luce booth and her final years sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. the house small business committee heard testimony earlier today from epa deputy administrator bob perciasepe on new epa rules and the possible consequences for american small businesses. this is an hour and a half.

good afternoon, everyone. we'll bring the hearing to order. iptd to thank everyone for being here. the mission of the epa is from text human health and the environment. lately the epa has ventured well beyond its mission. in recent rulemakings its recent rule makes are an unprecedented power grab that's infringing on the rights of individuals and small business owners. the results on our economy is potentially deva staegt. the epa needs to re-evaluate their decision. these rules have direct consequences for small business and the american public deserves to have a complete picture of the costs and benefits of all of these rules. unfortunately the epa seems focused on telling one side of the story and ignoring the other. what the epa is not revealing is how its rules will affect small businesses. the epa is required to tell the story by the regulatory flexibility act. the rfa requires epa to go

through the common sense process of assessing how its rules will affect small entities and whether there are less burdensome ways to meet their objectives. instead of complying with the law and getting input from small businesses the epa has ducked these rulemaking requirements. unfortunately small businesses won't be able to duck the power plant regulations or waters of the united states rule once they are finalized. they are being required to comply with the rules, pay the costs or face the consequence. all small businesses want clean water and clean air but they want rules that are rational. they want to know what they are required to do. hat the costs are expected to be and how their operations will be affected. last but not least small businesses want to be treated fairly in the rulemaking process. i hope this hearing will be a wake up call for the epa. avoiding their obligations under the rfa is simply not

acceptable. the committee has been getting the epa to testify on this topic and i want to thank deputy administrator perciasepe for joining us today and i look forward to discussing this issue and i, again, want to thank you for being here. i now yield to ranking member velazquez for opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a clean environment and economic growth go hand-in-hand. between 1970 and 2011 air pollution dropped 68%, while private-sector jobs increased by 88% and gdp grew by more than 2,200%. this is not coincidence as studies continually show environment stewardship is not only good for our families but also for our businesses. today the epa play as vital role, protecting the public health and safety by implementing a vast array of environmental laws, which in

turn support our economy. through its implementation of the clean air act, we have seen significant improvements in our nation's air quality. in a given year enforcement of the clean air act has saved 160,000 lives, prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks and stopped 13,000 heart attacks. it is estimated that 13 million missed work days are prevented thanks to the cleaner air we enjoy boosting economic productivity. we have seen similar benefits from the epa's enforcement of water regulations. since the enactment of the clean water act billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our waterways, doubling the number of safe areas for swimming and fishing. as a result americans are healthier, our waterways are

remediated and industries like tourism, fishing and recreation, which are dominated by small businesses are seeing greater opportunities. while it is fair to say that these outcomes are positive and epa is justifiable the agency must be mindful of how new rules and regulations impact our nation's small firms. to this point our committee has already examined several epa regulations and the agency's obligations under the regulatory flexibility act. what this hearing has shown is the small business impact can vary from rule to rule. when it comes to electricity generation, it is clear that the direct cost are born mainly by large utilities. however, with regard to the discharge of certain chemicals into the water, small businesses and farms are likely to

barrymore of the actual costs associated with the regulations. yet epa determined neither rule will have enough of an economic impact on small firms to trigger an analysis. during today's hearing i hope to hear how the epa is implementing its obligation under their regulatory flexibility act as well as conducting outreach to small firms. perhaps most importantly i want to know how it determines not meet the full requirements of the act. there's no doubt small businesses want to problem tent our environment and should in many regards be an ally of the epa. not only are they leading the way when it comes to environment technologies but they can also help the epa craft regulations that promote clean air and water without overburdening the industry. it is my hope that today's hearing will help bridge the gap

between the epa and the small business community. resulting in a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. with that i thank the current administrator perciasepe for his participation today and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. >> thank you. in 2009 the honorable bob perciasepe was appointed by president obama and confirmed by the senate to serve as the environmental protection agency's deputy administrator. for four decades he worked on environmental issues within and outside of the government. mr. perciasepe previously served as the head of epa's water office and later its air office and prior to becoming deputy administrator he was the chief operating office for the national audubon society. he has served as secretary of environment for the state of maryland. mr. perciasepe thank you for taking the time to be with us today. your written statement will be entered in the record.

please give us your oral statement. >> chairman graves thank you, ranking member velazquez thank you for those comments and thank you for the opportunity to testify and answer questions of the members. i'm here today to talk about epa's actions under the president's climate action plane an under the epa and u.s. army corps of engineers recently proposed rule that would clarify jurisdictional scope of the clean water act. climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time threatening human health, welfare and our economic well being and if left unchecked will have devastating impacts on the united states and businesses. that's why president obama laid out a climate action plan in june of 2013 in which he directed epa and other federal agencies to take steps to mitigate the current and future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and anticipate for the climate change that has begun to be set in motion.

