Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, we have seen in the videos released this summer the horrific practices of harvesting the body parts of aborted children for profit. We have also known that Planned Parenthood provides abortion procedures, and the pro-life movement has for years worked very hard to ensure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to fund the procedure of abortion. Planned Parenthood is not about women's health care. We know this because not one clinic performs mammograms. The despicable actions that were uncovered in these videos show the true nature of Planned Parenthood. It shows their complete disregard for life. It shows how careless they are with the responsibility to treat our most vulnerable and innocent with respect. We cannot give taxpayer dollars to an organization that profits from the sale of organs from aborted children. Planned Parenthood officials have been caught haggling over the price of body parts from aborted children, and they have been recorded on camera fearing the consequences if their actions were revealed to the world. We have two House committee investigations. We have an obligation to suspend Federal funding to Planned Parenthood while the investigations are being conducted. Now is the time for all Americans to reflect on the fragile nature of life and how we treat the unborn. I want to thank Congresswoman Black for leading the efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the nuclear deal that the President and Secretary of State Kerry negotiated with Iran. Since the announcement of the deal on July 14, the world has learned piece by piece just how bad it is. Earlier this year, I spoke on the House floor on the elements that would be needed in order to consider an agreement with Iran. One such element was the requirement of anytime, anywhere inspections, which would give inspectors 24-hour access to any site inside Iran; yet, according to Hillel Fradkin, an expert at the Hudson Institute, Iran could get as many as 63 days--possibly more--before inspections. This gives Iran time to hide and destroy any potential evidence of nuclear weapons research. Additionally, this deal lifts economic sanctions too quickly and gives Iran access to $150 billion in sanctions relief. Iran is a top exporter and supporter of terrorism. We should not be making it easier for them to fund groups like Hezbollah and dictators like those in Syria, nor should we make it easier for Iran to procure conventional arms and missiles that have the capability of reaching American soil. Despite our negotiators' assurances that the conventional arms embargo would not be lifted, this is precisely what will happen with the UN arms embargo ending in just 5 years. The President is rewarding Iran with money, access to weaponry, and a 10-year pause on their nuclear weapons research--and that is if the Iranians don't cheat. Empowering Iran to fund terrorists and bully its neighbors is not what I call a good agreement for the United States or allies Israel and Saudi Arabia. Congress must end this deal and impose stronger sanctions.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order on this very important topic. In the very near future, this affects every Ohioan across the country, but very soon, the EPA is expected to release its Clean Power Plan. This is just another burdensome regulatory scheme that will increase energy costs. The Energy Information Administration--that is the government agency dedicated to the impartial analysis of data--reported it will cause the price of electricity rates to rise for consumers. Ohio families are already stretching their budgets as much as they can, struggling to make ends meet. Raising their monthly electric bills is just going to make their struggle worse. Earlier this month, the House passed the Ratepayer Protection Act, as you know, to stop the implementation of a clean power plan while the courts address the legal challenges to the plan and give Ohioans a break from the EPA's heavy-handed regulations. Sadly, the EPA's refusal to listen to the public and industry input is not without precedent. When considering the redefinition of waters of the United States rule, the agencies did not take into account the opinions of their State partners. Within hours, 27 States and countless organizations filed lawsuits challenging the rule. Additionally, at the end of June, the Supreme Court found that the EPA failed to consider compliance costs when proposing new rules for power plants. If the EPA continues to push forward with this plan, it will only hurt those who want reliable, affordable energy. It is time to set aside partisan agendas. I encourage the EPA to start from scratch and work with the stakeholders and industry partners to create a commonsense plan that strengthens our energy infrastructure and safeguards our environment. Again, Congressman McKinley, I thank you for holding this Special Order today--and Mr. Speaker--because this affects a large region of our country. I know you talked about, what, 400 coal-fired plants across the country. This is important to our economy, and you have to have reliable and affordable energy for businesses to grow and create jobs. This Clean Power Plan is going to lay around and strangle our businesses and put people out of work across the Midwest and across my State in Ohio. I thank you for doing this tonight.