Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Still a member in my heart, of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Rahall. I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

I've been listening to debate on the floor, and I really could not disagree more with the proponents of this legislation. They would seek to overturn a 40-year record of trying to get people to follow the law. Look at the record of what States have done over the course of the last 100 years dealing with water quality. And it isn't that the Federal Government overreached and the States had done too much. We have the Clean Water Act because the States consistently failed to meet their obligations.

Today, there are wide variations around America in terms of how zealously individual States take their responsibility and how they balance. There's tremendous pressure for short-term economic gain at the expense of the environment. And in some parts of the country, it doesn't bother them to bulldoze mountaintops into streams. And, in fact, EPA has not been vigilant in dealing with that. It's only been recently that we are starting to have people come to grips with this issue.

It is important that EPA has the opportunity to withhold--to have some sanction--when States don't follow through on their plans. This bill would take away the ability of EPA to have sanctions. It's important that we have a third party to be able to do some mediation when there are differences between States. This is not something that is confined to Pennsylvania or West Virginia or Oregon, because our waterways are interconnected. They transcend boundaries. We need to have the Federal Government making sure that, at a minimum, there are reasonable standards that are enforced and that the plans that one administration on a State level commits to are actually followed through.

You don't have to spend very much time on Google to find out that there are places around the country right now where local authorities and where State authorities are not meeting the highest standards of water quality.

I strongly suggest that this is a step backward. Luckily, it's not going to be enacted into law. The administration would veto it. I can't imagine it gets very far in the other body.

Frankly, looking at the list of the organizations, the list that was cited of the people who support this, they are not the people who have championed clean water. They're the people that want looser restrictions, that want to be able to pollute more, and that want to be able to make their own decisions. But the people who care about fish and wildlife, the people who care about environmental protection, and the people who care first about the health and welfare of the American public, they are uniformly opposed to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is important business. There are economics involved with protecting the environment. In State after State, there's a lot of money to be made by having healthy hunting and fishing. There is money to be saved by having healthy waterways and healthy communities. And if we don't stop the pollution in the first place, then that puts the burden on local communities to spend more on water quality and water treatment.

I strongly suggest my colleagues take a hard look at the history of the last 40 years. Look at the uneven application of the Clean Water Act at the State level. Look at how a judicious approach on the part of the Federal Government has helped promote compliance. Even the so-called veto power of EPA has been invoked only 13 times in 38 years.

This is a bad bill. It should be rejected.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close. As we have no further requests on my side under general debate, I will give my closing comments now.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 17 1/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. RAHALL. This is about the process, as I described in my opening comments, not the policy. This bill is not about whether the Members of this body support clean, safe water. We all support clean, safe water. I do not know a single Member in this House that wants to turn back the clock on the gains that this Nation has made in the last 40 years to clean up our rivers and streams. This bill is about process and precedent. It is about whether we should be allowing one Federal agency to run roughshod over the law, over the States, and over other Federal agencies to set policy according to political ideology. Now, I do not think we should be allowing any agency of our Federal Government to be run in that manner.

If this Congress allows the EPA to push the envelope in circumventing the law, in circumventing public comment and public participation, it lays the legal groundwork for the next administration to do the exact same thing--maybe under the guise of cleaner air and cleaner water, maybe under the guise of lowering those standards. But the precedent that would be set could be devastating. By not taking action, the Congress is tacitly giving the EPA the authority to do what it deems politically necessary, and that is something that this and every Congress has the responsibility to resist.

So this bill, Mr. Chairman, is not about whether any Member in this institution supports the ends that the EPA is trying to reach. It is about whether or not we believe that we should be allowed to use any--any--means to reach those ends. And I do not believe they should.

There are plenty of Members on this floor today who believe that the intentions of the EPA with respect to its mission to ensure clean water are noble. I put myself in that category. But we all have to worry when an agency goes to such lengths to circumvent the Congress and the rulemaking process so as to impose its own agenda, because after the next election or the election after that or the election after that, some future EPA may not have such noble intentions. And if we fail to stand up today, we will suffer the consequences of our inaction later.

This bill is about transparency. It does not tell the EPA they cannot effect improvements in water quality. It says that they cannot do it without letting the people--the people--have a voice in the process. That's the way the rulemaking process is intended to work. But this EPA has effectively thwarted that process and thumbed its nose at the people by issuing guidance and treating it like regulation.

As I said in my opening comments, I wish we were not here on this bill today. I wish it would not be necessary. I would much rather see a cooperative Federal relationship among the agencies and the Federal agencies with the States and with the industries involved, but that has not occurred. And, therefore, it has created an era of mistrust, distrust, and bitterness, an outright scared attitude among our coal miners whether or not they will have a job next year or even tomorrow and for how long their current job will last.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I do conclude by speaking in support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 12 minutes remaining.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I think what this bill is addressing, we have 21st century problems and challenges, and we are looking for 21st century solutions. I want to lay out the facts to have a little more clarity, and I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia's support of the bill.

We have to realize that the State EPAs have to have an approved plan by the Federal EPA. That is the framework that they are working under, and you just can't have the Federal EPA come in during the ball game and try to change the rules and undermine the efforts of the State EPAs.

I want to comment regarding the gentleman from Oregon's comments that we are going to go backwards and we have made progress in the last 40 years, and the States didn't do anything in the last 40 years or before. Let's remember what happened prior to 1972.

I grew up 12 miles from the city of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga River. I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. I remember as a child when I couldn't go down and swim in Lake Erie any more because raw sewage was going into Lake Erie. Those events caused this Congress to pass the Clean Water Act and establish the U.S. EPA and also give authority for the States to set up their programs. Prior to that, nobody was concerned about the environment and we didn't have the so-called environmental movement where we are all concerned about having clean water.

Since then, we have made tremendous progress. On point-source pollution, we have made tremendous progress. On discharges, we don't have the discharges going into our lakes and rivers and streams like we did 40 years ago. We have made significant progress addressing nonsource-point pollution. Now, that is not to say that we don't have more challenges.

I want to talk about one size fits all, and the U.S. EPA has an agenda right now that is overreaching. They want to set policies and parameters that fit for everybody to work under. I will give you an example. The numerical nutrient standard, and let's take phosphorus and nitrogen. You hear a lot about phosphorus sediment pollution in our lakes and rivers. To go in there and set a number, a numerical number that they can't exceed that, discharge at that level, causes some problems.

For the last 40 years, we have been operating under something called the narrative standard. States can go in there and look at what is going on in that watershed or that stream or that river. I can tell you, in every river and stream in this country, there are different things happening. The biology is different. The pH is different. The water temperature, water flow is different. The sunlight. A whole host of things. They can incorporate that and come up with a plan on how to address that in their local locale.

When you set a number at such a high level, it creates a situation where the States can't attain it; it's not possible. We have seen that happen in Florida, and that is why Florida has litigation pending because they set one size fits all. Whereas Florida, ironically, was moving to a point to set a numerical standard, but they wanted to address and incorporate what I call the narrative standard so they could address what is happening in each locale and not a huge region to address those differences that are happening in that stream or that river. So one size fits all doesn't work. It causes problems, and it will make us to go back, impacting the progress we've made in the last 40 years.

Now, in this bill we also talk about the permitting issue. One of the most egregious things that I have seen since I have been in Congress since January was a revocation of a permit. Yes, it was in West Virginia. It was a coal mine operation that went through 10 years of an environmental impact study, got their permit in 2007, and then 3 years later the permit was revoked, not because they were in permit violation. The Army Corps of Engineers testified in my committee that there were no problems. The State, West Virginia EPA didn't support revoking that permit. I really don't know why they revoked that permit other than it was maybe on an agenda of somebody. But they were not in violation of the permit.

It is one thing to revoke a permit when you are in violation of a permit, but when you are not in violation of the permit, to take that permit away, it sets a very dangerous precedent; because the dangerous precedent it sets across our entire economy, if you're an entity or an enterprise and you have to have a permit from the Federal Government to be in business, and if that Federal Government at the whim of some bureaucrat or the administration comes and pulls that permit any time they want to, who is going to risk capital and make that investment, create jobs, knowing that they could be shut down tomorrow because the permit is not there to stay in business?

That is what this bill addresses. They have to get concurrence. The U.S. EPA would have to get concurrence from the State EPA to support that revocation to shut that business down.

So this is really a jobs bill. We are trying to relieve uncertainty so people know what the playing field is. I can tell you, I think the State EPAs can do a better job in their locales, because they know what is going on there, than to have a one-size-fits-all policy by the Federal Government and an overreaching and burdensome regulatory climate that kills jobs, kills economic investment, and, like I said, kills jobs.

So that is why I think it is important to move this bill forward. This is a jobs bill.

We have sent several bills over to the Senate that are jobs bills. I urge the Senate to take them up because we have unemployment at 9.2 percent and rising.

I think it is important for people to have an opportunity to have a job and economic opportunities. We need the Federal Government to create the environment for what I call the job creators to have that confidence, to make those investments and start hiring people back and growing their businesses.

This bill is really important to encourage cooperative arrangements working among the Federal EPA and the State EPAs.

I was really floored in the committee hearings we had where we had State EPAs come in--and some of them were from the other side of the aisle from me--and testify against the Federal EPA on their actions and their overreach.

You know, a strong economy--some people don't understand this, although I say this a lot. A strong and growing economy will provide the resources to invest and protect and enhance the environment. An economy that is struggling right now, it makes it tougher to have those resources. As an example, you look at some Third World countries where their biggest challenge is feeding their people, they don't have the resources to build sewage treatment plants and water filtration systems and do other things to protect the environment. We have the resources, and we have a strong, growing economy, and we should be working with those businesses because most businesses and most people want to do the right thing. Everybody wants clean water and clean air.

