Bill Shuster

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Forty years ago, the Clean Water Act established a partnership between States and the Federal Government to regulate waters. The limits on Federal power under this partnership have also been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court not once, but twice, and I might add that my colleagues, when they were the majority party, tried twice to do what this rule is going to do, but they couldn't get it out of committee because there was not the support for it. I am not sure what has changed except for the fact that Republicans are in the majority, but there is still a lot of opposition out there to it. The administration's proposed rule abandons a successful partnership in favor of a vast expansion of the Federal Government's authority to regulate. This proposed rule was developed without consulting States and local governments or regulated communities, and it will have dire economic consequences. In fact, as the gentlewoman mentioned, there have been 20,000 substantive comments on this, and 70 percent of them have opposed this rule. As I made the point earlier, the proposed rule is out there. If they were going to change it, they would have to go back and reopen the comment period, but they are not changing it significantly. The proposed rule will be very, very similar to what the final rule is. That is why we need to stop it. Two-thirds of the States object to this law rule, two-thirds of the States object to it. Local governments, farmers, builders, job creators, and stakeholders object to this rule. As mentioned, of those 20,000 substantial comments, 70 percent of them rejected this rulemaking. The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act rejects this flawed rule and flawed process that created it. This bipartisan bill restores the integrity of the rulemaking process and the Federal and State partnership. The agencies simply need to go back and do it right. We cannot protect our waters and provide more regulatory clarity without sacrificing common sense and balance. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all Members to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great regard for the gentlewoman from Maryland. I know that the Chesapeake Bay is incredibly important to not only Maryland, but the United States. The watershed I live in, much of it drains into the Susquehanna that flows into the Chesapeake, so we are very concerned in Pennsylvania about wanting to have clean water. We also want to have an agriculture community prospering in Pennsylvania. They spent millions of dollars to try to clean it up. Again, this notion that we haven't seen the rule is not that clear because we have. It is not clear to what the Democrats are saying. What we are saying is we have seen a proposed rule. We have seen a proposed rule. Because they are not going to make substantial changes to the proposed rule, that means, if they were making substantial changes, they would have to come back and reopen this up and have a significant comment period, but they are not doing that. Basically, the proposed rule is going to be very similar to the final rule. That is what scares the heck out of people--the farmers, builders, people across this country, landowners. This bill does force the EPA and the Corps to go back in and talk to the stakeholders because of the million comments. Seventy percent were ignored. They said revise or significantly change this. They ignored 70 percent of those million comments. I am encouraging all Members to support this. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), a leader on this issue.

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, a gentleman who has put lots and lots of work into this issue over the past several months.

Mr. SHUSTER. The implementing agencies with their comments rejected the rule from New York. It sounds like New York is confused.

Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act. The Federal-State partnership Congress created under the Clean Water Act has led to significantly improved water quality over the past four decades. This is because Congress recognized that States should have the primary responsibility of regulating waters within their own boundaries and that not all waters need to be subjected to Federal jurisdiction. These limits on Federal power have also been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court not once, but twice. However, last year, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers proposed a new rule that discards these limits. This purposefully vague rule will only increase confusion, increase uncertainty, increase lawsuits, and open up just about any water or wet area to Federal regulation. Don't just take my word for it. At least 32 States, including Pennsylvania, are objecting to the rule as proposed. More than 1 million comments have been filed on this proposed rule, with approximately 70 percent of the substantive comments asking for the rule to be withdrawn or significantly modified. Mr. Chair, 370 individual counties and the National Association of Counties oppose the rule. The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Towns and Townships all oppose this rule. The majority of the regulated community opposes the rule, including the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Home Builders, the Associated General Contractors of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Mining Association, and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. This list of those opposed to this rule goes on and on and on. Not only do all these groups oppose the rule, but they all support H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act. I will insert the list of supporters in the Congressional Record at this time. Letters of Support for H.R. 1732 AgriMark, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Public Works Association, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, Association of American Railroads, Family Farm Alliance, International Council of Shopping Centers. National Alliance of Forest Owners, National Association of Counties, National Association of Homebuilders, National Association of Realtors, National Association of Regional Councils, National Association of Wheat Growers, National League of Cities, National Multifamily Housing Council, National Water Resources Association. Northeast Dairy Farmers Cooperatives, Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Portland Cement Association, Select Milk Producers Inc, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, The American Sugarbeet Growers Association, The United States Conference of Mayors, Virginia Poultry Federation, Waters Advocacy Coalition. National Association of Manufacturers. List of Supporters for H.R. 1732 Agricultural Retailers Association, American Exploration & Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest & Paper Association, American Gas Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Public Power Association, American Road & Transportation Builders Association, American Society of Golf Course Architects. Associated Builders and Contractors, The Associated General Contractors of America, Association of American Railroads, Association of Oil Pipe Lines, Club Managers Association of America, Corn Refiners Association, CropLife America, Edison Electric Institute, Federal Forest Resources Coalition, The Fertilizer Institute. Florida Sugar Cane League, Foundation for Environmental and Economic Progress (FEEP), Golf Course Builders Association of America, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), Industrial Minerals Association--North America, International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA), Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), Irrigation Association. Leading Builders of America, NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association Association of Manufacturers, National Association of REALTORS, National Association of State Department of Agriculture, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Club Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton. National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Golf Course Owners Association of America, National Industrial Sand Association, National Mining Association, National Multifamily Housing Council, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (NSSGA). Portland Cement Association, Public Lands, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association Southern Crop Production Association, Sports Turf Managers Association, Texas Wildlife Association, Treated Wood Council, United Egg Producers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1732.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, all of a sudden, want to see this rule; but, when we passed the ObamaCare bill, nobody seemed to care about what it said in it. Again, this is new for me from my colleagues from the other side. I think one thing is for certain. When you have so many people, so many States--the State of New York, I believe, is one that asked for significant revision--the counties, all these stakeholders crying out to have this rule significantly changed or do away with it is important to the American people. This bill does exactly what the gentleman said. It delays this rule from going into place because it is a bad rule and will cause great economic harm to this country. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this motion to recommit. First of all, it has nothing to do with drought. Second, it is just a backdoor attempt to allow the EPA to take control of all the waters in America. In addition to that, my colleagues from California have tried, time and time again, to work with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle to solve this drought problem in California, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to work together. Again, this has nothing to do with drought. The purpose of H.R. 1732 is to uphold the Federal-State partnership in regulating the Nation's waters by maintaining the balance between the States and the Federal Government in carrying out the Clean Water Act. H.R. 1732 restricts the administration's current administrative efforts to expand Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and requires the Agency to engage in federalism consultation with their State and local partners to implement the Clean Water Act. However, this motion is designed to undermine the legislation by giving the EPA unfettered discretion in making State water quality determinations in order to allow the EPA to continue to implement this flawed rule. In effect, the amendment says that the underlying bill will not apply virtually anywhere the EPA decides that the bill should not apply. This amendment would further erode the Federal and State partnership that H.R. 1732 seeks to preserve. Let me remind my colleagues that 32 States have said revise or eliminate this rule. My colleagues, all day, have talked about we haven't seen the final rule, but we have seen the proposed rule, and the proposed rule is going to be very similar to the final rule. We have seen this happen time and time again. We have to stop this rule. I urge my colleagues, all 435 Members of this body, to take notice. This is another attempt by the executive branch to take Congress' constitutional authority away from us. We should all take this as a serious challenge. For too long, this body has allowed the executive branch to take our authority granted to us by the constitution. I say, whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration, we have to stop that. The bill, H.R. 1732, is a step in the right direction. It is a good bill that maintains the balance of regulation and of our Nation's water. We must preserve the Federal-State partnership that exists under the Clean Water Act, which has been for 40 years, until this administration's attempting to impose an overbearing EPA on our States. I urge a ``no'' vote. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Chuck Klausing of Indiana, Pennsylvania for his induction into the Football Coaches Hall of Fame. Mr. Klausing began his 46-year coaching career in 1948 as head coach at Pitcairn High School before moving to Braddock High in 1954. Throughout the six years that followed, his teams at Braddock remained undefeated for 55 straight games, establishing a national record. They outscored their opposition 1471-302, won six consecutive Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League championships, and were featured in Sports Illustrated. Following his years at Braddock, Mr. Klausing went on to continued success as the head football coach at Indiana University of Pennsylvania from 1964 to 1969 and at Carnegie Mellon University from 1976 to 1985. While at Carnegie Mellon, he led the school to six conference championships and the NCAA Division III playoffs four times. He won television's National Coach of the Year awards in 1979 and 1983, and was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame as a coach in 1998. In addition to Mr. Klausing's coaching achievements, he is a veteran of World War II and holds a degree in education from Slippery Rock University. Mr. Klausing's induction in the Football Coaches Hall of Fame brings great distinction upon himself, his community, and the 9th District of Pennsylvania. I invite my colleagues to join me in offering congratulations for his many outstanding achievements over his career.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kenneth R. Mowry, a native of Roaring Spring, Pennsylvania for his recent induction into the Pennsylvania Holstein Hall of Fame. This honor culminates a career spanning over 65 years of breeding and developing some of the most productive dairy cows in the nation. This long and successful journey in the agriculture industry began for Mr. Mowry when he joined his father at Mowry Farms, a 1,100 acre 350-cow dairy farm in Roaring Spring. In the years that followed, the farm's cattle set 52 state records and another 26 national records in dairy production. Not slowing down with achievements, Mr. Mowry also had 12 of his cows featured on the front cover of ``Holstein World,'' a publication dedicated to Holstein breeders. In addition to his Holstein-related contributions, Mr. Mowry should also be recognized for his dedication and service to the local community. Mr. Mowry, a member of Martinsburg Grace Brethren Church, served nearly 40 years on the Morrison's Cove Memorial Park Board of Directors, was a member of the Cove Lion's Club for 25 years, and sat on the Northern Bedford School Board for 12 years. Mr. Mowry's induction in the Pennsylvania Holstein Hall of Fame recognizes his outstanding career and brings great distinction upon himself, the community, and the 9th District of Pennsylvania. I invite my colleagues to join me in offering congratulations for his many achievements and more than 50 years of selfless community service.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for offering this amendment. While grade crossing incidents have dropped 40 percent since 2000, the tragic events in Ms. Brownley's district last week remind us how important it is to be aware of grade crossings. This amendment requiring States to develop and implement plans to improve safety at grade crossings within their borders, I think, adds strength to the bill. I would also note there are similar grade crossing reporting requirements in the Federal highway program, and we should work with the Senate during conference to reauthorize the surface transportation programs, ensuring that there is consistency among the requirements at those grade crossings. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. I don't think I will use it all. I am sure any of my colleagues watching on TV are hoping I don't use it all also. I want to close by just emphasizing again that this is truly a reform bill that was crafted in a bipartisan basis. There is significant reforms in here. It is going to make Amtrak more transparent. They are going to force these metrics to measure like businesses do. They haven't done that for the 40 years or so they have been in existence. We have significant environmental streamlining, which not only benefits Amtrak projects, but it is going to benefit the freight rails, as they spend 18 percent of their revenues--almost $30 billion--that they will invest across the class I railroads to go into their infrastructure, which is incredibly important to movement of freight in this country and having an efficient economy. The bill also breaks out Amtrak into business lines, leaving the profits on the Northeast corridor--and the other profits on other corridors--but that is the biggest corridor, that is the one that makes money, leaving it there to invest in that corridor. By the way, as they reinvest those dollars, we can learn from what is happening on the Northeast corridor because there are corridors around this country that need to be developed because of the growing population. That is why we empower the States on those 21 State- sponsored lines. On those 21 lines, States are going to have more power, more say-- equal say, I will say--with Amtrak. As Texas develops their corridors down there, they are going to work with Amtrak--the North Carolina lines; the Virginia lines that run to Washington, D.C., and other places in Virginia; and California. Those State-sponsored lines are going to have the ability to make those investments with Amtrak to improve those lines. I just want to talk again about the Keystone line because I think that is really a prime example of what can happen on a corridor when the State and Amtrak work together. Ridership is up almost 80 percent over the past several years. They are going to be projecting a profit in the first quarter this year, which is the first time in history. When you do those kind of reforms, when you have transparency, when you give States power, when you streamline the environmental review process, those are the kind of good things that can happen. Again, this is not perfect. Amtrak is not perfect, but we are moving the ball in the right direction. We are moving the ball so that we can see a better Amtrak and improved passenger rail. I truly believe that you need passenger rail in this country, especially in some of these corridors--10, 11 corridors around this Nation where populations are growing. The population of the United States is growing, and we see the prime example of the Northeast corridor, 18 percent of the population on 3 percent of the land mass. They have to have passenger rail. There are about 11 million riders, almost 12 million riders on Amtrak, but there are 250 million people that connect to Amtrak through the transit systems in the Northeast corridor. It is an incredible link that needs to be maintained, needs to be improved; and this bill, I believe, does that. I would encourage all my Members to come to the floor today and vote in favor of this truly reform bill that will make Amtrak better and drive down what the Federal Government puts into that system. I think this bill does that. Again, I encourage the support of H.R. 749. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.

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

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SHUSTER. This amendment simply clarifies that when the Amtrak inspector general looks at ways to improve Amtrak's boarding procedures at major stations that it consider passengers using wheelchairs and other nonmotorized transportation. I know this is near and dear to the hearts of Mr. Lipinski's constituents, so, again, I rise in support. At this time, I would also like to take the opportunity, which I neglected to do, to thank the staff for their work over the past year. We rely on them to make a lot of this come together. Their hard work and dedication deserves recognition and appreciation. Specifically, I would like to thank on the rail subcommittee Mike Friedberg, Fred Miller, David Connolly, and Kristin Alcalde; on the Democratic side, Jennifer Homendy and Rachel Carr for their hard work; our communications team Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode, Michael Marinaccio--I think I finally got it right, and he has left the committee--Keith Hall; from our front office Jennifer Hall, Beth Spivey, Collin McCune, Clare Doherty, Isabelle Beegle-Levin, Denny Wirtz, and Mary Mitchell Todd. To all of them, I thank them for their very, very hard work on helping to put this bill together. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.