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. When any Federal agency mandates what used to be a voluntary process, it can only add to a bureaucratic headache. A mandatory process for FDA food labeling approvals would create increased costs for businesses and consumers, invite potential litigation, and burden our Nation's farmers and small businesses. I am pleased to see that this bill streamlines the voluntary FDA labeling process, with the help of the USDA, to make a combined, joint effort to label food headed to the market. Having uniform rules for foods with a GMO-free label will benefit consumers and alleviate struggles with interstate commerce in response to a patchwork of State and local labeling standards. H.R. 1599 will help give consumers an opportunity to make an informed choice at the supermarket, while also advancing food safety and consistency in our food labels. I thank my colleagues in the Agriculture Committee as well as the Energy and Commerce Committee for finding a way to make this change in a simple and most effective way.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order tonight. Mr. Speaker, last week millions of Americans saw the horrific video in which a top Planned Parenthood doctor detailed the gruesome nature of abortion procedures. Dr. Deborah Nucatola's casual conversation about crushing the body of an unborn child is nothing short of barbaric. What is worse is the negotiation of the price of the remains of the unborn child. In a second video, which was released today, Dr. Mary Gatter negotiates the price of fetal remains, discusses a ``less crunchy'' procedure to preserve body parts, and jokes about needing to purchase a Lamborghini from the profits of those organ sales. But this is not a joke. Profiting from the sale of human organs is illegal and so is changing a procedure specifically for organ harvesting. This is a terrible reminder of what an abortion really is, ending the life of a child. If harvested organs are so valuable, how valuable is the child? Is the value of a child's life not greater than the sum of his or her parts? How long will we, as a Nation, continue to allow such heinous, despicable acts? May these revelations on video serve as an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the precious nature of life and how we treat the unborn, who are truly the most vulnerable and innocent among us. I thank Speaker Boehner and the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees for opening investigations to determine what, if any, Federal laws were broken as a result of these awful practices. The House must not provide any Federal funds to Planned Parenthood when they condone and profit from these actions. I call on the President to denounce these practices, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support the elimination of Federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Peter Schramm of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University in Ashland, Ohio. Earlier this week, the Ashbrook Center, supporters, and friends gathered to recognize Dr. Schramm for his years of service and to name the center's library in his honor. Since 1987, Dr. Schramm has been teaching political science at Ashland; mentoring students; and shaping the minds of the next generation of teachers, lawyers, and political thinkers. His story starts in Hungary, as a young boy living under the brutal Soviet regime. When he was 10, after the Communists crushed the Hungarian uprising in 1956, Peter's father decided it was time to leave Hungary and come to America. Peter asked his father why he chose America, and he was told: ``We were born Americans but in the wrong place.'' After leaving Hungary, the Schramm family found their way to California, thanks to an American dentist his father met shortly after World War II. With just a few American dollars, Peter's family started a new life. His parents found work, and Peter and his sister went to school. Peter did not know English and had to learn along the way, with the help of his classmates. Eventually, they saved enough money to open a restaurant. The whole family worked there. Peter continued his studies and worked through college. He studied history and graduated, taking a few years longer than usual because he was unaware he actually had to graduate. Peter was content to learn for the sake of learning. Years later, he once said: ``I think it is true that human beings by nature desire to know.'' His economic curiosity led him to Claremont for his master's and doctorate degrees. It was there that he studied the classics, focusing more on philosophy than history. When he began teaching, Dr. Schramm insisted on an open discussion, encouraging and directing debates among his students. He once said: ``A good education is a conversation.'' He didn't want to lecture his students and believes that a classic liberal arts education should teach its students how to read, to analyze, and to explain and defend their beliefs. The Ashbrook Center, where he served as executive director and senior fellow of the scholar program, states that their mission is to restore and strengthen the capacities of the American people for constitutional self-government. Having witnessed the corruption and horror of the Soviet rule, he was able to impress upon his students how important Ashbrook's missions and values are. One of his most recent students and an intern in my office, James Coyne, told me: ``Dr. Schramm has dedicated his life to preserving and perpetuating American greatness by teaching us what it means to be an American. The many of us he has taught will continue his work and honor his legacy by educating future generations on what makes America great.'' Dr. Schramm, who is battling an aggressive illness, can be assured that the principles of self-government of free men with free minds and the values that our Founding Fathers cherished are alive and well in the generations of students he has taught. On Monday evening, Dr. Schramm said that, despite his medical condition, no man has been happier than he has been. Thank you, Dr. Schramm, for adopting America as your home and teaching so many young minds to keep the flame of freedom burning.