So I take exception to the comments of my colleague from Oregon who said that we are not protecting the environment. I think a strong, growing economy does protect the environment, and I think the regulatory policies are in place at the State levels because the States are set up to do it now, different than 40 years ago, to regulate and also enforce environmental protection laws, whether it is mountaintop mining or whatever it is. We have the rules in place.

In Ohio, when I was in the State Senate 2 years ago, we passed comprehensive legislation to add additional regulation on the oil and gas industry to protect our groundwater, our water aquifers, and our surface water. And we did.

I am really encouraged now, the potential we have with the Utica shale and the Marcellus shale to make us closer to being energy independent and not dependent and shipping almost a trillion dollars a year away to other countries, some of which don't really like us very much. We have an opportunity to have a strong, growing economy and provide the energy, but also protect the environment at the same time. We just have the regulatory process in place, and I think this enables a stronger regulatory process because it emboldens the State EPAs to do their job and work cooperatively with their partners in Washington, D.C.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, today, the House is considering H.R. 2018, the so-called Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act. This bill, which represents the latest attempt by the House to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, could just as easily be called the ``Dirty Water Act.''

Since 1972, the Clean Water Act, which is one of the nation's most successful and effective environmental laws, has protected the waterways Americans depend on for fishing, swimming, and clean drinking water. H.R. 2018 would overturn almost 40 years of federal protection by preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from safeguarding public health and protecting water quality. It also would undermine the agency's authority to ensure that state water quality standards comply with the law. What's at stake here is not federal oversight versus state's rights, but rather clean water versus dirty water.

In case anyone is wondering why the Congress might consider such a bill, consider this example: coal companies want to conduct mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia and dump the waste they generate into Appalachia's streams and waterways. The EPA has rightly declined to classify this waste as fill material. Should the financial interests of a few coal companies outweigh the environmental and public health interests of the people of the entire region?

Rather than weakening our federal clean water protection laws, we should be strengthening these laws to protect our oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2018.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to today's legislation, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act,'' which represents another effort on the part of this Republican Majority to systematically dismantle environmental protections by eroding EPA authority under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act is a partnership between federal and state authorities to maintain water quality standards across the nation. But it also provides a federal backstop if states cannot or will not effectively enforce those standards.

As we all know, water does not stop at the state line. Policies in one state upstream will affect water quality in another downstream. This is a serious issue in my state of Maryland, where the Chesapeake Bay feeds from a watershed that includes six states and the District of Columbia. Inadequate environmental protection in any of those states can have grave consequences for the health of the nation's largest estuary.

It is not difficult to imagine the costs of dismantling Clean Water Act authority. Prior to its enactment in 1972, our nation's waters were in crisis. Lake Erie could not support aquatic life. A floating oil slick on the Cuyahoga River caught fire. Industrial polluters used lakes and streams as dumping grounds for dangerous chemicals and two-thirds of our nation's lakes, rivers, and coastal waters were unsafe for fishing or swimming.

The Clean Water Act was a simple and powerful solution--a baseline for water quality with a federal safety net in the event of state inaction. For nearly 40 years, this approach has helped preserve access to safe water to all Americans. There is no reason or justification to roll back those protections today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2018, which would be more appropriately titled the ``Giveaway to Developer and Coal Company CEOs Act.''

This bill removes protections for our nation's waters that were absolutely essential to the progress we have shown so far in cleaning up Lake Erie and the rest of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes comprise 21 percent of the world's fresh water supply. Lake Erie is the shallowest and smallest, and therefore the most vulnerable of the Great Lakes and it is our primary water source in Northeast Ohio. 'We cannot afford to go back to days when the Cuyahoga River caught fire because it was so polluted. Already, 77 percent of all stream-miles in the Lake Erie basin are unprotected.

Lake Erie is not only crucial to our health, but to our economy. It generates 10 billion dollars per year in revenue through travel, tourism, wildlife watching, boating, sport and commercial fishing and other activities. One out of every ten jobs in the state is connected to Lake Erie. This economic activity generates 676 million dollars in federal tax revenue, 410 million dollars in state tax revenue and 347 million dollars in local tax revenue annually. Lake Erie is our Golden Goose. We must protect it at all costs.

This bill also removes the EPA's ability to clamp down on the worst mountaintop removal polluters. These coal mines, which remove entire mountains to get at the coal, are on their way out. There is no room in this country's energy portfolio for coal. Coal is a major contributor to the environmental, national security, and economic problem that is global warming. It would be difficult to underestimate the urgency of shutting down coal power plants immediately for that reason alone. But coal also devastates communities with open toxic waste holding ponds and with air emissions that create or exacerbate asthma and respiratory disorders. Coal mines kill its miners and leave them with Black Lung. Mountaintop removal fills streams and destroys entire ecosystems, contaminating drinking water supplies with carcinogens and other toxic chemicals in the process. Coal is the single biggest reason that so many of the fish species that were an important part of the diet for billions of people are contaminated with mercury levels that are so high, they can cause IQ loss and birth defects. This bill will take the woefully inadequate environmental protections in place and weaken them.

Coal is not even defensible from an economic standpoint. More jobs are created by renewable energy creation, which is being explored in many mountaintop mining communities, than by coal-based energy.

If communities, workers, the health of families, the ecosystems on which we rely, drinking water and atmospheric stability do not benefit from this bill, who does?

Developers will be able to build in more areas that are critical for drinking water protection and protection from floods, even though we are now saddled with a surplus of housing and commercial unit availability because of the bursting of the housing bubble. And mountaintop removal mining companies will be able to spend even less on protecting the communities from which they siphon money, livelihoods, and health. Profits and shareholder returns, undoubtedly, will benefit handsomely.

Bills like these take the wealth of this country and funnel it upward. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. The Clean Water Act was designed to be a partnership between the federal government and individual states to keep our nation's waterways healthy and safe. For too long, however, the Environmental Protection Agency has imposed burdensome regulations that harm job creation and are not realistic in implementation.

Recently, Florida has been at the center of a fight over water quality standards with the EPA, a federal regulatory agency that has attempted to impose impractical federal water quality standards over the State's objections. Rather than adhering to the state-federal partnership originally established under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has repeatedly undermined that partnership to the detriment of states like Florida. Should their regulatory overreach be allowed to continue, tens of thousands of jobs throughout Florida would be affected, hurting both Central Florida families and small businesses.

H.R. 2018 preserves the authority granted to each state by the Clean Water Act and halts the EPA's proposed ``numeric nutrient'' regulations. Congress has a responsibility to the states to ensure that regulations which hamper job growth and stifle our economy are removed. For these reasons, I am proud to support this much needed legislation.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before the House today. The authors of this bill call it ``The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act,'' but this legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with clean water. A better name for this bill is ``The Dirty Water Act.''

In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio--one of the tributaries of the Great Lakes--caught fire, and became a symbol of everything that was wrong with the patchwork system of state water laws that existed at the time. Water pollution does not respect state boundaries and that patchwork of poorly enforced state laws nearly killed the Great Lakes and resulted in rivers and streams that were unfit to swim and fish in.

In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act and replaced the state patchwork approach with a national system of water quality standards. The Clean Water Act has worked. Over the last four decades, we've made real progress in reducing water pollution and are well on the way to meeting the Act's goals of making our nation's waters fishable, swimmable, and drinkable.

In my own District in Southeast Michigan, we've seen extraordinary progress in reducing water pollution. As just one example, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Clinton River was extraordinarily polluted. The River was dying and the beaches downstream on Lake St. Clair were unsafe for swimming. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and the work of many people at the local level, the Clinton River is making a comeback. Pollution is being steadily reduced. Fish are returning, and the river is once again becoming a recreational asset to the communities along its banks. There is more work to do, but the progress is there for all to see.

The bill before the House goes in exactly the wrong direction. Instead of building on the Clean Water Act, this legislation takes us backwards to the bad old days when there was a patchwork of state water laws and little enforcement when state standards fell short. In particular, the bill would make it harder to take action against emerging threats to waterways. For example, for a number of years now, a large dead zone has formed each
summer in Lake Erie. The problem appears to be getting worse and it is not yet clear what steps will be necessary to combat it. Even now it is evident that we will need a coordinated plan of action involving many states, but this legislation will make taking concerted action that much more difficult.

I urge defeat of this bad bill.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, for the last seven months this nation's economy has stagnated while the Republican majority has passed a litany of bills repealing environmental standards on behalf of oil and coal companies. Today we have another anti-environment bill before the House, predictably mis-named, in the finest Orwellian tradition, the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.'' This bill is a case study in irony: After seven months of blaming economic malaise on regulatory ``uncertainty,'' this bill would eliminate predictable and consistent national clean water standards in favor of an uncertain state-based patchwork of regulations. This bill would be more appropriately titled the ``Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Small Minds Act,'' because its elimination of any regulatory certainty flies in the face of seven months of Republican rhetoric. On the other hand, as an assault on the environment which benefits Republican campaign donors, it is utterly consistent with the majority's modus operandi.

The majority claims to support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, and that is accurate if we accept the Republican premise that coal and oil constitute the totality of America's energy portfolio. After passing countless bills to repeal clean air and water regulations for oil companies, this bill is focused on repealing clean water standards for the coal and mining industry. My colleagues who are not from Virginia, West Virginia, or Kentucky may not be familiar with the ravages of mountaintop removal, and if they aren't I would encourage them to look at a satellite photo of our region before they vote for this bill. Following Bush Administration abrogation of its responsibility to administer the Clean Water Act, destruction of the Southern Appalachian mountains has accelerated. For example, Wise County, Virginia has had 25 percent of its land area obliterated by mountaintop removal: According to the Nature Conservancy, Southwest Virginia is one of the two most biodiverse regions in America, along with Hawaii. Mountaintop removal is eliminating that region's biodiversity very efficiently. What used to be extraordinarily productive mountains in my state now resemble a moonscape of man-made plateaus and valleys filled in with rubble.

