Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Cut, Cap, and Balance. Out-of-control spending by the Federal Government has driven our country to the brink of financial meltdown. Our Nation's debt crisis was easily predictable. In recent years, America has watched as the size of the Federal Government has ballooned and deficit spending has reached dangerous levels. Yet despite the warning, Congress stuck with business as usual--more spending, more regulations, and bigger government. It's time to put an end to business as usual for the good of the country. Our country needs it, the American people demand it, and the future of our grandchildren depends on it. This legislation puts us on the path of fiscal responsibility, brings certainty, and restores private sector confidence. The naysayers say we can't do this. They argue for tax increases on our job creators. This measure will unleash the private sector and result in more revenues to ensure strength in Social Security, Medicare, and other needed programs. Just raising the debt ceiling without spending cut reforms according to Moody's and Standards & Poor's will probably lead to a downgrade of U.S. paper and a downhill spiral, higher interest rates, higher taxes, and less opportunities. I urge the support of this and to cut spending now instead of 6 to 10 years from now.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gosar-Gibbs-Altmire amendment, to prohibit funding the Secretary of the Army to enforce a regulation that prohibits firearm possession in compliance with State law on Corps projects and lands. Earlier this year, Representative Altmire from Pennsylvania, Representative Gosar from Arizona, and myself introduced H.R. 1865, a stand-alone bill that would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulation that keeps an individual from possessing firearms on Army Corps of Engineer water or resource development projects. Gun owners need to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights when they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on Army Corps property. Last Congress, this House passed national parks language that became law to allow for guns on national parks land; and the Army Corps of Engineers immediately issued the following release: ``Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or facilities. The passage of this new law does not affect application of title 36 regulations.'' This policy preempts State regulatory framework from transporting and carrying firearms, thus invalidating concealed weapon permits and other State laws that allow law-abiding citizens to transport and carry firearms. This amendment is a bipartisan effort that would put a temporary fix to end the patchwork of regulations that govern different lands managed by different Federal agencies. I urge all Members to support the Gosar-Gibbs-Altmire amendment.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2018 and to also include extraneous materials and letters of support into the Congressional Record.

Mr. GIBBS

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

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.

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

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. 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