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, in less than a week, the deadline for the administration's negotiations with Iran will pass. Many people, including myself, have serious concerns about the status and the outcome of these negotiations. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a threat to the Middle East, especially to our closest ally, Israel. I remain skeptical of Iran's commitment to disarmament and transparency. I believe there are five key issues that must be addressed for this to be a good deal for America and Israel. One, unrestricted access to inspection locations on short notice-- inspectors must be given complete access at any time and at any place for verification inspections. Two, Iran must disclose the entirety of its previous activities and efforts towards a nuclear weapon. Three, sanctions must remain in place until Iran complies and proves its compliance, and we must show commitment to a robust response to any violation. Four, any deal must be long term, and it must not include the development of and access to nuclear weapons. Finally, any negotiations must include provisions that require Iran to dismantle its program completely with no path to a weapon in the future. I believe that only if these conditions are met should Congress and the American people even consider a deal with Iran.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2822, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016. This bill responsibly ensures the EPA's regulatory overreach is checked by Congress. Key provisions included will stop the EPA's most burdensome and damaging regulations and encourage opportunities for water infrastructure investment. This bill ensures that the EPA cannot use resources to expand the definitions of the ``waters of the United States'' and ``fill material'' beyond what Congress wrote in the Clean Water Act. As the King v. Burwell case just taught us, this administration is eager to redefine words to suit their purposes. This House must stand up to them, and in this bill, we are. These key provisions are excellent backstops for ensuring the EPA's clean water rule does not move forward in implementation because this rule is nothing more than a Federal power grab and a substantial expansion of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Even the agencies implementing this rule have concerns about the clarity of its changes. I am also pleased to see the committee supports an integrated planning approach to help communities affordably manage and meet their burdensome regulatory obligations under the Clean Water Act. Communities face enormous financial pressure to have quality services for its residents, including clean water. This approach can potentially save ratepayers millions of dollars while focusing clean water investments in a way that ensures the greatest water quality benefit. Lastly, this bill encourages the implementation of the bipartisan pilot program, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, better known as WIFIA, that was authorized under WRRDA in 2014. Provisions offered in this legislation will set the stage for EPA to implement WIFIA loans in fiscal years 2017 to provide credit assistance for water resource infrastructure projects and act as a complement to the major source of Federal investment in water infrastructure, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, known as the SRF. This program will provide communities increased options and flexibility for funding their critical water infrastructure projects. I thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for recognizing the importance of these provisions and for putting together a bill that sets appropriate levels for agencies and programs.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House will consider legislation to repeal another burdensome part of ObamaCare, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, also known as IPAB. IPAB is tasked with finding ways to curb spending in Medicare, but in reality, it will ration care and cut services. While Medicare continues to eat up more of the budget and is in need of commonsense reforms, relying on a group of unelected bureaucrats is the absolute wrong thing to do. Any reforms we make to health care should focus on three core ideas. One, strengthen the relationship between the doctor and the patient so they can work together to make healthcare decisions--what we don't need is a bureaucrat from Washington creating a wall between a patient and his physician; two, to drive down costs, we have to focus on market- oriented reforms, like making coverage portable across State lines and removing the individual and employer mandates; three, finally, we have to incentivize the use of health savings accounts to pay for routine and preventative care. Repealing the IPAB is an important step in reining in an out-of- control bureaucracy, controlling the ballooning costs of health care, and returning healthcare decisions to patients and their doctors.