The purpose of this bill is to prevent Clean Water Act regulation of those ``valley fills'' which mining companies use to dispose of former mountains. Valley fills should be a clear violation of the Clean Water Act, and under the Obama Administration the EPA and Army Corps have finally begun to comply with the law and regulate them. This legislation would block that federal regulation which is necessary to protect life and property in Southwest Virginia and other parts of Appalachia.

This legislation would have other negative consequences beyond destroying one of America's greatest and most threatened regions. It is written in such a broad manner that it could allow unregulated destruction of intermittent and ephemeral streams, lakes and prairie potholes, and subterranean waters such as those that are common in places like Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chair, I rise to commend my colleague from Florida on his decision to withdraw his amendment to the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.

Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water. However, the EPA's new Numeric Nutrient Criteria regulations are not over whether we want clean water for Florida; it is over how we reach that goal and at what cost.

For several years now, Florida has been working to improve its water quality. Until 2009, Florida was working cooperatively with EPA to improve our water quality standards.

However in 2009, in an attempt to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, EPA decided to abandon that cooperative approach, federally preempt our state water quality standards, and impose new criteria on the state.

Many are concerned that these new Numeric Nutrient Criteria are not based on sound science, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board, which has expressed serious concerns about the science used by EPA to support the regulation.

The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow third-party review of the science behind the proposed mandate, and they have failed to complete an economic analysis.

This EPA mandate will drive up the cost of doing business, double water bills for all Floridian families, and destroy jobs. By some estimates, this will cost Florida taxpayers an estimated $21 billion and impact over 14,000 jobs in the state.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that this federal mandate may force municipal wastewater and storm water utilities--many in my Congressional District--to spend as much as $26 billion in capital improvements to upgrade their facilities. These costs will be passed down to the citizens of South Florida.

Given the reality of Florida's economic situation, this is completely unacceptable.

This morning I placed a call to Ron Bergeron, the Commissioner for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and renowned expert on the Everglades, to discuss this amendment and the underlying EPA Numeric Nutrient Regulations.

Commissioner Bergeron told me in no uncertain terms, I quote, ``The EPA is setting standards that can hardly be achieved. Water standards of 10 parts/billion required by the Numeric Nutrient Criteria is more stringent than rainwater, which is 15 parts/billion, and is a quality of water that is humanly impossible to achieve. EPA is doing things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.''

Let me repeat what Commissioner Bergeron stated--``EPA is doing things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.''

Like all Floridians, I cherish the Everglades--a unique wetland ecosystem--and want to protect and preserve it for future generations of Floridians.

I applaud my colleague from Florida for recognizing that his amendment would have been an attempt to use the Everglades as a political pawn to give the EPA the authority to have carte blanche on setting state-wide water regulations--regulations that Commissioner Bergeron said are humanly impossible to achieve, and thus withdrawing his amendment.

EPA's flawed regulation must be set aside so that the state government can return to an effort to improve Florida's water quality that is cooperative, economically feasible, and based on sound science.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 2018, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.'' This bill is neither cooperative nor does it promote clean water.

The American people expect and deserve protection from dirty air, tainted food, and polluted water. The problem with relinquishing federal authority over environmental regulations is that these threats don't stop at state borders. The EPA recently concluded an air pollution analysis demonstrating the upwind-downwind linkages between states. That study demonstrated that my home state of Illinois receives air pollution from more than 10 states as a result of wind patterns. Illinois shares water sources, including Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River, with 11 states. Much like with air, a patchwork of regulations will do nothing to ensure my constituents have access to clean water.

H.R. 2018 removes any federal baseline for what constitutes a clean water program and leaves the process entirely under state control. It is a de facto repeal of the Clean Water Act.

We know what will happen without reasonable oversight of our nation's water sources because we have seen it before. Prior to the 1972 Clean Water Act, American rivers and streams were treated like sewers and chemical pollution was so rampant that rivers caught fire. This bill would hand our waterways and drinking water sources back to corporate polluters.

Promoters of corporate pollution regularly suggest that turning a blind eye to the destruction of our waterways, air supply, and food sources is in the economic best-interest of the country. Even if this were true, it would ignore the health and welfare of the American people. But it is not true. The Office of Management and Budget has demonstrated that the cost of implementing EPA rules over the last decade have cost as much as $29 billion, but the economic benefits of those regulations have reaped between $82 billion and $552 billion. The facts don't lie: EPA regulations save lives and stimulate economic growth.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 2018, a bill that offers no tangible benefits and a litany of irreversible costs.

* [End Insert]

Mr. GIBBS. I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.

The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
H.R. 2018

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011''
SEC. 2. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

(a) State Water Quality Standards.--Section 303(c)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4)) is amended--

(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;

(2) by striking ``(4)'' and inserting ``(4)(A)'';

(3) by striking ``The Administrator shall promulgate'' and inserting the following:

``(B) The Administrator shall promulgate''; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(ii), the Administrator may not promulgate a revised or new standard for a pollutant in any case in which the State has submitted to the Administrator and the Administrator has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant, unless the State concurs with the Administrator's determination that the revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of this Act.''.

(b) Federal Licenses and Permits.--Section 401(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(7) With respect to any discharge, if a State or interstate agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate determines under paragraph (1) that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307, the Administrator may not take any action to supersede the determination.''.

(c) State NPDES Permit Programs.--Section 402(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(5) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR TO WITHDRAW APPROVAL OF STATE PROGRAMS.--The Administrator may not withdraw approval of a State program under paragraph (3) or (4), or limit Federal financial assistance for the State program, on the basis that the Administrator disagrees with the State regarding--

``(A) the implementation of any water quality standard that has been adopted by the State and approved by the Administrator under section 303(c); or

``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs the interpretation of the State's water quality standards.''.

(d) Limitation on Authority of Administrator To Object to Individual Permits.--Section 402(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(5) The Administrator may not object under paragraph (2) to the issuance of a permit by a State on the basis of--

``(A) the Administrator's interpretation of a water quality standard that has been adopted by the State and approved by the Administrator under section 303(c); or

``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs the interpretation of the State's water quality standards.''.

SEC. 3. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

(a) Authority of EPA Administrator.--Section 404(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is amended--

(1) by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(c)(1)''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any permit if the State in which the discharge originates or will originate does not concur with the Administrator's determination that the discharge will result in an unacceptable adverse effect as described in paragraph (1).''.

(b) State Permit Programs.--The first sentence of section 404(g)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``The Governor of any State desiring to administer its own individual and general permit program for the discharge'' and inserting ``The Governor of any State desiring to administer its own individual and general permit program for some or all of the discharges''.

SEC. 4. DEADLINES FOR AGENCY COMMENTS.

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended--

(1) in subsection (m) by striking ``ninetieth day'' and inserting ``30th day (or the 60th day if additional time is requested)''; and

(2) in subsection (q)--

(A) by striking ``(q)'' and inserting ``(q)(1)''; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

``(2) The Administrator and the head of a department or agency referred to in paragraph (1) shall each submit any comments with respect to an application for a permit under subsection (a) or (e) not later than the 30th day (or the 60th day if additional time is requested) after the date of receipt of an application for a permit under that subsection.''.

SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENTS.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to actions taken on or after the date of enactment of this Act, including actions taken with respect to permit applications that are pending or revised or new standards that are being promulgated as of such date of enactment.

The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-144. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON LEE OF TEXAS

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 112-144.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 8 on page 7.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the chairman very much.

I definitely support cooperation between the Federal Government and the State government. That is absolutely the best partnership and one that I encourage.

Having been a member of the local city council of my own city of Houston, I also know that unfunded mandates are very much difficult to overcome. But I argue vigorously against the underlying legislation because it does equate to undermining the health of Americans. We need clean water, not dirty water.

So this amendment strikes the entire legislation that causes us to ignore a partnership that has been established between the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which is a State system. And to my count, some 47 States have initially gotten into the system and have worked to ensure that they have clean water.

Why do I suggest that this is a very challenging approach to take that the underlying legislation has? Because it prevents the EPA from taking actions to revise outdated State water quality standards. It makes a State the final arbiter of whether an NPDES permit, a license for better water quality, is in fact to be implemented so that one State may do something that impacts negatively on another State.

These are the people we're concerned about: a working nurse and a healthy baby, or we are concerned about a gentleman by the name of Mr. Caldario, who is a resident of Crestwood, who indicated some years ago that he was worried about the water he drank for years without knowing what it was contaminated with--``Cancer Study Triggers Fears in Crestwood,'' which I will submit for the Record. His final sentence states, ``I can't help but wonder if what happened to me had something to do with the water.''

My amendment is straightforward. It strikes the language of this bill. It says let's go back to the drawing table. I want to be able to help Members, but if you have 47 States that have been engaged in this process, let's find a way that we can come together and have clean water and not dirty water.

This is a straightforward amendment that says that this is overreaching. The EPA would be prohibited from resolving conflicting State decisions on protecting water quality. Join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The intent of H.R. 2018 is to restore the balance between the States and the Federal Government in carrying out the Clean Water Act.

This amendment simply strikes the entire bill, as she stated, and ensures that the EPA can continue to unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-all Federal policies onto the States' water quality programs, which, by the way, they previously already approved.

Under this amendment EPA will continue to pass unfunded mandates on to the States. It ensures that EPA issues interim guidance that frustrates States and permit applicants, and ensures that the EPA will continue their legally dubious activities of revoking already legally issued permits, as I stated earlier.

I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the good intentions of the gentleman,
but I am concerned by the interpretation.

Let me just share with you very briefly my own State. In my own State, I'm aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones.

