2023: Schweikert Voted To Override President Biden's Veto And Disapprove An Army Corp Of Engineers And EPA Rule That Expanded Federal Jurisdiction Over Bodies Of Water Under The Clean Water Act. In April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted to override President Biden's veto on a resolution that would "provide for congressional disapproval of the January 2023 Army Corps of Engineers and EPA rule expanding federal jurisdiction over bodies of water under the Clean Water Act. The joint resolution would effectively restore jurisdiction that was in place prior to a 2015 Obama administration rule. Under the measure, the January rule, which took effect on March 20, 2023, would have no force or effect." The vote was on a veto override. The House failed to acquire a 2/3 majority vote and rejected to override by a vote of 227 to 198, thus the resolution was sent to the Senate. The Senate passed the resolution and sent it to President Biden. President Biden vetoed the resolution. [House Vote 187, 4/18/23; Congressional Quarterly, 4/18/23; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res. 27]
Republicans Claimed The Rule Was Federal Overreach And It Burdened The Agricultural Industry By Imposing A Restrictive Definition Of Navigable Waterways. According to CNN, "Republicans have called the rule federal overreach and argue it places a burden on the agriculture community by being too restrictive in defining what is a navigable waterway." [CNN, 4/18/23]
Democrats Argued That The Rule Was Important To Protect Waterways And Clean Water. According to CNN, "Democrats counter, saying the rule is critical for protecting the nation's waterways and safeguarding clean water." [CNN, 4/18/23]
President Biden Argued The Rule Sought To Protect Waterways From Destruction And Pollution. According to CNN, "Biden vetoed the GOP-led resolution earlier this month. 'I just vetoed a bill that attempted to block our Administration from protecting our nation's waterways -- a resource millions of Americans depend on -- from destruction and pollution,' the president said at the time. 'Let me be clear: Every American has a right to clean water. This veto protects that right.'" [CNN, 4/18/23]
Waters Subject To The Rule Require Permits If They Were To Be Used For Activities That Could Damage Water Quality, Such Agricultural, Energy And Construction Activities. According to The Hill, "Waters that are subject to federal protections, as designated under the rule, require permits if they are to be sites for activities that can damage water quality, including activities that are important for several industries such as agriculture, energy and construction." [The Hill, 4/18/23]
2023: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Disapproving An Army Corp Of Engineers And EPA Rule That Expanded Federal Jurisdiction Over Bodies Of Water Under The Clean Water Act. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert missed a vote on a resolution that would "provide for congressional disapproval of the January 2023 Army Corps of Engineers and EPA rule expanding federal jurisdiction over bodies of water under the Clean Water Act. It would effectively restore jurisdiction that was in place prior to a 2015 Obama administration rule. Under the measure, the January rule would have no force or effect, instead of taking effect on March 20, 2023." The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 227 to 198, thus the resolution was sent to the Senate. The Senate passed the resolution and sent it to President Biden. President Biden vetoed the resolution. [House Vote 142, 3/9/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/23; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res. 27]
The Resolution Would Disapprove Of A Biden Administration Rule That Revised The Definition Governing Bodies Of Water. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House, by a vote of 227-198, passed a resolution disapproving of the Biden administration's rule revising the definition governing which bodies of water are subject to federal regulation. The Congressional Review Act resolution (HJ Res. 27) would vacate the rule finalized late last year that updated the definition for 'waters of the U.S.' that are subject to Clean Water Act regulations for the third time in as many administrations. It received 218 votes from Republicans and 9 from Democrats." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/23]
Republicans Criticized The Biden Administration For Finalizing The Rule Before A Supreme Court Ruling That Could Ultimately Narrow Which Tests The EPA Can Use When Definition The Waters Of The U.S. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans also criticized the administration for finalizing the rule before the Supreme Court decided the case of Sackett v. EPA, which may ultimately narrow which tests the agency can use when crafting a WOTUS definition." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/23]
Republicans Claimed The Definition Failed To Distinguish Which Streams And Wetlands Would Be Classified As U.S. Waters And Placed Burdens On Communities, Farmers, And Businesses By Requiring A Permit. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republican members said the finalized definition fails to make clear which streams and wetlands will be classified as WOTUS, which Subcommittee Chairman David Rouzer, R-N.C., said 'places unnecessary burdens on communities, farmers, businesses and industries' that would either need to receive a permit or face potential fines." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/8/23]
The Biden Administration Cited The "Significant Nexus" Standard Placed By Justice Anthony Kennedy In A 2006 Supreme Court Ruling, But Industry Representatives Claimed The Significant Nexus Standard Failed To Provide Certainty Whether They Must Obtain A Federal Permit. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Biden administration cited the 'significant nexus' standard put forward by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the 2006 decision in the case of Rapanos v. United States, a 4-1-4 ruling that provided two different standards for how to determine which waterways qualify as a WOTUS. At the hearing, industry representatives said a 'significant nexus' standard fails to provide them with any certainty as to whether they must go through the federal permitting process. Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, said under the definition it is 'impossible for any farmer to know if a feature on their property is a WOTUS.