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 944) to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 944, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 944, introduced by my colleague, Representative LoBiondo, reauthorizes the National Estuary Program found in section 320 of the Clean Water Act. Estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that are important to the ecological and economic basis of our Nation. Congress first authorized the National Estuary Program in 1987, amendments to the Clean Water Act to promote the protection of the national significant estuaries in the United States that are deemed to be threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. Unlike many of the programs under the Clean Water Act, the National Estuary Program is a nonregulatory program. Instead, it is designed to support collaborative, voluntary efforts of Federal, State, and local stakeholders to restore degraded estuaries. Using consensus building in a collaborative decisionmaking process instead of a top-down regulatory approach, the National Estuary Program has been effective at promoting locally based involvement. In addition, it leverages non-Federal money for restoration activities by providing funding for the program. In reauthorization of the National Estuary Program, H.R. 944 makes prudent fiscal adjustments. The bill reauthorizes section 320 of the Clean Water Act through 2018 in the amount of $27 million a year. This amount is consistent with appropriations over the past 5 years, and, in recognition of the fiscal realities of today, decreases the authorized level of funding by $8 million a year. H.R. 944 also directs more funds to where they need to be in the individual estuaries in the program. The bill achieves this by reducing the amount of discretionary funds made available to the EPA. Finally, the bill allocates a portion of eligible program funds for competitive awards to Federal, State, and local stakeholders to address certain high priority estuary needs, including algae blooms, hypoxia, flooding, and invasive species. This is identical to a bill that passed the House by voice vote in the last Congress. I urge all Members to support H.R. 944, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise today in support of H.R. 2353, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015. Although we must construct a long-term highway bill, this legislation is a compromise that will provide States with certainty through the vital summer construction months. By extending the expenditure authority of the highway trust fund through the end of July, States will not have to worry about reimbursements from the Federal Government while they are in the middle of the busiest construction season of the year. Following the passage of this extension, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to construct a long-term highway bill with a sustainable funding mechanism. Upon its enactment in 2012, MAP-21 made important reforms by consolidating Federal highway programs and streamlining the project approval process. The next highway bill should build on MAP-21's successes to cut red tape and ensure highway trust fund dollars are spent responsibly. We must also be good stewards of taxpayer dollars by keeping our promise to the American people that the next surface transportation bill will provide adequate funding for highway and freight infrastructure to create jobs and keep our Nation competitive. My constituents and the hard-working people all over this country need reliable roads and bridges to commute to work, take their children to school, and get home safely at night. Unfortunately, the President's funding proposal is not viable and, I believe, will encourage more inversions or takeovers of American companies. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2353 and encourage them to commit to crafting a long-term fiscally responsible highway bill that will provide the much-needed certainty to States, industry, and the American people.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not opposed.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today for H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015. One of the reasons that we are doing this bill today is to provide clarity and certainty for the regulated community. Following the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court decisions, determining the appropriate scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has been confusing and unclear. Both the regulated community and the Supreme Court have called for a rulemaking that will provide such clarity. Last April, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published a rule in the Federal Register that, according to the agencies, would clarify the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. But in reality, this rule goes far beyond merely clarifying the scope of Federal jurisdiction under Clean Water Act programs. It amounts to a vast expansion of Federal jurisdiction. To the agencies, clarity is simple: everything is in. This is a clear expansion of the EPA's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and flies in the face of two Supreme Court decisions, both of which told the agencies there are limits to Federal jurisdiction. The proposed rule misconstrues and manipulates the legal standards announced in the SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court cases, effectively turning those cases that place limits on 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 had an opportunity to develop clear and reasonable bright-line rules on which is jurisdictional versus not, but they instead 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 