We are the protectors of America's assets, its waterways, its drinking water, the ability to have the opportunity for clean water for our fish and fishing. I ask you, let's go back to the drawing board. If we have States that are already participating, let's demand, in an administrative process, for EPA to restrain itself, but let's not take away the underlying power that is going to allow us to have clean drinking water and for someone who lives in Crestwood to be able to be possibly cancer free.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 ``The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.'' My amendment restores the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with state governments to establish standards ensuring all Americans have access to clean and safe water.

My amendment strikes the entire bill. The Clean Water Act (CWA) was designed to encourage collaboration between state agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to develop acceptable standards for maintaining the safety of our nation's bodies of water. The EPA was created in 1970 to ensure that our air, land, and water receive adequate protection from pollution and we must allow them to do so for the benefit of all Americans.

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is absolutely not the way to protect our nation's water bodies. The EPA has the expertise and resources for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards: air and water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems.

Seeking to limit the extent to which the EPA can oversee the safety of our water supply threatens the health of American citizens across the country. The EPA has not only the right, but the responsibility to update state water pollution regulations and permit procedures if they discover new threats to health or the environment.

The EPA must remain involved in regulating water pollution to ensure a cohesive policy that protects all states from pollution. Should the authority to regulate water pollution levels be given solely to the states, there would be no way to regulate waterways that pass through multiple states.

As a Representative from Texas, a Gulf Coast state, I am aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently, there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones.

My Republican colleagues feel we must pass this bill urgently. They will tell their constituents, and all of the American people that the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is necessary to issue permits and avoid backlog in mining facilities, factories, agriculture, and other businesses. What my friends on the other side of the aisle will not tell you is that this legislation is helping business at the risk of our nation's health.

Those who support this bill will not mention that EPA regulation prevents toxic chemicals and biological agents from entering our surface water bodies and groundwater. Apparently, those championing this legislation do not feel the American people deserve to know the serious health risks that can result from drinking or bathing in polluted water. Breathing the vapors of a polluted water source, consuming meat or vegetables affected by polluted water, and consuming fish that have been exposed to polluted water are all potentially harmful.

Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment to strike the entire Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act to protect not only my constituents in the 18th district of Texas, but Americans across the nation from the diseases that result from water pollution. Diseases such as typhoid, hepatitis, encephalitis, and others caused by pathogens in water.

Surely the EPA, the states, and the industries involved can work together to prevent pollution levels in surface and groundwater from causing cancer, or serious damage to the liver, kidneys, nervous system, reproductive system, or endocrine system. Surely, we are not willing to sacrifice the health of this nation to pass a bill to benefit industry.

A study conducted by Cornell University concluded that water pollution accounts for 80% of infectious diseases, and 5 million deaths per year. I urge my colleagues on either side of the aisle to consider the enormous gamble this Congress is taking by reducing regulations to keep our water safe.

Supporting my amendment will strike the dangerous Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, and provide an opportunity for new legislation that fosters compromise between the EPA, the states, and stakeholders, without compromising water quality and endangering the health of American citizens.

* [End Insert]

[From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

SPECIFIC STATE PROGRAM STATUSState Approved State NPDES Permit Program Approved to Regulate Federal Facilities Approved State Pretreatment Program Approved General Permits Program Approved Biosolids (Sludge) Program
Alabama 10/19/79 10/19/79 10/19/79 06/26/91
Alaska* 10/31/08 10/31/08 10/31/08 10/31/08
American Samoa
Arizona 12/05/02 12/05/02 12/05/02 12/05/02 04/01/04
Arkansas 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/01/86
California 05/14/73 05/05/78 09/22/89 09/22/89
Colorado 03/27/75 03/04/82
Connecticut 09/26/73 01/09/89 06/03/81 03/10/92
Delaware 04/01/74 10/23/92
District of Columbia
Florida 05/01/95 05/01/00 05/01/95 05/01/95
Georgia 06/28/74 12/08/80 03/12/81 01/28/91
Guam
Hawaii 11/28/74 06/01/79 08/12/83 09/30/91
Idaho
Illinois 10/23/77 09/20/79 01/04/84
Indiana 01/01/75 12/09/78 04/02/91
Iowa 08/10/78 08/10/78 06/03/81 08/12/92
Johnston Atoll
Kansas 06/28/74 08/28/85 11/24/93
Kentucky 09/30/83 09/30/83 09/30/83 09/30/83
Louisiana 08/27/96 08/27/96 08/27/96 08/27/96
Maine 01/12/01 01/12/01 01/12/01 01/12/01
Maryland 09/05/74 11/10/87 09/30/85 09/30/91
Massachusetts
Michigan 10/17/73 12/09/78 06/07/83 11/29/93 09/28/06
Midway Island
Minnesota 06/30/74 12/09/78 07/16/79 12/15/87
Mississippi 05/01/74 01/28/83 05/13/82 09/27/91
Missouri 10/30/74 06/26/79 06/03/81 12/12/85
Montana 06/10/74 06/23/81 04/29/83
Nebraska 06/12/74 11/02/79 09/07/84 07/20/89
Nevada 09/19/75 08/31/78 07/27/92
New Hampshire
New Jersey 04/13/82 04/13/82 04/13/82 04/13/82
New Mexico
New York 10/28/75 06/13/80 10/15/92
North Carolina 10/19/75 09/28/84 06/14/82 09/06/91
North Dakota 06/13/75 01/22/90 09/16/05 01/22/90
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio 03/11/74 01/28/83 07/27/83 08/17/92 03/16/05
Oklahoma** 11/19/96 11/19/96 11/19/96 09/11/97 11/19/96
Oregon 09/26/73 03/02/79 03/12/81 02/23/82
Pennsylvania 06/30/78 06/30/78 08/02/91
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island 09/17/84 09/17/84 09/17/84 09/17/84
South Carolina 06/10/75 09/26/80 04/09/82 09/03/92
South Dakota 12/30/93 12/30/93 12/30/93 12/30/93 10/22/01
Tennessee 12/28/77 09/30/86 08/10/83 04/18/91
Utah 07/07/87 07/07/87 07/07/87 07/07/87 06/14/96
Vermont 03/11/74 03/16/82 08/26/93
Virgin Islands 06/30/76 12/26/07 12/26/07
Virginia 03/31/75 02/09/82 04/14/89 04/20/91
Wake Island
Washington 11/14/73 09/30/86 09/26/89
West Virginia 05/10/82 05/10/82 05/10/82 05/10/82
Wisconsin 02/04/74 11/26/79 12/24/80 12/19/86 07/28/00
Wyoming 01/30/75 05/18/81 09/24/91

STATE SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Alaska* Phased program over three (3) years. At time of program approval, Alaska will administer the NPDES program for domestic discharges (individual and general permits), log storage and transfer facilities, seafood processing facilities (individual and general permits), and hatcheries. Alaska will assume authority for federal facilities, pretreatment, and stormwater on 10/31/09.
Oklahoma** Partial Program. It has not been authorized to issue permits for activities associated with oil and gas exploration, drilling, operations, and pipelines, and for CAFOs and certain other discharges from agriculture. EPA is the permitting authority for those facilities since it is not in Oklahoma DEQ's jurisdiction. All parts of the program within jurisdiction of Oklahoma DEQ are authorized.
[From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 5, 2010]

Cancer Study Triggers Fears in Crestwood
(By Jared S. Hopkins)

Like many residents of Crestwood, Frank Caldario has been worried about the water he drank for years without knowing it was contaminated.

Caldario's concerns, however, were heightened when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer last year. The 30-year-old office worker said surgeons removed a gumball-size tumor and about 40 percent of his right kidney.

``I can't help but wonder if what happened to me had something to do with the water,'' said Caldario, who doesn't smoke and has lived in Crestwood since 1993.

``It's just unreal for someone my age to get that,'' he said.

After the state released a report Friday that found toxic chemicals in Crestwood's drinking water could have contributed to elevated cancer rates in the village, residents said they were worried about their families' health, the impact on their property values and footing the bill to defend public officials who may be responsible.

The Illinois Department of Public Health studied cancer cases in the small community of about 11,000 between 1994 and 2006 and found higher-than-expected cases of kidney cancer in men, lung cancer in men and women, and gastrointestinal cancer in men. The state's investigation was prompted by a Tribune report last year that revealed the village's secret use of a tainted well.

``Of course there's a concern. If I said it wasn't in the back of my head, I'd be lying,'' said Dominic Covone, 37, a resident of about six years.''You don't want to think something bad could happen from just drinking water.''

In the report, researchers determined it was possible that chemicals in the drinking water might have contributed to the extra cancer cases but couldn't make a definite link.

For years, the tainted water went undetected as village officials told residents and regulators they used only treated Lake Michigan water. But they continued pumping from a polluted well for up to 20 percent of the water some months, records show.

Bill Shaughnessy, 60, a resident since 1987, said he hears concerns about a falloff in property values and the ``unknown,'' including what may be undiscovered in water lines.

Some residents said they were annoyed about the village's use of taxpayer funds--more than $1 million last year--to defend Crestwood officials in lawsuits. The tainted well was used under the purview of Chester Stranczek, mayor from 1969 to 2007.

``I feel deceived,'' said resident Tom Parhis.

Some longtime residents, however, said they still believe the water did not pose a health risk.

``That's all hogwash,'' said Shirley Beaver, a 44-year resident of Crestwood.

Others described the federal government's current investigation as ``Gestapo tactics'' against Stranczek and praised the property tax rebates he created. Village officials scrapped the rebates last year to help pay rising legal bills.

``You think he'd poison his own kids?'' said Jim Leonard, 73, who has lived in the village for 47 years with his wife, Millie.

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

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON LEE OF TEXAS

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 112-144.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike section 2 of the bill (and redesignate subsequent sections accordingly).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman, and again I thank my friends on the floor of the House, and I did not acknowledge my friend the ranking member.

