Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The question of what is and is not waters of the United States has been the subject of debate for many decades. The reason this question is so important and contentious is because, if water or land is Federal, it is subject to regulation by the Federal Government. The Clean Water Act was originally intended as a cooperative partnership between the States and the Federal Government, with the States being primarily responsible for the elimination and prevention of water pollution and the oversight of waters within their borders. This successful partnership has given rise to monumental improvements in water quality throughout the Nation since the Clean Water Act's enactment in 1972 because not all waters need to be subject to Federal jurisdiction. Following the Supreme Court's decision of SWANCC and Rapanos, determining the appropriate scope of jurisdiction on the Clean Water Act has been confusing and unclear. Both the regulated community and the Supreme Court called for a rulemaking that would provide this needed clarity. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers voluntarily undertook a rulemaking to respond to the need for clarity, and that is when things went terribly wrong. If the agencies had taken the time to consult with the States and local governments and to actually listen up front to the issues that our States, counties, cities, and townships are facing, the agencies would not have had to admit to Congress in multiple hearings that their proposed rule created confusion and uncertainty, but they did not take this time for consultation. If the agencies had followed the proper rulemaking process, we wouldn't have had a proposed rule that cut corners on the economic analysis, used incomplete data, and took a cursory look at the economic impacts of the rule on just one of the many regulatory programs under the Clean Water Act, but they did not follow the rulemaking process. If the agencies had done things right, the substantive comments filed on the rule would not have been nearly 70 percent opposed to the rule. If the agencies had done things right the first time, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wouldn't have had to respond to the more than 30 States and almost 400 counties which requested the EPA withdraw or significantly revise the proposed waters of the United States rule and move H.R. 1732, a bill the House passed in May of 2015 that was a bipartisan bill, that would have sent the rule back to the agencies so they would go through the correct process. If the agencies had properly developed the rule in a joint fashion, the Army Corps of Engineers would not have been cut out of the process and would not have had to send last-minute letters through the chain of command that questioned decisions that were being made in the final rule and that pointed out multiple issues that would make the rule nearly impossible to implement and legally questionable. If the agencies had actually set out to clarify jurisdiction and not to simply gift themselves unlimited discretion to regulate whatever they wanted, they would not have needed to have conspired to influence and skew the public comments during the open rulemaking process or to promote and justify an agenda that the majority of States opposed and have sued to stop. Recently, the Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion related to its investigation of the EPA regarding the waters of the United States rule that drastically increases the agencies' authority at the expense of the States. The GAO's findings are plain and simple: The EPA broke the law. By using social media tactics, the GAO called ``covert propaganda'' and ``grassroots lobbying,'' the EPA undermined the integrity of the rulemaking process and violated the trust of the American people. The agencies simply did not do things right. In fact, they did things very, very wrong. And now we have a rule on the books that is reflective of a completely flawed process. Today the waters of the United States rule goes far beyond merely clarifying the scope of the Federal jurisdiction under Clean Water Act programs. It vastly expands Federal power. The clarity this rule provided is simple: Everything is Federal. The rule misconstrues and manipulates the legal standards announced in the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court cases, effectively turning those cases that placed limits on the Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction into a justification for the agencies to expand their assertion of Federal authority over all waters and wet areas nationally. The agencies chose to write many of the provisions in the proposed rule vaguely in order to give Federal regulators substantial discretion to claim Federal jurisdiction over most any water or wet area whenever they want. This vagueness will continue to lead the regulated community without clarity and certainty as to their regulatory status and leaves them exposed to citizen lawsuits and massive government fines. In addition, since many of these jurisdictional decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, they will give the Federal regulators free rein to find jurisdiction. This rule, in essence, establishes a presumption that all waters are jurisdictional and shifts the burden to prove they are not to the property owners and to others in the regulated community. This rule will set a very high bar for the regulated community to overcome. The administration even explicitly acknowledged that it wants maximum discretion in its Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 1732, stating that it opposed the bill because it would constrain the agencies' regulatory discretion. The rule undermines the successful Federal-State partnership and erodes State authority by granting sweeping, new Federal jurisdiction to waters never intended for regulation under the Clean Water Act. In justifying the need for this rule, the agencies claimed that massive amounts of wetlands and stream miles are not being protected by the States and that this rule is needed to ``protect'' them. Yet, the agencies continue to claim that no new waters would be covered by the rulemaking, which raises the question of how the rule can protect these supposedly unprotected waters without vastly expanding Federal jurisdiction over them. The agencies are talking out of both sides of their mouths. The reality is that States care about and are protective of their waters, and wetlands and stream miles are not being left unprotected. More than 30 States have sued the Federal Government over this rule. Who can blame them? States and local governments and the regulated community all repeatedly expressed concern that the agencies have cut them out of the process and have failed to consult with them during every step in the development of this rule. The agencies engaged in a flawed process from the beginning, ignoring their State and local partners and ignoring each other, and gifted themselves virtually limitless authority over land in this country that could contain water. Furthermore, they broke the law by illegally influencing both the public comment period and lobbying against congressional efforts to get them to change their course. S.J. Res. 22 halts this appalling overreach by the executive branch. The stakes are simply too high not to act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, just for a little bit of clarity, H.R. 7232 that was passed out of the House, it was to rescind this proposed rule and for the agencies to start over. That is actually the position of the American Farm Bureau. They do not support this proposal. They want to start over and get a rule that does have clarity. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back down memory lane just a second. My good friend from Oregon, when we were debating H.R. 1732, the bill that said let's stop this rule and work up a rule that will bring clarity, he said that was a bipartisan-supported bill. But the gentleman said we didn't need to pass H.R. 1732 because whenever the rule comes out, we have the Congressional Review Act to take care of the problem. That is what we are doing today. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am hearing a lot of comments made about the comment period. I just want to reiterate that, of the substantial comments made, 70 percent of them were opposed to the rule. I think what is even more important and needs to really be made clear here, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, did an investigation, and they said the EPA broke the law because they used covert propaganda through social media to skew the comments and biased them to their agenda. This creates a huge problem for me because this violates the integrity, goes to the integrity of the comment period. The reason we have a comment period is for stakeholders--in this case, States, farmers, developers--and a whole array of different people to have the ability to put comments in, and it's up to the Agency to make the best rule possible that will work for everybody and protect the environment. The GAO said they broke the law, so we need to make that clear. The comment period was flawed, and that is why we need to pass this bill and resend it. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear. It was the Government Accountability Office investigation that said the EPA broke the law. Regardless of how you interpret what they said, they broke the law. I think that goes to the integrity of the whole rulemaking process, that that is a dangerous precedent, moving forward. We had the talk about this rule brings clarity. Yes, it does bring clarity because it pretty much makes everything under water all under Federal jurisdiction. It is like going from the frying pan into the fire. That is why the American Farm Bureau and a whole host of other entities and almost two-thirds or three-quarters of the States have sued or are opposed to that. So we need clarity. That is why Congress needs to commit to work to fix that. But this rule, going forward, is more obtrusive and is a big problem. Like I said, it does mean that everything is under Federal jurisdiction. There has been a lot of discussion about ditches. They exempted ditches, but they put five exemptions to put it back in. One I really like says that, if water in a ditch eventually flows out of that ditch and into a tributary--which they expanded the definition of tributaries into navigable waters--it is not exempt. So tell me where in the United States there is a ditch that has water that doesn't eventually flow into waters of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of good discussion and debate today, and it is clear that we need to have clarity and certainty for all the stakeholders, while we protect the environment at the same time. We tried to do that with H.R. 1732, which passed with bipartisan support here, and, obviously, it wasn't taken up in the Senate. So we are here with this Congressional Review Act. I would like to talk about, if this rule goes through, what happens. Really, what happens is it greatly expands the power of the bureaucracy, and it gives them a lot of open, free discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. But it is going to do something else. It is going to require farmers, States, local governments, developers, homeowners to get permits from the Federal Government to do pretty much anything, because they are under Federal jurisdiction. It also opens them up to citizens' lawsuits, frivolous lawsuits, but they will defend themselves because when the Clean Water Act was passed, it was passed with tough penalties to go after the polluters that we had back in the sixties and the seventies, and we have addressed a lot of that. So it is going to add costs, unnecessary costs. And I would argue, and nobody has mentioned this, but I would argue that this rule can make us go backwards in the improvements we have made in this country on water quality and protecting the environment. The reason we can go backwards is because most people want to do the right thing. Most people want to protect the water. Farmers, I am a farmer, I want to protect it because I am one of the first ones to drink it. So we want to protect that. But when you add up so much red tape and bureaucracy and costs, they are not necessarily going to do what they might have done otherwise. They will just do what they have to do to get by. They won't put in buffer strips. They won't do grass waterways. They won't do things to protect the environment because they have got to get a permit to do everything. And they will just say: No, this is just ridiculous, the bureaucrats are going to come out here and hassle me. And they are just not going to do it. So that is what this rule does. It actually has the potential to hurt the environment, and we need to protect the environment. So we need to rescind this rule, revoke this rule, go back to the table, the drawing board, and instruct our agencies to come up with a commonsense rule, go through the process correctly, don't break the law when they do it, and talk to the States. You know, it is incredible. As soon as they filed the new rule in the Federal Register, 20-some States immediately, almost 30 States immediately, within 24 hours, filed a lawsuit. That ought to be a red flag that there is a problem. So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Let's go back to the drawing board and start over. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this rule and final passage of H.R. 3762. Since I was first sworn in to the House, my top priority has been to repeal this disastrous healthcare law we call ObamaCare. Finally, today we have an opportunity to send to the President's desk legislation that repeals ObamaCare. Today we are going to end the individual mandate, stop the employer mandate, and repeal dozens of taxes and provisions that prevent people from actually getting affordable health coverage. I have always said we should incentivize health savings accounts, not tax them, and this bill repeals the tax on HSAs. It is obvious that ObamaCare has done nothing to reduce healthcare costs. I hear from many of the local business owners and constituents in my district every day about their struggle to comply with the law, let alone provide health coverage for their employees and their families. Manufacturers, construction companies, and retail store owners are facing dramatic increases to their administrative and healthcare costs. This leaves them in the dangerous position of ObamaCare driving them out of business by making those decisions. Since signing it into law, the President has delayed or repealed parts of ObamaCare for political reasons. This was a bad law to begin with because it is fundamentally unworkable and unaffordable. It is time to repeal it once and for all. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the passage of this bill.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, recently the Government Accountability Office reported findings from their investigation of the EPA regarding their waters of the United States rule that drastically increases their authority at the expense of States. The GAO report is plain and simple: The EPA broke the law. By using social media tactics the GAO called ``covert propaganda,'' the EPA undermined the integrity of the rulemaking process and violated the trust of the American people. They conspired to influence and skew the public comments during the open rulemaking process to promote and justify an agenda that the majority of the States oppose and have sued to stop. The EPA should be held accountable for their unlawful actions, and the people responsible should be dismissed and prosecuted.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, I was at an off-campus event and delayed in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 22, Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and my colleagues on the committee for coming together to craft bipartisan legislation that provides States with the certainty they need with this 5-year bill, which will provide long-term infrastructure planning. The FAST Act builds on the reforms that we did in MAP-21 to ensure that projects are completed in a timely manner. I was pleased to see that a number of priorities that are important to my district have been included in this legislation, including that of reforming the broken Compliance, Safety, Accountability program, which ensures that motor carrier safety ratings are fair and accurate. As the subcommittee chairman on Water Resources and Environment, we worked to get a provision into WRRDA called WIFIA. In this bill, we put in a provision to allow WIFIA loans to be used in conjunction with tax- exempt bonds to leverage private capital. This will help our infrastructure needs and clean water projects. This is an important loan guarantee program that is similar to TIFIA, which provides municipalities with additional funding for water infrastructure projects. This will complement programs like the Clean Water SRF Project. I urge the support of this bipartisan legislation, which provides certainty and makes a good investment to provide transportation in order to move commerce and people in the future.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3114) to provide funds to the Army Corps of Engineers to hire veterans and members of the Armed Forces to assist the Corps with curation and historic preservation activities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3114.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As our veterans return home, they deserve opportunities for employment in addition to our thanks for their brave sacrifice and service. I believe one of the greatest responsibilities our government has is to ensure the members of our military, both Active and retired, and their families have opportunities upon returning home. Our veterans gave a career of service to their country, risked their lives in combat, and experienced long periods of separation from their families. The Veterans Curation Program was created to give veterans the opportunity to adjust to a civilian work environment and learn important skills while processing at-risk archeological collections belonging to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. By investing in servicemembers, the Veterans Curation Program is building on the skills that veterans acquire during military service, including leadership, teamwork, and attention to detail. Working under the direct supervision of professionals in the field of archaeology, the veterans receive competitive pay and technical training in a peer-to-peer veterans environment. I urge all Members to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

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

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I want to also congratulate Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for bringing this important bill to the floor. I am pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague from California (Mrs. Napolitano) to study culvert and storm sewer procurement methods. Culvert and storm sewer materials have been subject to a unique procurement process in recent years. In previous legislation, SAFETEA- LU, States were instructed to provide for competition in culvert procurement similar to the process for other construction materials used in highway projects. In MAP-21, States were given full autonomy, accounting for engineering principles. My simple amendment instructs the Secretary of Transportation to study methods used by States to procure culvert and storm sewer materials and report their findings to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This study will enable us to better understand how costs, environmental and engineering principles, and other unique factors impact the States' procurement process. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) to speak in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I thank the gentleman from southern Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today to recognize outgoing Speaker Boehner, whom I got to know a little bit better in 2010, when I ran for Congress. So many of us are here today serving and had difficult races that year, and the Speaker's commitment to us was a big morale boost in that long campaign. I remember the last days of the 2010 election when we had two standing room only rallies in Zanesville and Chillicothe, Ohio. On the eve of those historic victories, I was proud to stand with Speaker Boehner and lay out the vision for the Republican House. Mr. Speaker, I have a picture of the Zanesville rally hanging on the wall in my home. As you begin your retirement, I hope that you will continue to look back on those chilly October rallies in 2010 as fondly as I do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the years of service to the people of western Ohio and the country and your confidence in me and in so many other candidates in 2010. I congratulate you on your retirement, and I wish you and your family nothing but the best. Godspeed.