Rick Larsen

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I want to state, again, for the record, that the Federal courts blocked the implementation of the previous administration's navigable waters protection rule. It wasn't this administration. In response to that, the administration developed a new rule, this particular one that we are debating today. So it needs to be said for the record that the Federal courts made a decision about the previous administration's rule, not this particular administration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to clarify that if this passes and we override the veto message, the end result will be reverting to a rule that was created around 2007, 2008, not the last administration's rule but another rule that I don't think either side likes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have a long, proud, and successful history of supporting clean water. Last year, House Democrats successfully made historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, providing communities with almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades and creating jobs. These clean water investments are helping everyday Americans with safe, reliable, and sustainable water and wastewater services while providing good-paying jobs that cannot be sent overseas and reinvigorating our State and local economies. Every day, more and more Americans are realizing the public health, economic, and environmental benefits of this transformative law, benefits that will continue as additional resources are implemented across the country. The bipartisan infrastructure law was what Congress can do at its best. This resolution is the opposite. Again, I support President Biden for his decision to veto this resolution. My colleagues say they want certainty, and we agree, but that certainty that we support also ensures the health and safety of our environment for current and future generations. This resolution, though, provides no certainty. I argue that it is a playbook for how to create confusion, more litigation, and continued gridlock. This resolution provides no benefits to public health. It seeks to eliminate protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands, many of which provide drinking water for millions of Americans. This resolution provides no benefits for our economy. It not only casts aside a time-tested, scientifically based tool to implement the Clean Water Act, but it also blocks any provision of additional clarity for businesses, farmers, and homebuilders going forward. In short, this resolution is a step backward for clean water, and it is a step backward for certainty. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto by voting ``no'' and to reject this attack on our clean water future. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of clean water and in support of the Clean Water Act, and in opposition to H.R. 1, the polluters over people act. Clean water is a basic human right--the health and safety of our communities and the success of our economy depends on it. House Democrats stand for clean water. Last Congress, we passed a historic and bipartisan investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The BIL included almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades and is creating jobs in communities across the country. The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, is one of the most successful environmental laws in our Nation's history. It has protected rivers, lakes, and streams from pollution and contamination, ensuring that we have access to clean and safe water. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act allows States to review projects that could impact their water quality. For 50 years, States have used this authority to protect their water resources, and it has helped them ensure that projects move forward only if clean water would not be compromised as a result. These proposals that are in H.R. 1, to narrow the scope of section 401, are a misguided effort at permitting reform. By limiting the ability of States to review projects, we are sacrificing the health of our communities and our environment for the sake of expedience and profit. I recognize the majority's interest in ensuring that permitting requirements are not insurmountable barriers to investment. I share the goal of speeding up project delivery. Last Congress, I supported not only the BIL, but also the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. These laws showed what Congress is capable of when it focuses on addressing the real needs of American families. I want these laws and their investments to be successful. However, to quickly put these investments to work, we need a robust partnership between the Federal Government and its State and local partners and Tribal partners, to address State, local, and Tribal requirements, and to ensure community buy-in before these investments are implemented. To be effective, that process must build on a mutual trust between the parties because any effort to force that process often results in opposition, delay, and litigation. Yet, H.R. 1 misses the mark by stifling local participation and buy- in, which will only result in these projects taking longer to implement. In fact, State organizations, such as the Western States Water Council, believe that placing arbitrary and strict limits on section 401 application review times and processes will require the States ``to issue an increased number of denials, due to inflexible deadlines that do not accommodate State public engagement laws or allow sufficient time to gather adequate information on project impacts.'' Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1, and reject the efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act and our Nation's other bedrock environmental laws. We must protect our water resources for future generations and for the health of today's communities and families. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), one more person who appreciates the most important natural resource we have, and that is our clean water.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. H.R. 1, the bill before us today, is permitting reform in name only, putting polluters who want to fast-track special projects ahead of the public's interests. It includes unnecessary and unwarranted giveaways to fossil fuel and mining industries, and this polluters over people act also repeals historic investment in clean energy and climate change investments passed by the previous Congress. I agree with the administration's statement on this bill, which called for working in a bipartisan manner to address lowering energy costs and working in a bipartisan manner to reform the permitting process and to address our energy challenges. I know my colleagues want to speed up project delivery, and I share that goal, but it is not going to be achieved through H.R. 1. In the last Congress, the House and Senate reached a historic agreement to restore, upgrade, and advance our Nation's interconnected infrastructure networks through the bipartisan infrastructure law, including major investments in improving clean water infrastructure. A ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1 begins to pull back on our ability to maintain the promise of those investments. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider what real bipartisan work on permitting reform would look like. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, we know that this side of the aisle is not trying to shut down domestic energy production. In fact, the Inflation Reduction Act made a major investment in clean energy production in the United States to expand the use of renewable energies and renewable energy production. That is one reason why I want people to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1 because this bill removes some of those incentives. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Strickland), who is another person who is strongly against this bill.