I offer myself as a person who seeks to collaborate and fix problems. So my second amendment says let's work together, but there are times when the heart of the matter has to be addressed.

My amendment strikes the language that really is the heart of the matter. It strikes the language in the bill, ensuring that the vital role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants enter our waterways can still exist. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States disagree.

My amendment strikes the language that allows States, 50 States, to conflict against each other and one-upmanship--I'm going to do this; no, you're going to do this. This standardizes the issue of clean water. This stands up for people like those in Crestwood, Illinois, that wonder whether the water caused cancer, kidney cancer, in a 30-year-old.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. I wish to claim the time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

By striking section 2 of the bill, this amendment would effectively gut much of the bill.

Section 2 of the bill would limit EPA from unilaterally changing approved State water quality standards and permitting decisions, or from withdrawing approval of a State water quality permitting program or limiting Federal financial assistance for the State water quality permitting program on the basis that the EPA disagrees with the State regarding a State water quality standard that EPA has approved.

By striking section 2 of the bill, this amendment would continue to allow this administration's EPA to impose one-size-fits-all Federal policies on the States' water quality programs.

We are not in favor of the EPA continuing their regulatory onslaught on the States. I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding, and I also thank her for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

The amendment would strike the provisions of the underlying bill that threaten existing Clean Water Act authority related to the discharge of pollutants under the act.

I oppose these provisions in the underlying bill, and I view this amendment as an effort to improve an otherwise very bad bill. On that basis I support the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.

Is it my right to close, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has the right to close.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me refer my colleagues again to basic facts.

Forty-seven States have entered into agreements with the EPA because they have decided, in spite of the challenges that we all have on making sure that we do the right thing, that it is the right thing to do, that clean water is our priority. And I would offer as a viable picture a recollection of Americans who had to live through histories when water was not clean. We did have that era in our lifetime, or at least in the lifetimes of many. I would argue that that is not the life we would like to go back to.

This particular section is protecting us against pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities coming from a vast variety of chemicals, industry, and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States have access to safe drinking water.

Do you want a jobs bill? Then you create the companies that are going to help us keep our waterways clean. Put people to work cleaning water. Put people to work complying with the right thing to do to ensure that we have clean drinking water, to ensure that babies and working moms and families can turn on that faucet, and to ensure that they can drink that clean water.

We want to work with industry. We want to be able to come halfway, but we don't want to return America to a time when you would dip down. You find in developing nations the enormous number of diseases that children have because they do not have clean water. Go to some of our developing nations. See what they're washing themselves in. See what they're drinking.

That's not America.

We have the opportunity to be the kind of nation that works with our businesses but also the kind that fights for our children and provides the opportunity for clean water. I ask my colleagues to stand with us and to strike section 2 to allow us, one, to go for a compromise if we can, but also to stand for those who would welcome clean water. Let's end diseases that can be caused in this reckless manner.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to support clean water in America.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,'' which ensures the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue to have authority to oversee issues related to the standards for and issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

My amendment will strike section 2 of the bill, ensuring the vital role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants enter our waterways. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States disagree.

The EPA is a unifying body, issuing regulations that ensure all States have standards that they must follow. Bodies of water cross State lines, and the water quality standards of one State are very likely to impact neighboring States.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that all wastewater discharges to surface water receive a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 47 States, including Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, are currently authorized to issue NPDES permits. Texas has been authorized to issue these permits since September 14, 1998.

The pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities, come from a vast variety of chemicals, industry and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States have access to safe water bodies.

It is important that the EPA be able to set a universal standard that all States follow. States may lack the resources and funding to adequately implement the NPDES program and properly regulate sources of water contaminants. Additionally, States may not have the resources or expertise needed to continually evaluate regulations in order to ensure that water remains safe.

Preventing the EPA from regulating the levels of pollutants in bodies of water may give jurisdiction over the issuance of permits to the States, but it certainly will not allow States to set their own standards for water quality. If the EPA is not able to set universal standards, downstream States will be subject to the water quality of upstream States. Contaminated groundwater will spread beyond State borders, impacting the lakes, reservoirs, and agriculture of nearby States, putting the people and the economy of its neighbors at risk.

In 1906, Missouri sued Illinois for discharging sewage into a tributary of the Mississippi River that ultimately rendered drinking water unsafe in Missouri. Restricting the EPA from holding all States to the same standards will inevitably lead to many suits of this nature.

I believe this bill sends us in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting our nation's bodies of water. This bill leaves a false impression that the EPA is an organization that arbitrarily picks and chooses what chemicals States can and cannot permit to enter our precious waters. Rather, the EPA has a broad responsibility for research, standard-setting, monitoring, and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards: air pollution, water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. The EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems, including an important standard for clean water.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge opposition to this bill.

* [End Insert]

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reemphasize and restate that the States are operating under an already approved plan from the U.S. EPA which addresses these concerns, so I don't see how we go backwards, because they're operating within the framework that was set up. By the way, under the Clean Water Act, that plan is reviewed every 3 years.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MRS. CAPITO

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 112-144.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 6. IMPACTS OF EPA REGULATORY ACTIVITY ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

(a) Analysis of Impacts of Actions on Employment and Economic Activity.--

(1) ANALYSIS.--Before taking a covered action, the Administrator shall analyze the impact, disaggregated by State, of the covered action on employment levels and economic activity, including estimated job losses and decreased economic activity.

(2) ECONOMIC MODELS.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Administrator shall utilize the best available economic models.

(B) ANNUAL GAO REPORT.--Not later than December 31st of each year, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the economic models used by the Administrator to carry out this subsection.

(3) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.--With respect to any covered action, the Administrator shall--

(A) post the analysis under paragraph (1) as a link on the main page of the public Internet Web site of the Environmental Protection Agency; and

(B) request that the Governor of any State experiencing more than a de minimis negative impact post such analysis in the Capitol of such State.

(b) Public Hearings.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--If the Administrator concludes under subsection (a)(1) that a covered action will have more than a de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic activity in a State, the Administrator shall hold a public hearing in each such State at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the covered action.

(2) TIME, LOCATION, AND SELECTION.--A public hearing required under paragraph (1) shall be held at a convenient time and location for impacted residents. In selecting a location for such a public hearing, the Administrator shall give priority to locations in the State that will experience the greatest number of job losses.

(c) Notification.--If the Administrator concludes under subsection (a)(1) that a covered action will have more than a de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic activity in any State, the Administrator shall give notice of such impact to the State's Congressional delegation, Governor, and Legislature at least 45 days before the effective date of the covered action.

(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.--The term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(2) COVERED ACTION.--The term ``covered action'' means any of the following actions taken by the Administrator under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.):

(A) Issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, response to a petition, or other requirement.

(B) Implementing a new or substantially altered program.

(3) MORE THAN A DE MINIMIS NEGATIVE IMPACT.--The term ``more than a de minimis negative impact'' means the following:

(A) With respect to employment levels, a loss of more than 100 jobs. Any offsetting job gains that result from the hypothetical creation of new jobs through new technologies or government employment may not be used in the job loss calculation.

(B) With respect to economic activity, a decrease in economic activity of more than $1,000,000 over any calendar year. Any offsetting economic activity that results from the hypothetical creation of new economic activity through new technologies or government employment may not be used in the economic activity calculation.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio, for his leadership on this issue.

My amendment is a simple reaction to conversations that I've had with the administrator and others at the EPA and also with the President of the United States.

In questioning the President, I asked:

Mr. President, when you're going forth on your rules and regulations at the EPA, do you consider jobs and economic impact?

He said we should and I say we should, and that is the purpose of my amendment. This requires the EPA to analyze the impact on jobs and economic activity prior to issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, or
prior to implementing any new or substantially altered program under the Clean Water Act.

Earlier this year, the EPA retroactively vetoed a previously approved Clean Water Act permit in West Virginia at the Spruce Mine. This came as quite a surprise, and it was very unprecedented because I don't believe the EPA--if it has, it has been maybe once or twice in its history--has ever retroactively vetoed a permit. It had a very chilling effect not only on jobs but on the economic activity in our State. This action has caused a slow bleed of jobs throughout Appalachia. Reaching back to revoke a permit is particularly concerning because it causes great uncertainty for job creators in our State. This is at a time when we have as a Nation 9.2 percent unemployment.

We need to get people to work.

Why would a company invest in a new project that has been permitted when it would think that there would be a reach-back by the EPA under the Clean Water Act which could revoke this permit? To me, this just chills job creation in our State.

The EPA's ideological war on our energy producers is manifesting itself in other ways in my district and across the country. In the eastern part of West Virginia, the EPA--listen to this--is using aerial surveillance of family farms with the goal of ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act. According to an article in a local newspaper, the EPA is going so far as to regulate the types of sheds that family farmers can have for their cattle operations. Yet, when asked about the economic impact of this kind of regulatory overreach, the EPA's representative made it clear that jobs are irrelevant.

As the Nation faces 9.2 percent unemployment and as hundreds of thousands of jobs hang in limbo, the administration has refused to reconsider this agenda. The negative impact of the regulatory actions upon jobs is obvious. However, the EPA has been unable to give me a straight answer on whether it does or does not consider the negative impact on jobs or economic impact.

So let's put it clearly in the law:

You must consider this to strike that balance between environment and economy.

All this amendment is asking for, quite simply, is transparency. It doesn't mandate what decision has to be made when considering what jobs or economic impact is discovered. It does say that, when jobs and economic impact are negative, the EPA has to go to the local governance authority, whether it's the Governor or the smaller community, and explain this action. So it's transparency. I think it will help further clarify decisions, but it will also help our energy producers figure out how to weave the balance between the economy and the environment.