epa play as critical role implementing the plans one of hits first pillars which is cutting carbon pollution. from future and existing power plants the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states. in june of this year epa proposed a clean power plant for existing plants, the plant is built on advice and information from states, cities, business, utilities and how thousands of people. it empowers the states to chart their own customized path to meet those goals. the epa's stakeholder outreach and public engagement in preparation for this rulemaking

was unprecedented. stafrgt last summer we virtually met with thousands of people and hundreds of meeting with stakeholders such as municipal and rural cooperateives. now we're in the second phase in a it has already begun. we already had dozens of calls and meetings with states and other stakeholders and more formal public processing includes a comment period that runs through october 16th of this year. public hearings are being held this week in atlanta, denver, pittsburgh and in washington, d.c. in addition to the president's action plan i also want to take a minute to talk about the recently proposed jurisdictional rule under the clean water act. in recent years several supreme court decisions have raised complex questions regarding the geographic scope of the clean water act. . for nearly a decade members of congress, states, local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups and the public have asked

our agencies, the corps of engineers and epa to make the existing rules on the book more consistent with the supreme court's rulings. for the past several years epa and courts have received input from the agriculture community while developing a proposed rule using this input the epa and the corps worked with usda to ensure the concerns raised were addressed in the proposed rule. proposed rule does not change in any way the existing clean water exemptions associated with agriculture, ranching and forestry activities. epa also sought wide and early input from representatives of small entities while formulating a proposed definition of this term that reflects the intent of congress. that was reflected in our prosed rule. epa is prepared to report sum raising the small entity out treech date the results of this

outreach and how these results have formed the development of the proposed rule. since publishing the rule the agency has met many times with small businesses and entities. most recently they paid in an sba sponsored roundtable. we look forward to continuing these efforts in to the future and before we finalize a rule and during the remainder of the public comment period as we write the final rule. thank you again and i'll be happy to answer your questions, mr. chairman. >> thank you, administrator. i appreciate it. administrator mccarthy was in missouri my home state and she was talking about obviously waters in the united states and made the statement that the concerns of farmers and others and i want to make sure i say it right the proposed rules and the concerns about the proposed rules are silly and ludicrous which i would submit the concerns of farmers and small businesses and everybody out

there are not silly or ludicrous. a lot of these concerns may have been identified if the epa had complied with the rfa and that is my basic question here today is why the epa did not convene small business advocacy review panels. that's what it requires. they are formal panels. you cite in your statement that you got input from the ag community. i would like to know what that is. when you say small entity outreach what does that mean and why didn't you all, you know, do what the rfa does require, because, you know, informal outreach is not small business review panels. [ inaudible ] >> i'm sorry. thank you. i'll get the hang of that in a second, mr. chairman. under the rfa, whatever the

regulatory agency is not just the epa -- >> yes. >> -- is required to look at the small entity subject to the rule. this is the interesting thing of the waters of the united states rule. it's a definitional rule. it defines where the other parts of the clean water act will actually apply. so it doesn't directly impose any requirement on anybody if they are not discharging pollution. so it doesn't directly impact large businesses or small businesses in any direct way, and so the jurisdictional determinations of whether the clean water act would apply or not and whether a state agency who is implementing the clean water act under the arrangements under law would have to require an entity small or large to get any kind of permit would only be related to whether or not they were going to discharge pollution. and this regulation does not regulate discharges of

pollution, just where the existing permit programs would have to work. but also more importantly we are -- we are reducing the scope of where the clean water act applies from the current on the books regulations that the supreme court was acting on in the last decade. so we're not expanding where permits would be required. and so when we looked at all of that together, we didn't see the applicability under the regulatory flexibility act. however we did see a desire as we almost always have to engage all stakeholders including small entities. we're planning more round-tables as well. >> when you say -- when you say no discharge, that's discharge can include dirt and sand, runoff, water, rainwater. >> rainwater is not a pollutant.

>> well, when it interacts with dirt and sand and you're carrying dirt and sand that's considered a pollutant by the epa. >> it would have to be -- let me just be clear. the jurisdiction of the clean water act is where the existing laws and regulations would apply, not in any new requirement. so if you have to get a permit now, you would have to get a permit under this. but if you don't have to get a permit now, it's most likely you will not need a permit under this. if you plow, plant and harvest, walk cows across a field all these other things you do in normal conduct of agriculture, if you do that now you can do that under this rule without any additional requirements from epa or the corps of engineers. >> we go back to my original question. you did say you are reducing the scope in terms of the clean water act, didn't you

