and support of domestic manufacturing.

Prohibiting the issuance of Clean Water Act permits for projects that have investment from certain foreign entities is likely to be unimplement able, will increase the potential for litigation and delay, and ultimately only threatens clean water.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, the Clean Water Act was specifically enacted as a Federal-State partnership.

Today, EPA has approved 47 States to implement the point source discharge program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Their status as coregulators makes comprehensive implementation of the programs possible.

However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill materials under section 404 of the act, with only New Jersey and Michigan currently approved to implement this authority.

This amendment is directly related to whether Florida followed the rules in seeking approval of its own section 404 program.

Recently, a Federal district court struck down the previous administration's approval of Florida's 404 permit authority on the grounds that both State and Federal agencies failed to follow the rules in approving the State's program.

I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to manage 404 authority within its border. However, this amendment seeks to legislatively mandate approval of a program, without changes, that was adopted without proper oversight and review.

The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program, but through the proper approval process, and Congress should not mandate a program that has been deemed deficient by the courts.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, House Democrats support including local input in the development of large-scale infrastructure projects directly affecting local communities. During committee consideration of this bill, we opposed attempts to curtail local input.

This amendment is another example of curtailing local input to push through large-scale projects. However, this amendment picks winners and losers for what types of projects get to be jammed through the process.

I proudly supported the investments in our infrastructure and clean energy future contained in the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act last Congress. These critical bills were about creating jobs, advancing infrastructure investments, and accelerating the economy of the future.

House Democrats are committed to improving the quality of life for all Americans by building the economy from the middle out and bottom up. However, this amendment gives a fast lane for Clean Water Act permits to fossil fuel-related linear infrastructure projects.

It purposefully excludes renewable energy projects, including solar and wind, and other clean energy alternatives that benefited from the Inflation Reduction Act. It also excludes efforts to bolster energy reliability and resilience and nationwide efforts to upgrade the Nation's energy grid. I suspect this is why several energy companies, including the American Clean Power Association, Edison Electric, and the Chamber of Commerce are also opposed to this amendment.

Again, I remain concerned that under H.R. 7023, local voices are excluded from the development of linear projects generally. Adding Mr. Graves' amendment, which doubles down on the fast-tracking of fossil fuel-related energy infrastructure, only strengthens my opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 99, noes 323, not voting 15, as follows: [Roll No. 99] AYES--99 Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Barr Bean (FL) Biggs Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brecheen Buck Burlison Carey Cline Cloud Clyde Collins Crane Davidson Duncan Ellzey Fallon Fry Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Granger Graves (LA) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guthrie Hageman Hern Higgins (LA) Hill Hunt Issa Jackson (TX) Johnson (SD) Jordan Kustoff LaMalfa LaTurner Lesko Letlow Loudermilk Luna Malliotakis Mann Massie McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McHenry Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Mooney Moore (AL) Moran Moylan Newhouse Norman Obernolte Ogles Palmer Perry Posey Radewagen Rogers (KY) Rosendale Roy Scalise Scott, Austin Self Sessions Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Spartz Stefanik Steil Steube Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Van Drew Van Duyne Weber (TX) Wenstrup Williams (NY) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NOES--323 Adams Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen Allred Amo Amodei Auchincloss Baird Balderson Balint Banks Barragan Beatty Bentz Bera Bergman Beyer Bice Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bowman Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Buchanan Bucshon Budzinski Burchett Burgess Bush Calvert Cammack Caraveo Carbajal Cardenas Carl Carson Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Cartwright Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chavez-DeRemer Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Ciscomani Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Cole Comer Connolly Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crawford Crenshaw Crockett Crow Cuellar Curtis D'Esposito Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) De La Cruz Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Dingell Donalds Duarte Dunn (FL) Edwards Emmer Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Estes Evans Ezell Feenstra Ferguson Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fletcher Flood Foster Foushee Foxx Franklin, Scott Frost Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Gallego Garamendi Garbarino Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Garcia, Mike Garcia, Robert Gimenez Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Graves (MO) Green, Al (TX) Guest Harris Harshbarger Hayes Himes Hinson Horsford Houchin Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Hudson Huffman Huizenga Ivey Jackson (IL) Jackson (NC) Jackson Lee Jacobs James Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Kean (NJ) Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Khanna Kiggans (VA) Kiley Kilmer Kim (CA) Kim (NJ) Krishnamoorthi Kuster LaHood LaLota Lamborn Landsman Langworthy Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latta Lawler Lee (CA) Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Lieu Lofgren Lucas Luetkemeyer Luttrell Lynch Mace Magaziner Maloy Manning Mast Matsui McBath McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern Meeks Menendez Meng Meuser Mfume Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Morelle Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Murphy Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Nickel Norcross Norton Nunn (IA) Ocasio-Cortez Omar Owens Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Pelosi Peltola Pence Perez Peters Pettersen Pfluger Phillips Pingree Plaskett Pocan Porter Quigley Ramirez Raskin Reschenthaler Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Ross Rouzer Ruiz Ruppersberger Rutherford Ryan Sablan Salazar Salinas Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Scholten Schrier Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Slotkin Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spanberger Stansbury Stanton Stauber Steel Stevens Strickland Strong Suozzi Swalwell Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Turner Underwood Valadao Van Orden Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Wagner Walberg Waltz Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Webster (FL) Westerman Wexton Wild Williams (GA) NOT VOTING--15 Doggett Frankel, Lois Golden (ME) Gonzalez-Colon Gosar Grijalva Harder (CA) Kildee Molinaro Nehls Pressley Rose Simpson Williams (TX) Wilson (FL)

Messrs. CARSON, GIMENEZ, JAMES, Ms. MALOY, Messrs. DUNN of Florida, RESCHENTHALER, EMMER, KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. STEEL, Messrs. MOOLENAAR, CARDENAS, LUTTRELL, Ms. OMAR, Messrs. COSTA, FULCHER and WEBSTER of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

Messrs. HUNT, FALLON, MOYLAN, and CLINE changed their vote from =========================== NOTE ===========================

On March 21, 2024, page H1338, in the third column, the following appeared: LUTTRELL, Ms. OMAR, Messrs. COSTA, FULCHER, WEBSTER of Flor- ida and MIKE GARCIA of California changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Messrs. HUNT, FALLON, MOYLAN, and CLINE changed their vote from

The online version has been corrected to read: LUTTRELL, Ms. OMAR, Messrs. COSTA, FULCHER and WEBSTER of Flor- ida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Messrs. HUNT, FALLON, MOYLAN, and CLINE changed their vote from ========================= END NOTE =========================

``no'' to ``aye.''So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source