In closing, I've heard a lot of talk about our collective goal of clean air and clean water. We all share that--and no one more than everyone on the floor who is sitting here today and those of us across the country--but we cannot afford this continued unaccountable, nontransparent assault on our American jobs, so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I claim time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. We have heard a great deal of how reversals on the part of the EPA have caused uncertainty in the business community--uncertainty that leads to job loss, uncertainty that leads to a lack of interest in investing. Here are the numbers:

In 40 years, the EPA has reversed 13 permits--13--out of over 2 million issued. That is a veto rate of .00065 percent.

I fail to see how a reversal rate of significantly less than 1 percent can create the kind of uncertainty that we hear about from our colleagues. In fact, that kind of reversal rate encourages a reliance on the legitimacy and the validity of a permit granted, not the questioning of it.

I would also point out that, of these 13 reversals, seven took place under the administration of President Reagan; four took place under the Presidency of the first George Bush; one under George W. Bush; and one under President Obama. I think we are hard-pressed to develop a fact-based argument that there is an assault or that there is an overreach on the part of the EPA.

Now, with respect to the subject of the amendment, itself, the EPA has testified before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee that it already considers the implications of its actions on jobs and on the economy. In fact, many of the requirements that bring the EPA to do that were enacted by the Republican majority when they last controlled the House. I would suggest that the enactment of this amendment will only duplicate the analysis that the EPA is already undertaking.

As a result, I fear that this amendment will only increase the opportunity for litigation relating to actions on the part of the EPA, causing a new cause of action in the Clean Water Act for third-party lawsuits. If anything, I fear that the effect of this amendment will be to tie up efforts by the EPA to protect public health and the environment in a bureaucratic morass.

On that basis, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. I would just like to quickly respond in terms of the revocation of the one permit. Let's talk about the hundreds of permits that are sitting at the EPA, and try to figure out how to meet the balance here.

Let's look at the total picture--that's all I'm saying--of jobs and the environment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. GIBBS. I urge Members to support Mrs. Capito's amendment. Her amendment would bring transparency to the development of regulations and require the EPA to provide a more robust analysis of the economic impacts of its regulatory actions.

This will not halt the issuance of regulations, only provide better information to those who are responsible for writing the regulations, in this case the EPA. I think we can all agree the EPA could have better information to utilize to make better regulatory decisions.

I am concerned, as I believe the Administrator of the U.S. EPA has testified, that their main concern, when they look at a regulatory issue, is public health and safety of the environment, and they don't do any cost-benefit analysis and diminishing returns and all that.

I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2 1/2 minutes.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

I rise in support of the gentlelady from West Virginia's amendment; let me state that at the very beginning. My only concerns here were attaching an economic analysis amendment to the pending legislation which is directed at the Clean Water Act interpretations.

The pending amendment by the gentlelady from West Virginia--which as I say, I support--would appear to me to more broaden the direction in which this bill goes, which I think detracts from the original intent of the legislation to zero in on clean water issues.

The gentlelady's amendment should be properly--I believe it is--the subject of another stand-alone bill that's been introduced in this body to judge the economic analysis. That legislation I support as well. I might add, in addition, that I brought this issue up with Cass Sunstein, who is the head of the White House Office of Regulatory Review, whose job it is to determine and to examine the economic analysis of regulations that come out of the Federal agencies. That is the White House Office of Regulatory Review's jurisdiction, not EPA's jurisdiction, as the gentlelady has paraphrased the EPA administrator; and as we've all heard her say, job repercussions is not necessarily part of her job description.

The unfortunate fact is that the Office of Regulatory Review under the White House jurisdiction has very limited staff and does not have the staff availability to examine the economic analysis of every regulation that comes out of every agency of our Federal Government, which they are tasked to do,
but certainly don't have the resources to fully do their job.

So the bottom line, I do support the gentlelady's amendment. I do worry that it overly broadens this particular piece of legislation and should be properly, as it is, the subject of a separate stand-alone legislation on its own.

The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 15 seconds remaining.

Mrs. CAPITO. I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for his support because he and I are seeing firsthand--we want to see transparency; we want to see the information move forward on the economic impact. We are at a place where we need jobs, we want jobs, we just want to see the facts.

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

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have cited, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 4 OFFERED BY MS. HANABUSA

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 112-144.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 6. REPORTING ON HARMFUL POLLUTANTS.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a report on any increase in waterborne pathogenic microorganisms (including protozoa, viruses, bacteria, and parasites), toxic chemicals, or toxic metals (such as lead and mercury) in waters regulated by a State under the provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this Act.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, this amendment simply seeks from the Administrator of the EPA to submit to Congress within 1 year, and then annually thereafter, a report on any increase in waterborne pathogenic microorganisms, which include protozoa, viruses, bacteria and parasites, toxic chemicals or toxic metals, such as lead and mercury, in waters regulated by the State under the provisions of H.R. 2018, including any further amendments to this bill.

Mr. Chair, there is nothing as important to all of us, especially for those of us in Hawaii, as water quality. We are the only island State, and of course our pristine waters are very critical to us for our major economic engine, which is tourism. And I don't believe it's any different for any other State, especially those of us who have bordering oceans, and even those who may have navigable streams within our borders. Water is critical.

What H.R. 2018 does is it simply states that the States now have the right to regulate water quality. By doing that, however, we need to know what they're doing and to ensure for all of us and our constituents that the States are doing a good job. All this amendment is seeking from the States is for the EPA to report to us so we can know if in fact they're doing what this bill gives them the authority to do, which is to make the decisions regarding water quality.

For that reason, Mr. Chair, I ask for the support of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GIBBS. The Hanabusa amendment authorizes the EPA to study the effectiveness of cooperative federalism once H.R. 2018 is enacted.

While the amendment seems to carry a bias in that the EPA can only report an increase of pathogens or toxins, and not reductions, after enactment of H.R. 2018, the EPA will have very little to report upon.

H.R. 2018 will lead to better water quality decisions made at the local level, and this will benefit the environment for all of us. If H.R. 2018 would lead to water quality degradation, none of us in this Chamber would support it if that were the case.

Noting the bias in the amendment, if the sponsor would like to ask for a unanimous consent request to modify her amendment to modify line 5 after ``increase'' by adding the phrase ``or reductions,'' we then would be able to accept the amendment.

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

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I would accept the modification. However, I would also like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for offering this amendment.

I just want to simply say, as I've made clear, I do not support the underlying legislation, but this is a very prudent amendment that allows us to assess as we go forward whether or not this proposed law is in the best interests of our Nation's clean water and in the interests of our Nation's health. So I commend the gentlelady for offering the amendment, and I am very happy to hear that this may be accepted.

Mr. GIBBS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I understand with our agreement to their modification, that they will accept the amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. With the modification, I think this is a good amendment. I want to commend my colleague for offering it because I think we will get an accurate report from the EPA when they do their study on whether we're making progress because of H.R. 2018 or if we're going backwards. So I think it's important to have this amendment modified to provide those words ``or reductions.''

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

MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT NO. 4

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.

The Clerk read as follows:

On line 5, insert ``or reduction'' after ``increase''.

The CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?

Without objection, the modification is agreed to.

There was no objection.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. POLIS

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 112-144.

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

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 6. PERMIT HOLDERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE.

None of the provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall apply to any permit holder that is listed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as being in significant noncompliance with any requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, our country's worst polluters don't deserve a get out of jail free card. I think that's an unintended consequence of the current language of the bill, absent this amendment. And I encourage my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to adopt this amendment.

Regardless of one's position on the underlying bill, one thing I hope we can all agree on is that the most egregious polluters--these are polluters that Republican and Democratic State administrations, Republican and Democratic experts agree are the most egregious polluters, those who simply disregard the law knowingly, those who repeatedly ignore State regulation, are bad actors and they should not be among those who benefit from this bill. The States deserve to have the EPA back them up and help them keep tabs on these polluters who continually violate State rules.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of these polluters have escaped not only punishment but simply increased scrutiny. Polluters that continually violate the law are classified as ``significant noncompliance.'' That's the term that's used. This classification simply puts these polluters under a greater microscope by the EPA. It doesn't change authorities. It doesn't engender some new regulatory scheme. It simply ensures that the EPA is keeping a close eye on them and ensuring that State programs are being followed.

Again, I believe it's a piece of this that's outside of this larger State versus Federal debate. It's one that is consistent with supporting States' regulation of the most egregious infractors.

States simply don't have the resources to keep our waters safe on their own. According to a 2009 New York Times investigation, State officials attribute rising pollution rates to increased workloads and dwindling resources. In 46 States, local regulators already have primary responsibility for crucial aspects of the Clean Water Act. The job needed to protect our health is simply too big for State regulators alone.

One notable example of significant noncompliance is from the Bush administration between 2001 and 2006. The Bush administration found that Massey Energy, the same company responsible for the Big Branch Mine Disaster, had accrued over 2,000 significant violations, and the State did not have the resources to hold them accountable. Under significant noncompliance, the Bush administration was able to more closely watch Massey and ensure they followed State rules.

Again, in its current form, this bill offers these most extreme polluters a get out of jail free card, unraveling the EPA's long history of backing up State authority and successfully and reasonably keeping these major polluters in check. My amendment very simply states that the EPA can keep a closer eye--that's all, a closer eye--on the most extreme violators of the law, polluters who are habitually out of compliance or significant noncompliance.

Without my amendment, this bill would mean that our Nation's worst offenders would be free from EPA scrutiny, with sole authority being new, less organized, and naive State programs ripe for loopholes and some of which simply don't have the scale to adequately regulate what's at stake.