is dangerous because this vagueness will leave the regulated community without any clarity and certainty as to their regulatory status and will leave them exposed to citizen lawsuits. In addition, since many of these jurisdictional decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, this will give the Federal regulators free rein to find jurisdiction. This rule, in essence, will establish a presumption that all waters are jurisdictional and will shift to property owners and others in the regulated community the burden of proving otherwise. This rule will set a very high bar for the regulated community to overcome. Mr. Chairman, the administration even explicitly acknowledges in its recently issued Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 1732 that it does not want the bill to constrain the agencies' regulatory discretion. The Clean Water Act was originally intended as a cooperative partnership between States and the Federal Government, with States responsible for the elimination, prevention, and oversight of water pollution. This successful partnership has provided monumental improvements in water quality throughout the Nation since its 1972 enactment because not all waters need to be subject to Federal jurisdiction. However, this rule will undermine Federal-State partnership and erode State authority by granting sweeping new Federal jurisdiction to waters never intended for regulation under the Clean Water Act. In promoting this rule, Mr. Chairman, the agencies are asserting 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 will be covered by the rulemaking, which raises the question of how can the rule protect those supposedly unprotected waters without vastly expanding Federal jurisdiction over them? The agencies are talking out of both sides of their mouths. In reality, however, States care about and are protective of their waters, and wetlands and stream miles are not being left unprotected. Mr. Chairman, in addition to proposing a rule that has sweeping ramifications for the country, the agencies played fast and loose with the regulatory process. The sequence and timing of the actions the agencies have taken to develop this rule undermine the credibility of the rule and the process to develop it. Among other things, State and local governments and the regulated community all have repeatedly expressed concern that the agencies have cut them out of the process and have failed to consult with them, first during the development of the agencies' jurisdiction guidance, and now, in the development of the rule. Mr. Chairman, if the agencies had taken the time to consult with the State and local governments and actually listen up front to the issues that our counties, cities, and townships are facing, we might not have had a proposed rule which, the agencies have admitted to Congress in multiple hearings, creates confusion and uncertainty. If the agencies had followed the proper regulatory process, we wouldn't have a proposed rule that cuts corners on the economic analysis, used incomplete data, and only looked at economic impacts of the rule on one of the many regulatory programs under the Clean Water Act. If the agencies had done things right the first time, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee wouldn't have had to respond to the more than 30 States and almost 400 counties who have requested the EPA withdraw or significantly revise the proposed Waters of the United States rule. If the agencies had done things right, substantive comments filed on the rule wouldn't have been nearly 70 percent opposed to the rule.

Mr. GIBBS. But the agencies didn't do things right. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, gives the agencies, their State and local government partners, and other stakeholders another chance to work together to develop a rule that does what was intended--to provide clarity. This bill requires the agencies to withdraw the proposed rule and enter into a transparent and cooperative process with States, local governments, and other stakeholders to write a new rule. This is what EPA should have done in the first place.

Mr. GIBBS. The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act will ensure that the agencies cannot re-propose the same broken rule they released a year ago but does give the agencies an opportunity to get it right. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues across the aisle all believe the agencies have heard the confusion and are committed to changing the rule to respond to the stakeholders' complaints. Unfortunately, the agencies have not provided Members of Congress or stakeholders with any real assurance that that will happen. All they tell us is to trust them. In fact, at our joint hearing with the Senate earlier this year, when I asked Administrator McCarthy about whether the public would have a chance to review all of the changes they promised to make before the rule goes final, she said they weren't changing the rule enough to need to put it out for public comment again. In our committee, Mr. Chairman, we have repeatedly heard from our friends on the other side of the aisle that we need to wait until the rule is finalized before taking action. If the agencies have not made the changes that they promised, or if the changes they have made do not work, we have congressional authority to disapprove of the rule. While I appreciate my colleagues' interest in using the Congressional Review Act, waiting until the rule is finalized doesn't give us or the agencies a real chance to fix the problems that will be created.