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 2/8/23]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Waters Of The U.S. Rule. In May 2018, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "repeal[ed] the EPA's rule regarding the definition of the 'Waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act." The underlying bill was the 2018 House GOP farm bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 238 to 173. The House later rejected the overall farm bill, but on a revote, passed the bill. A modified version of the bill later became law. [House Vote 203, 5/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 633; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Overturn The EPA And The U.S. Army Rule On "Waters Of The United States." In January 2016, Schweikert voted to overturn the "Waters of the United States" rule via a joint resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, the joint resolution would have, "provide[d] for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of 'waters of the United States' under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.." According to The Hill, the "regulation set[s] federal authority over small waterways." The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 253 to 166. The Senate had already passed the resolution, which after the House's passage, President Obama vetoed. The Senate afterwards failed to override his veto. [House Vote 45, 1/13/16; Congressional Quarterly, 11/4/15; The Hill, 11/4/15; Congressional Actions, S. J. Res. 22]
Proposed Rule, The Waters Of The United States, Would Define EPA And U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Jurisdiction Over Wetlands And Streams. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Two federal agencies would have to withdraw a proposed rule defining their jurisdiction over wetlands and streams under legislation passed Tuesday by the House with just 24 Democrats in support. The 261-155 vote sends the bill (HR 1732) to the Senate, where several Republicans, including Environment and Public Works Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., have filed legislation to force the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reverse course on proposed Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, regulation." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
Advocates Of A Similar Bill Claimed It Would Force Farmers To Get More Restrictive Permits For Normal Agricultural Operations And Opposed Listing Wetlands And Streams As Water Bodies. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The regulation details the agencies' jurisdiction over various bodies of water. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers say it clarifies the scope of their oversight following two conflicting Supreme Court decisions. But business groups argued it greatly expanded the EPA's and the Corps' jurisdiction over intermittent water bodies, such as streams and wetlands. Agriculture groups led by the Farm Bureau were particularly vocal, arguing that farmers would need permits for normal agricultural operations, an assertion EPA has sought to rebut." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/31/15]
Sierra Club: "[Similar Bill] Ignores Science" And "Call[s] Into Question The Protections Of The Drinking Water Resources For 1 In Every 3 American Citizens." According to the Sierra Club, "'The bottom line is that [a similar bill] ignores science and cuts off the exhaustive transparent and scientific process started years ago to end confusion and create certainty for families and communities about which waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act. What this bill does is call into question the protections of the drinking water sources for 1 in every 3 American citizens. We cannot allow big polluters and their allies in Congress to stop this progress. That's why we applaud President Obama for vowing to veto this deeply-flawed bill if it comes to his desk.'" [Sierra Club, 5/13/15]
If Enacted, A Congressional Disapproval Resolution Blocks The Targeted Rule, Or Any Substantially Similar Rule, From Taking Effect. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA; PL 104-121) established a process through which Congress can overturn regulations issued by federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. If both chambers submit disapproval resolutions within 60 session days (exclusive of recess periods) after Congress receives the rule, both chambers may consider the disapproval resolution under an expedited procedure. [...] If a disapproval resolution is enacted, it prevents the rule from taking effect and the agency is prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule without subsequent statutory authorization. If a rule is disapproved after going into effect, it is treated as though it never took effect. If the president vetoes a disapproval resolution, the rule may not take effect for 30 session days thereafter, unless either the House or Senate votes to sustain the veto." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: "More Than One In Three Americans Get Their Drinking Water From Rivers, Lakes And Reservoirs That Are At Risk Of Pollution From Upstream Sources." According to a Statement of Administration Policy, ". The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science and the law, is essential to ensure clean water for future generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from the Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. [...] Clean water is vital for the success of the Nation's businesses, agriculture, energy development, and the health of our communities. More than one in three Americans get their drinking water from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that are at risk of pollution from upstream sources. [...] If the President were presented with S.J.Res. 22, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Statement of Administration Policy, 11/3/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A Bill That Would Effectively Block The Environmental Protection Agency And The Army Corps Of Engineers From Finalizing Or Implementing A Proposed Rule Regarding The Definition Of The "Waters Of the United States" Under The Clean Water Act. In May 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill to effectively block he Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from finalizing or implementing a proposed rule regarding the definition of the 'Waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would require the agencies to withdraw the proposal and develop a new rule with consultation from state and local officials and stakeholders. In consulting with state and local officials, the EPA and the corps would be required to seek to reach consensus on the definition of 'waters of the United States;' preserve the primary rights and responsibilities of the states to protect water quality and control development of land and water resources in the states; and protect the rights of private property owners over natural and man-made water features." The vote was on passage and the bill passed 261 to 155. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 219, 5/12/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1732]