Mr. Chair, if a student is disruptive in class, it's only common sense they go to the principal's office. That doesn't mean the teacher doesn't have autonomy in the class or the troubled student doesn't respect the teacher. They need to know there are greater consequences for bad behavior.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GIBBS. The gentleman from Colorado seems to suggest that States would continue to allow polluters to pollute waters of their States under H.R. 2018 unless this amendment is adopted. Nothing could be further from the truth. If H.R. 2018 degraded water quality, none of us would support this legislation.

I also question the implementation of the amendment. If you had a permit holder who is in significant noncompliance, does that negate water quality provisions for the water body the permit holder may be polluting? Of course not. Nothing in H.R. 2018 allows a permit holder to violate the terms of a permit.

I urge all Members to oppose the Polis amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this, I think, very well thought-out and well-conceived amendment.

I support the amendment offered by the gentleman because it suggests that the most appropriate place for retaining Federal oversight is against polluters who have a track record on the most serious violations of the Clean Water Act, those found to be in significant noncompliance; and, thus, the retention of a Federal oversight role I think is very wise.

And let me just amplify that. In September of 2009, The New York Times ran a front-page story highlighting that, from 2004 to 2008, 506,000 violations of the Clean Water Act were reported for both major and minor facilities; and during that time, the States only took 11,000 enforcement actions, or what is basically a 2 percent enforcement rate. We need to have the Federal Government retain its oversight role. This amendment would do that.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GIBBS. I just want to reemphasize that if there is a permit holder in violation, the States have an obligation and a responsibility to step in and take action and enforcement. If they probably didn't, I'm sure that there's some organization that would file a lawsuit against that EPA.

So I don't think this amendment does anything to help the bill. I think the bill takes care of it, and the people who would be in violation would be prosecuted under the law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I don't agree with what the gentleman from Ohio said. I don't believe that this should be yet another unfunded mandate on the States.

While the number of unregulated facilities has more than doubled in the last decade, many State enforcement budgets have been flat when adjusted for inflation. In New York, for example, the number of regulated polluters has almost doubled in the last decade, but the number of inspections have remained the same.

Again, my amendment gives the State the ability to send habitual bad actors to the EPA, not for the worst punishment, not for some change in authority, not for some overreach, but simply for closer scrutiny. My amendment does not affect punishment. It simply allows the EPA to keep a close eye on the frequent violator in support of the State, as is the practice with significant noncompliance.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment to ensure that the worst violators are properly inspected in support of State regulation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. CONNOLLY OF VIRGINIA

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 112-144.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF WATERS RECEIVING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

None of the provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall apply to waters for which Federal funding is provided for restoration projects, studies, pilot projects, or development of total maximum daily loads, as determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I failed
to note the irony of the legislation before us today. After 7 months of ranting and raving about the lack of regulatory certainty which causes economic stagnation, the Republican majority is now attempting to pass a bill which would replace a clear, predictable, national clean water standard with an utterly unpredictable patchwork of State standards. Chaos does not federalism make, nor is one State's ability to sully a downstream State's waters consistent with the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

This legislation, with the Orwellian title the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, would endanger watersheds all across America, including the precious Chesapeake Bay in our region here in the National Capital Region. As my colleagues are aware, the bay watershed encompasses six States and the District of Columbia.

Logically, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies work in tandem with States throughout the watershed to reduce pollution entering the bay. Since watersheds do not correspond easily to State lines, this kind of interagency cooperation is essential and efficient to restore America's largest estuary.

H.R. 2018 would unravel that partnership, balkanizing water policy and undermining bay restoration. I have drafted a simple amendment, Mr. Chairman, to exempt watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay from this bill by limiting the bill's jurisdiction to watersheds which do not receive Federal aid for watershed restoration and related activities. This amendment would allow critical efforts, such as the restoration of the bay, Long Island Sound, the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, Gulf of Mexico, San Francisco Bay, and other great waters to continue. It would acknowledge the undeniable fact that water does not stop when it reaches the State line.

This amendment is important because these great waters are an integral part of our American heritage. The Chesapeake Bay was where John Smith arrived and founded Jamestown. The first colonial exploration of Virginia, also by John Smith, used the bay to explore the rivers of Virginia and Maryland. The Chesapeake is home to the French blockade of the British Navy, which enabled George Washington to have victory at Yorktown and a successful conclusion to the Revolutionary War.

For 200 years the Chesapeake Bay was one of America's most productive fisheries, fueling the growth of coastal communities such as Alexandria, Norfolk, and Baltimore, as well as an indigenous fleet of boats such as the skipjacks, deadrises, and bugeyes.

Unfortunately, development and overfishing wiped out many of the fisheries that were once so productive. When John Smith arrived in the bay, his crew had neglected to bring fishing line, but they were able to pull fish out of the bay by scooping them out of the water. Smith wrote that the oysters on the bay floor lay thick as stones and were so prolific that these filter feeders cleaned the entire volume of the bay daily. The shad runs up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac Rivers were so immense that colonial observers noted it would have been possible to walk all the way from the James from Richmond to Manchester on the backs of fish without ever touching water.

These fish were so large and powerful that, when caught, they actually shook the first Manchester Bridge on its piers. Of course, the bay is part of a much larger watershed now that is as historic ecologically as the bay is itself.

To restore this great water body, many Federal agencies have been working in partnership with States, localities, and landowners. As written, H.R. 2018 would rupture that partnership, effectively giving any one State veto authority over the region's restoration efforts. My simple amendment would protect our ability to keep working together as a region to restore the bay.

This regional effort was first started at the Federal level by a Republican, my old friend, Republican U.S. Senator Charles ``Mac'' Mathias of Maryland. To the extent we are making progress today, it's a result of the partnership between Virginia, whose general assembly is investing over $100 million annually in private land conservation, a Republican-led initiative that was expanded under a Democratic Governor. Let us not turn our backs on this 30-year partnership.

I ask for your support for this commonsense amendment to continue the improvements to America's largest and most historic estuary, as well as our Nation's other great waters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GIBBS. The Connolly amendment says that the underlying bill will not apply to any waters for which Federal funding is provided. This would have an effect of realigning Federal funding for projects and subject States with waters for which Federal funding is provided to greater EPA imposition of Federal one-size-fits-all policies.

As drafted, the scope of the Federal funding intended to be covered under this amendment is unclear, but could be interpreted to be almost limitless in coverage. As a result, this amendment would allow EPA to determine that the amendment applies to virtually all waters, with the consequent effect of nullifying the underlying bill.

Rather than nullifying this legislation, I would rather the gentleman from Virginia join those of us who think it would be more productive to ease the burden of unnecessary regulations and provide the States more authority in carrying out the Clean Water Act. I urge all Members to oppose the Connolly amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Let me say to my friend who is managing on the majority side, I spent 14 years in local government. We don't consider the Federal involvement in cleaning up the bay an undue burden. We actually consider it a partnership that has paid off big time, and we need more of it.

Support the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 2018

Protect these Great Waters: Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, South Florida/Everglades, Mississippi River Basin, San Francisco Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Puget Sound, Casco Bay (ME), New Hampshire Estuaries, Massachusetts Bays, Buzzards Bay, Narragansett Bay, Peconic Estuary, New York/NJ Harbor, Bernegat Bay, Delaware Inland Bays, Maryland Coastal Bays, Southeast Coast, Albermarle-Pamlico Sound, Indian River Lagoon, Gulf Coast, Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, Mobile Bay, Bataraia-Terrebonne Estuary, Galveston Bay, Coastal Bend Bay, West Coast, Lower Columbia River, Tillamook Bay, Morro Bay

DEAR COLLEAGUE, many of us have worked in collaboration with partners at the state and local level to protect great waters like the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Everglades, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, Mississippi Basin, and the Gulf of Mexico.

I have drafted a simple amendment to exempt these watersheds and others that receive federal restoration funding from H.R. 2018. This amendment would allow critical efforts such as restoration to continue in acknowledgement of the undeniable fact that water does not stop when it reaches a state line. A more complete list of watersheds that would be protected by this amendment can be found at the end of this letter.

This amendment is important because these great waters are an integral part of our American heritage. The Chesapeake Bay, for example, was where John Smith arrived and founded Jamestown. The first colonial exploration of Virginia, also by John Smith, used the Bay to explore the rivers of Virginia and Maryland. The Chesapeake is home to the French blockade of the British Navy, which enabled George Washington's victory at Yorktown and a successful conclusion to the Revolutionary War. For two hundred years the Chesapeake was one of America's most productive fisheries, fueling the growth of coastal communities such as Alexandria, Norfolk, and Baltimore, as well as an indigenous fleet of boats such as the Skipjacks, Deadrises, and Bugeyes.

Unfortunately, development and overfishing wiped out many of the fisheries that were once so productive. When John Smith arrived in the Bay, his crew had neglected to bring fishing line, but they were able to pull fish out of the Bay by scooping them out of the water with frying pans. Smith wrote that the oysters on the Bay floor ``lay thick as stones'' and were so prolific that these filter feeders cleaned the whole volume of the Bay daily. The shad runs up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac were so immense that colonial observers noted it would have been possible to walk across the James from Richmond to Manchester on the backs of fish without ever touching water. These fish were so large and powerful that, when caught, they shook the first Manchester Bridge on its moorings. Of course, the Bay is part of a much larger watershed that is as historic and ecologically valuable as the Bay itself.

To restore this great water body many federal agencies have been working in partnership with states, localities, and land owners. As written, H.R. 2018 would rupture that partnership, effectively giving any one state veto authority over the region's Bay restoration efforts. This important amendment would protect our ability to keep working together as a region to restore the Bay and other great waters across America.

Please support this amendment and contact zack.fields@mail.house.gov (3-3122) with any questions.

Sincerely,

Gerald E. Connolly,
11th District, Virginia.