Mr. GIBBS. Not only would the President have to sign any disapproval resolution we pass, but there are legal scholars who believe if the Congressional Review Act did pass, the agencies would be barred from ever going back and doing another rulemaking, which would leave us in the position of being stuck in the same regulatory uncertainty we are in today. I don't think I want this or any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want this. As I said in the beginning, the reason we are voting on the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act today is to get a rule that provides real clarity, that works for the States, that works for local governments, and that protects our waters. Nearly $220 billion in annual economic investment is tied to section 404 permits. Even more economic investment is tied to other Clean Water Act programs. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. GIBBS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I must strongly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment because it seeks to gut this legislation. This amendment is misleading. It would allow the EPA to move forward and finalize its flawed rule expansion under Federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act regardless of the consequences. If the EPA determines entirely of its own discretion that the rule was consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and other factors listed in the amendment, the rule would be finalized. This amendment gives the EPA the authority to nullify the Supreme Court decisions which reined in the EPA's expansive claims to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and legally reinterpreted those decisions to be as broad and expansive as it would like. The EPA has already stated that it believes its proposed rule is consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and with other factors listed in this amendment. Therefore, the effect of this amendment is to allow the EPA to finalize its flawed rule that many believe is not consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and the other listed factors. This amendment will put the EPA solely in charge of America's waters and would undermine the Federal-State partnership that H.R. 1732 seeks to preserve. It would allow the EPA to finalize and implement its flawed rule without consultation with the States. There has been a lot of debate and discussion today, and I want to just kind of address some of that because it goes to this amendment too, once they gut the bill. There was a lot of talk about the amendment that was included in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. That was really a backstop to stop them from moving forward on the current proposed rule, and they cannot repropose the same rule, but if this bill is passed into law, they could move forward and do what H.R. 1732 directs them to do. Administrator McCarthy said they don't need to put anything out because there are no new changes, or major changes; that is why they don't need to put out a supplemental to the proposed rule. That is the problem. That is why we have this bill here today, and that is why I am against the gentlewoman's amendment, because they are not being open or transparent about what changes they made. I have a letter from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, talking about the administration policy in regard to H.R. 1732, and it talks about that they believe that this bill, passed into law, would constrain the Agency's discretion. That is the problem. We can't have a bunch of bureaucrats running around the country and deciding what are going to be waters of the United States and what are not going to be waters of the United States. We have to be clear about that and give clarity. All that H.R. 1732 says is for the EPA and the Corps to go back to the States and stakeholders and work out a rule to satisfy the Supreme Court decisions and that brings clarity and certainty and allows for economic expansion and protects waters at the same time, but if you open it up to having bureaucrats-- --

Mr. GIBBS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. I know that the CBO put out $5 million or something like that. The problem we have here is that if this proposed rule goes forward, it costs at least $200-some billion to the economy. What this rule does, if it goes forward, under the Clean Water Act, it just makes it where farmers, landowners, homeowners would have to go through the Clean Water Act permit policy, permit provisions. All it does is create more red tape and bureaucracy and cost, and doesn't do anything to protect the water quality. It is very important to remember that, I believe, if this rule goes forward as proposed, we could actually go backward in water quality because at some point when you layer on costs and red tape to farmers and businesses out there, they are going to throw their hands up in the air, and they are not going to do it, so it is going to stifle economic activity. It will possibly make us go backwards in water quality because if we don't have a growing economy, we don't have the resources to do the environmental stuff we want to do. So it is very important that we kill this amendment that the gentlewoman offers because it guts the bill and support H.R. 1732 going forward. All it does is say to the EPA: Go back and work with the States, and don't propose the same rule you put out there that you won't tell us what your changes are, but go back and work with the States, do it in an open, transparent, and accountable process, and we can do something that protects water quality and the environment in this country and move this country forward. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan for offering this thoughtful amendment. We are prepared to support this amendment since we believe it helps protect a State's role in administering the Clean Water Act, especially those States with delegated authorities under sections 402 and 404 of the act. We also believe this amendment strengthens H.R. 1732 and enhances the role of States in carrying out the Clean Water Act. I encourage Members to support the Kildee amendment. I would also ask the sponsor of this amendment if he would support this underlying bill with the amendment included. The reason I argue he should is because, under the current rule, without the underlying bill being passed, States would have to change the processes under the 402 and 404 permitting, and they currently would have no grace period. With this amendment in the underlying bill and passage of the underlying bill, that would solve that problem. And so his amendment strengthens the bill, but also gives the States the flexibility that he is asking for. I would ask that the sponsor of the amendment support the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.