Proposed Rule, The Waters Of The United States, Would Define EPA And U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Jurisdiction Over Wetlands And Streams. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Two federal agencies would have to withdraw a proposed rule defining their jurisdiction over wetlands and streams under legislation passed Tuesday by the House with just 24 Democrats in support. The 261-155 vote sends the bill (HR 1732) to the Senate, where several Republicans, including Environment and Public Works Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., have filed legislation to force the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reverse course on proposed Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, regulation." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
Advocates Of The Bill Claimed It Would Force Farmers To Get More Restrictive Permits For Normal Agricultural Operations And Opposed Listing Wetlands And Streams As Water Bodies. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The regulation details the agencies' jurisdiction over various bodies of water. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers say it clarifies the scope of their oversight following two conflicting Supreme Court decisions. But business groups argued it greatly expanded the EPA's and the Corps' jurisdiction over intermittent water bodies, such as streams and wetlands. Agriculture groups led by the Farm Bureau were particularly vocal, arguing that farmers would need permits for normal agricultural operations, an assertion EPA has sought to rebut." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/31/15]
Sierra Club: "Bill Ignores Science" And "Call[s] Into Question The Protections Of The Drinking Water Resources For 1 In Every 3 American Citizens." According to the Sierra Club, "'The bottom line is that this bill ignores science and cuts off the exhaustive transparent and scientific process started years ago to end confusion and create certainty for families and communities about which waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act. What this bill does is call into question the protections of the drinking water sources for 1 in every 3 American citizens. We cannot allow big polluters and their allies in Congress to stop this progress. That's why we applaud President Obama for vowing to veto this deeply-flawed bill if it comes to his desk.'" [Sierra Club, 5/13/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: "If Enacted, H.R. 1732 Would Derail Efforts To Clarify the Scope Of The CWA, Hamstring Future Regulatory Efforts, And Deny Businesses And Communities The Regulatory Certainty Needed To Invest In Projects That Rely On Clean Water." According to a statement of Administration Policy, "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1732, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) to withdraw and re-propose specified draft regulations needed to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science, is essential to ensure clean water for future generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The proposed rule has been through an extensive public engagement process. [...] If enacted, H.R. 1732 would derail current efforts to clarify the scope of the CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water. H.R. 1732 also would delay by a number of years any action to clarify the scope of the CWA, because it would: (1) require the agencies to re-propose a rule that has already gone through an extensive public comment process; and (2) create a burdensome advisory process that would complicate the agencies' rulemaking and potentially constrain their discretion. The agencies have already conducted an extensive and lengthy outreach to a broad range of stakeholders who will continue to be engaged in the current process. Duplicative outreach and consultation would impose unnecessary burdens and excessive costs on all parties." [Statement of Administration Policy, 4/29/15]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Requiring The Army Corp Of Engineers And The EPA "Ensure That Important Surface Waters And Wetlands Are Protected During The New Rulemaking Process This Bill Starts." In May 2015, 2015, Schweikert voted against requiring that the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers ensure that important surface waters and wetlands are protecting. According to a floor speech by Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA), "If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. This motion is simple. It requires the Army Corps and the EPA to ensure that important surface waters and wetlands are protected during the new rulemaking process this bill starts. This motion requires that the quality of public water supplies be protected. Around the country, we have seen drinking water sources contaminated, like the algal bloom in Lake Erie that forced Toledo, Ohio, to use bottled water. [...] California is implementing water use restrictions to deal with the drought, but it doesn't make sense to take these steps if we don't make sure the wetlands and waters that recharge them are protected. Finally, this motion guarantees that water used for agriculture, including for irrigation, are safeguarded. California's agriculture industry depends on clean water, and this motion preserves the exemptions agriculture already gets under regulations. In short, this is a commonsense amendment to the bill to guarantee protections for water used for the public's drinking supply, for lessening the impact of the drought in California and the West, and for agriculture." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion 175 to 241. [House Vote 218, 5/12/15; Congressional Record, 5/12/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1732]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted [Against Blocking/To Block] The Army Corp Of Engineers From The Protecting U.S. Water. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] the section of the bill that would bar the use of funds by the Army Corps of Engineers to develop, implement or enforce regulations pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act." The underlying bill was an FY 2014 energy and water appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 177 to 236. [House Vote 311, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; League of Conservation Voters, 2013 Scorecard; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 246; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]