Watersheds and States that would be protected from H.R. 2018:

Great Lakes--NY, PA, OH, IL, IN, MN, WI, MI

Chesapeake Bay--NY, PA, MD, DE, VA, WV

Long Island Sound--CT, NY, RI

South Florida/Everglades--FL

Mississippi River Basin--MN, ND, SD, WY, CO, NM, TX, OK, KS, NE, AR, LA, MS, TN, AL, GA, KS, IN, IL, WI, MN, IA, OH, PA, NY, NC

San Francisco Bay--CA, OR, NV

Gulf of Mexico--TX, LA, FL, AL, MS

Lake Champlain--NY, VT

Puget Sound--WA

National Estuary Programs:

Casco Bay--ME

New Hampshire Estuaries--NH

Massachusetts Bays--MA

Buzzards Bay--MA, RI

Naragansett Bay--MA, RI

Peconic Estuary--NY

New York/NJ Harbor--NY, NJ

Bernegat Bay--NJ

Delaware Inland Bays--NJ, DE, PA, MD

Inland Bays--DE

Maryland Coastal Bays--MD

Albermarle-Pamlico Sound--NC, VA

Indian River Lagoon--FL

Charlotte Harbor--FL

Sarasota Bay--FL

Tampa Bay--FL

Mobile Bay--AL

Bataraia-Terrebonne Estuary--LA

Galveston Bay--TX

Coastal Bend Bay--TX

Lower Columbia River--WA, OR

Tillamook Bay--OR

Morro Bay--CA

* [Begin Insert]

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 2018, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act and stand in strong opposition to the underlying bill. H.R. 2018 is yet another attempt to dismantle our nation's environmental protections and further jeopardize the public health and safety of our citizens.

Simply put, H.R. 2018 would return the U.S. to a structure of Clean Water laws that existed before enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1972 by undermining the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to assure state water quality standards. Before the Clean Water Act of 1972, 70 percent of our nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or drinking.

This amendment, offered by my colleague from Virginia, would exempt states that receive federal restoration funding from H.R. 2018. It understands that ongoing cooperation among federal, state and local governments is necessary to ensure that basic water quality standards are upheld across the United States, regardless of which state you reside in.

This amendment also recognizes that our Federal Government has spent billions of dollars on regional collaborative efforts among states to repair and restore our nation's valuable waterways, and that this bill, H.R. 2018, threatens to nullify these efforts and write off valuable investment already undertaken by effectively giving any one state veto authority over a region's restoration efforts.

As a co-chair of the House Great Lakes Task Force, a bipartisan working group of members from eight states surrounding the Great Lakes, I understand how critical it is for our states to work together to save our nation's valuable waterways and that this cooperation must be guided by the underlying premise that water does not stop when it reaches the state line. The Great Lakes have received over $800 million in federal funding over the last two years alone to undertake such restoration efforts. We must not let these efforts and our valuable nation resources go to waste.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose H.R. 2018.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by my colleague from Virginia and against this bad bill.

I am troubled that the bill we are considering today seems to move us backwards to a time when some advocated states should reign supreme and could opt out of federal laws.

We tried that system of government, it was called the Articles of Confederation, and it failed miserably.

Each state did its own thing, and there was no mechanism by which disagreements among the states could be resolved.

The issue today is whether states can opt out or even veto tougher, more stringent water quality standards to protect the public's health.

This bill returns us to a time when we had no uniform national minimum clean water standard and states had conflicting policies or no policies to protect the public.

That was a time when rivers were so polluted they caught fire.

The problem with this reasoning and with this bill is that responsible downstream states suffered the consequences of lax or weak upstream states' policies.

I am sure my colleagues, who seem so enamored with this proposition and this legislation, would raise objections if we were to apply a similar proposal to our immigration policy.

Employing this same logic, states would be granted full rights to disregard federal immigration policies and opt-out or set a different policy on which immigrants to accept or reject.

Water, like immigrants, crosses state lines; and immigrants like water should be governed by a single national standard.

The landmark Clean Water Act provides states full flexibility for meeting the federal standards, and it also allows states flexibility to set higher standards.

The amendment my colleague from Virginia is offering would at least allow Virginia and the other states that are part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and some of this nation's other great bodies of water--waters that are the primary source of millions of Americans' economic livelihood and drinking water--to proceed with their plans to reduce harmful pollutants that threaten to degrade these great waters and allow current restoration measures to proceed.

* [End Insert]

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

Mr. GIBBS. I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.

It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 112-144.

AMENDMENT NO. 8 OFFERED BY MR. COHEN

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 112-144.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 6. PIPELINES CROSSING STREAMBEDS.

None of the provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, to regulate a pipeline that crosses a streambed.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, while on this 4th of July most Americans were partaking in American pastimes like barbecuing and watching ball games, Montanans were immersed in a new American tradition, unfortunately, cleaning up an oil spill. In this case, Montanans were working, and are still working, feverishly to clean up a 40,000 gallon leak from ExxonMobil's Silvertip pipeline, a spill that's having a devastating impact on the residents, economy, and environment in the State of Montana.

As written, this legislation opens the door for more destructive events like the Yellowstone spill. This is why I proposed a simple, zero-cost amendment that will resolve this issue and continue protecting the American people, its environment, our economy, our water system from the harmful effects of pipeline spills.

The investigation into the Yellowstone spill has made it clear that the
spill occurred because the pipeline was not buried deep enough below the streambed. Having only been buried 5 feet below the river, years of the Yellowstone River's powerful flow removed much of the sediment covering the pipeline to the point where the pipeline was directly exposed. Once exposed, the pipeline was weakened by the elements rapidly moving down the Yellowstone River.

In order to bury a pipeline beneath a streambed, the company building the pipeline often has to rely upon and apply to the Corps of Engineers for a permit to dredge and fill. While the Corps has the authority to issue the permit, EPA has the ability to exercise oversight and ensure that the pipeline is sited safely and buried appropriately. This oversight authority is an effective, nonburdensome safety feature of the permitting process that serves as a backstop to Federal and State regulators and protects the health and safety of the American people.

All this amendment does is ensure that this bill does not prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from exercising this authority. It does not create a new permitting requirement or process. Historically, the siting of pipelines has not been an issue where the Federal Government has exercised much oversight. And this amendment does not call for enhanced oversight, create a new process, or require anything more from pipeline owners or builders. Rather, it simply preserves the existing right of the Environmental Protection Agency to exercise oversight in egregious cases.

Every piece of oil infrastructure, whether it's a pipeline or a drill rig, has backup safety features that are critical to ensure the safe operation of the infrastructure. Those safety backups, like the dead man switch on a drill rig, only function when the first set of safety features fail. The EPA's oversight of the Corps' dredge and fill permits for pipelines is just like the dead man's switch on an oil rig. It is only there as a backup protection in case the Corps might fail.

And if the oil industry uses layer upon layer of backup safety systems, why should the Federal Government not do the same? We are the ultimate protector of the water of our people. With the demand for oil in the United States increasing, more and more pipelines are being proposed. Many of these pipelines will cross economically critical, environmentally sensitive bodies of water like the Yellowstone River. Significant pipeline spills like the million gallon Enbridge pipeline spill last year in Michigan are serious events that have real implications for real people. Just ask the citizens of Kalamazoo, Michigan, who almost a year later are recovering from that spill.

In order to avoid similar tragedies in the future, the Federal Government needs to retain the existing protections built into the permitting process. This amendment does that by just maintaining EPA's existing authority to protect the American people and ensure their waters are not contaminated.

I urge passage of this important safety amendment, which will ensure that our Nation's pipelines are as consistent and as safe and reliable as Old Faithful, which resides in Yellowstone Park and whose river is being threatened, and I ask for support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. GIBBS. EPA's role in regulating pipelines is minimal as compared to the role of other agencies. This bill would have little effect on regulating pipelines. Therefore, we can accept this amendment.

Mr. COHEN. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. BLUMENAUER

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 112-144.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF WATERS PROVIDING CERTAIN BENEFITS.

None of the provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall apply to waters that, as determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency--

(1) provide flood protection for communities;

(2) are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat that provides benefits to the economy; or

(3) are coastal recreational waters.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 3 minutes.

This amendment ensures protection for waters and wetlands that provide flood protection or economically valuable habitats for our coastal recreation waters.

Healthy streams and wetlands provide vital public benefits for flood protection, commerce and public health. As there is an effort on the part of my friends on the other side of the aisle to eliminate these critical protections, it's important to keep that in mind.

Pollution destroys habitat and cripples local fishing and tourism. There has been talk about economic development.

Well, it costs money to deal with treating polluted waters. There are 40 million recreational anglers in America that generate $125 billion in economic output, including $45 billion in retail sales and pay $16.4 billion in State and Federal taxes.

The sport supports over 1 million American jobs right here in the United States. And when a wetland is filled with sediment or drained, it can no longer protect towns from devastating floods.

We have had witness over the last couple of years of this devastating impact. An acre of wetland provides more than $10,000 per person in public benefits. If you lose 1 percent of a watershed's wetland, it can increase flood volume by almost 7 percent. These are nature's sponges that we need to protect.

It's also important to point out that not all States protect the quality of their water. Some States just simply don't care as much as other States; some States are not as capable of protecting it.

In those States where protection is lax, the EPA must have the authority to step in to protect the economy, the environment, and human welfare for residents in that State as well as the States that are downstream that would also be affected. We shouldn't have Americans held hostage to the lowest common denominator of people who are simply not going to maintain the standards.

This amendment preserves that authority for the EPA to protect communities who rely on water for fishing and other economic benefits, along with wetlands that create vital flood protection.

Mr. Chairman, the American public strongly supports clean water. This has been one of the most popular pieces of legislation since it was enacted in the Nixon administration. It, until now, has had pretty broad bipartisan support.

The legislation here represents the most aggressive attack on it, in my memory, in 15 years in Congress. My amendment, at least, would clarify this particular item.

I urge its adoption.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source