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of 91 organizations in opposition to H.J. Res. 27 and an open letter to Congress from the Environmental Protection Network in opposition to H.J. Res. 27. Organizations in Opposition to H.J. Res. 27, Resolution of Disapproval of Biden Clean Water Restoration Rule 350.org, A Community Voice, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Geophysical Union, American Public Health Association, American Rivers, American Sustainable Business Network, Amigos Bravos, Anthropocene Alliance, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Associacion de Residentes de La Margaita, Inc., Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Black Millennials 4 Flint, Cahaba River Society, California Environmental Voters, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Transformation, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Children's Environmental Health Network, Clean Water Action. Clean, Healthy, Educated, Safe & Sustainable Community, Inc., Coalition for Wetlands and Forests, Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River, Community In-Power and Development Association Inc. (CIDA Inc.), Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Concerned Citizens of Cook County (Georgia), Conservation Alabama, Earthjustice, Environment America, Environment Texas, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Working Group, For Love of Water (FLOW), FreshWater Accountability Project, Freshwater Future, Friends of Buckingham, Friends of the Mississippi River, Gila Resources Information Project, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, Greater Neighborhood Alliance of Jersey City, NJ, GreenLatinos, Groundswell Charleston SC. Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition, Healthy Gulf, Hispanic Federation, Idaho Rivers United, Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance, Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), League of Conservation Voters, Lynn Canal Conservation, Maine Conservation Voters, Malach Consulting, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, Milton's Concerned Citizens, Mississippi River Collaborative, Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper, Montana Conservation Voters, MS Communities United for Prosperity (MCUP), National Parks Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Heritage Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, NC League of Conservation Voters. New Mexico Climate Justice, New Mexico Environmental Law Center, New York League of Conservation Voters, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Ohio River Foundation, Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, PES, Rapid Creek Watershed Action, Renewal of Life Trust, River Network, Save the Illinois River, Inc., STIR, Serene Wildlife Sanctuary LLC, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider Foundation, The Clinch Coalition, The Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans, Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Washington Conservation Action, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Weequahic Park Association, Winyah Rivers Alliance.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Clean water is a human right, and the health and safety of our communities and the success of our economy depend upon it. House Democrats stand for clean water, and today, I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 27. Last Congress, we passed a bipartisan, once-in-a-generation investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, investing almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades and creating jobs in communities across this country. The BIL showed what Congress can do when we focus on the needs of American families. Yet, instead of putting people over pollution, this CRA does the opposite. Now, my State of Washington is defined by its clean water, including the health of the Puget Sound and the hundreds of lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams throughout the State. My constituents know that rivers, streams, and wetlands, are intrinsically connected. Pollution that starts in one body of water does not stay put. House Democrats believe we can protect clean water, while providing certainty to businesses, to farmers, to Americans who depend upon clean water for their lives and livelihoods. This is especially true for the 117 million Americans who depend on smaller streams as a source of their drinking water at a time when many States are facing historic droughts. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want clean water rules that are simple, clear and easy to follow. I want that, too. The Biden administration's Clean Water Restoration Rule does exactly that; following the law and the science of protecting clean water and providing regulatory certainty and stability to the implementation of the Clean Water Act. This resolution does the opposite. This resolution will not bring back the previous administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which removed Federal protections on roughly half of the Nation's wetlands and 70 percent of its rivers and streams. That rule was rightly rejected by a Federal court in 2021, as ``fundamentally flawed'' and likely to cause ``serious environmental harm'' every day it remained in effect. It is off the table entirely. This resolution before us today will also not eliminate the use of the ``significant nexus'' test because that test was mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been in effect since the Bush administration and remains in place today. However, this resolution will adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and developers by creating regulatory chaos and eliminating important exclusions that have been codified in the new rule to help water- dependent businesses and farmers to understand and comply with the law. Now, despite fear-mongering on this issue, the truth is simple. The Biden proposal will have no impact on the average family farmer in this country. Why? That is because farmers are, by law, largely exempt from the Clean Water Act permitting requirements where less than 1 percent of all annual wetlands permits relate to agricultural activities nationwide. Therefore, if your farm is engaged in normal farming, forestry, and ranching activity, or undertakes the construction or maintenance of a farm, stock pond, or irrigation ditch, you are exempt from the permitting requirements of the act, and the current proposal does not change that exemption. Finally, for those waiting to see whether the Supreme Court will somehow fix this issue in the upcoming Sackett case, this resolution will actually hinder the ability of the Corps and the EPA to respond to the Supreme Court's potential recommendations later this year. That is why this resolution before us makes no sense. It would invalidate the Biden rule and all the clarifications and exceptions for business it contains in favor of a similarly structured but much less clear regulatory framework. That is a recipe for uncertainty, legal battles, and continued gridlock, the opposite of what proponents say they are looking for. It would also tie the hands of Federal agencies seeking to help individuals comply with the law, unless Congress acts again. This shortsighted action will lessen, not increase, certainty. It is a big mistake. I support the administration's efforts to efficiently implement the critical water infrastructure investments included in the BIL so we can begin to realize the public health, economic, and environmental benefits that come with clean water. This resolution represents a giant step backward for clean water, increases uncertainty for farmers, homebuilders, roadbuilders, and all American families, and doubles down on the infighting and chaos. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.J. Res. 27 and move together toward a future with predictability for those that need it and clean water for communities that cannot survive without it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to go back to an argument a previous speaker made about the Democrats having the majority in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. It also should be on the Record that the other side of the aisle had the majority in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in 2017 and 2018 and also did nothing on this rule. It wasn't important enough for them to do anything. Then the President's rule at the time moved forward, and it was tossed by two different courts. It was rejected by the courts, which leaves us in this position where we are today of playing ping-pong with the waters of the U.S. rule. Our argument today is: Let's bring certainty to the Clean Water Act, bring certainty to the waters of the U.S., reject H.J. Res. 27, and move forward with the existing rule from the current administration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.