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

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

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

Mr. GIBBS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. Almost four decades ago, when it enacted the Clean Water Act, Congress established a system of cooperative federalism by making the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and the States partners in regulating the Nation's water quality and allocated the primary responsibilities for dealing with day-to-day water pollution control matters to the States. For most of these almost four decades, this system of cooperative federalism between the EPA and the States has worked quite well. However, in recent years, the EPA has begun to use questionable tactics to usurp the States' role under the Clean Water Act in setting water quality standards and to invalidate legally issued permits by the States. EPA has decided to get involved in the implementation of State standards, second-guessing States with respect to how standards are to be implemented and even second-guessing EPA's own prior determinations that the State standards meet the minimum requirements for the Clean Water Act. EPA has also inserted itself into the States and the Army Corps of Engineers' permit issuance decisions and the second-guessing State and other agencies' permitting decisions. The EPA's recent actions increasingly are amounting to bullying the States and are unprecedented. H.R. 2018 was introduced to clarify and restore the longstanding balance that had existed between the States and the EPA as coregulators under the Clean Water Act and to preserve the authority of States to make determinations relating to their water quality standards and permitting. The bill was carefully and narrowly crafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about their own water quality standards and permits without undue interference on second-guessing from EPA bureaucrats in Washington with little or no knowledge of local water quality conditions. The legislation reins in EPA from unilaterally issuing a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant adopted by a State and EPA already has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant. H.R. 2018 restricts EPA from withdrawing its previous approval of a State NPDES water quality permitting program or from limiting Federal financial assistance for a State water quality permitting program on the basis that EPA disagrees with the State. Further, the bill restricts EPA from objecting to NPDES permits issued by a State. Moreover, the bill clarifies that EPA can veto an Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404 permitting decision when the State concurs with the veto. These limitations apply only in situations where EPA is attempting to contradict and unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-all Federal policies on a State's water quality program. By limiting such overreaching by the EPA, H.R. 2018 in no way affects EPA's proper role in reviewing State permits and standards and coordination pollution control efforts between the States. EPA just has to get back to the more collaborative role it has long played as the overseer of the States' implementation of the Clean Water Act. Detractors of this legislation claim that the bill only intends to disrupt the complementary roles of EPA and the States under the Clean Water Act and eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public health in downstream States from actions in upstream States. In reality, these detractors want to centralize power in the Federal Government so it can dominate water quality regulation in the States. Implicit in their message is that they do not trust the States in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their citizens. This bill returns the balance, certainty, and cooperation between the States and the Federal Government in regards to the environment that our economy, job creators, and permit holders have been begging for. Well over 100 organizations representing a wide variety of public and private entities support this legislation. Just to name a few, these organizations include the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, the National Water Resources Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the Associated General Contractors of America. July 12, 2011. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Urging Swift Passage of the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R. 2018) Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The undersigned 121 organizations, representing a broad cross- section of the American economy, are united in their strong support for the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R. 2018), a bipartisan bill passed by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 22. The bill would reaffirm the decades-old state-federal relationship set out in the Clean Water Act (CWA) by addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ongoing regulatory overreach. We urge all House members to vote for passage of this important legislation when it is considered on the House floor later this week. H.R. 2018 has important job creation, economic security, and federalism implications. Over the years, EPA has repeatedly challenged states' authority and expertise under the CWA and asserted its control as the sole arbiter of evolving CWA permitting requirements and standards. The agency's actions jeopardize more than $220 billion of annual economic activity subject to CWA Sec. 402 and 404 permits. H.R. 2018 would help put people back to work and create new jobs in the sectors our members serve by restoring the proper balance between EPA and the states in regulating the nation's waters, protecting the CWA's system of cooperative federalism, and preventing EPA from second-guessing or delaying a state's CWA permitting and water quality certification decisions. We urge swift enactment of H.R. 2018 and look forward to working with you to accomplish that important objective. Sincerely, Agricultural Retailers Association; Alabama Cattlemen's Association; American Concrete Pavement Association; American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Rental Association; American Road & Transportation Builders Association; American Sugarbeet Growers Association; Arizona Farm Bureau Federation; Arizona Rock Products Association; Associated Equipment Distributors; The Associated General Contractors of America; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Buckeye Valley Chamber of Commerce; Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley; Chemical Producers & Distributors Association; Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Livestock Association; CropLife America; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Deep South Equipment Dealers Association; Delaware State Chamber of Commerce; Edison Electric Institute; Equipment Distributors Association of Minnesota; Far West Equipment Dealer Association. Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association; The Fertilizer Institute; Florida Cattlemen's Association; Florida Sugar Cane League; Georgia Construction Aggregate Association; Georgia Mining Association; Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce; Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce; Idaho Cattle Association; Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers; Illinois Chamber of Commerce; Illinois Coal Association; Industrial Minerals Association--North America; Iowa Cattlemen's Association; Iowa Limestone Producers Association; Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association; Kansas Aggregate Producers Association; Kansas Livestock Association; Kansas Ready Mixed Concrete Association; Kentucky Association of Manufacturers; Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; Kentucky Coal Association; Kentucky Crushed Stone Association, Inc.; Lodi Chamber of Commerce; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Aggregates Association; Mid-America Equipment Retailers Association; Midwest Equipment Dealers Association; Minnesota-South Dakota Equipment Dealers Association; Missouri Cattlemen's Association; Montana Equipment Dealers Association; Montana Stockgrowers Association; National Asphalt Pavement Association; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers. National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Corn Growers Association; National Milk Producers Federation; National Mining Association; National Pork Producers Council; National Precast Concrete Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; National Water Resources Association; Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc.; North American Equipment Dealers Association; North Dakota Implement Dealers Association; Northeast Equipment Dealers Association, Inc.; NUCA Representing Utility and Excavation Contractors. Ohio Aggregates & Industrial Minerals Association; Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Ohio Equipment Distributors Association; Ohio-Michigan Equipment Dealers Association; Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association; Pacific Northwest Hardware & Implement Association; Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce; Pennsylvania Aggregates and Concrete Association; Pennsylvania Cattlemen's Association; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry; Portland Cement Association; Public Lands Council; Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment; Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce; Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce; South Dakota Agri-Business Association; South Dakota Cattlemen's Association; South East Dairy Farmers Association; SouthEastern Equipment Dealers Association; South Western Association; Tennessee Concrete Association; Tennessee Road Builders Association; Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Cattlemen's Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; United Egg Producers; USA Rice Federation; Utah Cattlemen's Association; Utah Farm Bureau Federation; The Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; Utah Wool Growers Association; Virginia Agribusiness Council; Virginia Grain Producers Association; Virginia Poultry Federation; Washington Aggregates & Concrete Association; Washington Cattlemen's Association; Washington Farm Bureau; West Virginia Chamber of Commerce; West Virginia Coal Association; West Virginia Manufacturers Association; Western Business Roundtable; Wyoming Ag Business Association; Wyoming Crop Improvement Association; Wyoming Stock Growers.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. GIBBS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. GIBBS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.