>> reducing it. >> in your economic analysis the epa's economic analysis you say there's a 3% increase in jurisdiction. >> so, the existing regulations were done in the 1970s and modified in the 1980s and they have a very broad definition of what waters of the united states are. essentially we're asking field biologists to go out and determine any place on the landscape where water is running have some impact down street on interstate commerce. the supreme court said we can't use interstate commerce as a way to do this. it has to be based on some sort of scientific basis. they used the term of art of significant nexus. when we went back and looked at 20,000 different determinations that were done in the last five years, and we applied it as strictly as we could, we saw somewhere there would be where the applicability would go away and we saw somewhere they made

the wrong call on the ground. even with the old regulations. so we were being conservative and said this looks like it could increase the amount of positive determinations for jurisdiction by 3%. but the existing regulation is much more expansive than that and hasn't been applied completely european formally around the country. this will actually constrict that. >> why didn't the epa do small business, you know, the formal small business advisory review or advocacy review? >> well we didn't do it because -- it isn't that we didn't want to talk to small business but we didn't have the formal panel because the panel is for the direct impact on a significant numberle of substantial -- a significant impact on substantial number of small entities and the direct impact is not geared for this rule. the impact if any and we think there will not be much if any is

from the existing regulations that would apply. >> so what you're saying is that you determined, the epa determined that there wasn't going to be an impact so you didn't have to comply with the rfa, which is the process of determining if there's impact. >> we went through that analysis. >> to small business to help make that determination. >> i believe we're required to lay out our rationale for what i said in the proposed rule. >> i think this is far reaching. in fact, you know, the term navigable waters is used some 80 times in the clean water act. when you come back and, you know, you do something that's so far reaching and we use new terms like significant nexus or in one of the expansions of this too is now a jurisdictional or a water that's adjacent to the

jurisdictional water which i don't even know what that means in terms of how expansive that could be. that could include anything. it comes back to as well when you're making that determination on, you know on discharge or what that significant next sues that's an extraordinarily significant subject determination made by the epa. the impact that's out there with this it really bothers me that you all determined that this isn't going to have an impact because we believe it does. you know, in a big way and to say we don't have to comply with the rfa because we don't think there's an impact is wrong. i've called on you all to withdraw this rule. i'm asking again. i think the epa needs withdraw this rule and go through the process the way it should be gone through and follow the law, and i'm very disturbed by that and very disturbed by some of the things brought out just now.

i wasn't expecting -- i wasn't expecting some of your answers. with that i'll turn to -- i'll have some other questions i'll turn to ranking member velazquez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy administrator, the clean power plant provides states with some flexibility to meet emission reduction goals as they see fit. what happens if states fail to submit their plan by the deadline or epa concludes a plan is not satisfactory? >> it is our full hope and aspiration that that won't happen. that's why we're spending a lot of time with every state. we tailored this rule so it's tailored for every state and we're meeting with every state to work through how they can make their plan successful.

>> in your testimony you highlighted that many industries including agriculture and forestry will continue to be exempt from most permitting. do you expect the new rule will necessitate additional industry exemptions? >> you're talking about the water rule? >> yes. >> yes. well under the clean water act agricultural activities are exempt from the rule. from the jurisdiction of the clean water act so that if even a water is jurisdictional under the proposal, if you're doing agricultural activities you're exempt you do not need to comply with any permitting process and we're not changing any of that. one of the things we've tried to do is clarify issues that farmers brought up to us concerning ditches where they may do some ditching to drain

some upland areas when it rains or industry may do some on their industrial lot or some ditches at the side of highways. for the first time we've made it clear those are not jurisdictional. those would not be under the jurisdiction of the clean water act. >> okay. deputy administrator, i guess that you understand by now that there is frustration in this committee regarding the fact that we have the regulatory act that would allow for agencies to compel or create a panel review process so it will give a voice to small businesses. >> yes. >> and i think that if you do that, the agency wins and small businesses also will win, because you will issue a better regulation when you have input from small businesses.

and small businesses will be more satisfied because they feel that you have been able to listen to them. i don't know why the reluctance -- i just do not understand how do you conclude or come to a conclusion that there is not direct impact on small entities, because you haven't provided us the process in which you arrived to that conclusion. >> well, certainly, i want to be able to provide that to the committee and we will endeavor to do that. whenever we do a rulemaking and we make a decision in our proposal that the direct impact -- there may be indirect impacts, but the direct impact is not from the epa rulemaking, then the law prescribes that that does not require a panel to

be set up. but i want to be clear. it doesn't mean we shouldn't reach out to small businesses. >> i understand you did. >> and work with them. >> i understand you did, right? but my understanding is that the outreach took place three years ago and the language now is different. >> on the water? >> yes. >> yes. we had a whole bunch of sessions a couple of years ago when we were working on guidance. people told us not to do a guidance due to regulation. we proposed regulation which is built on some of the work we did back at that point. but since that time we've been working with sba to do roundtable discussions. as i mentioned we had one on july 21st and planning to have more before we finalized the rule. roundtable discussions with small businesses. >> so, will you please share with us what do you learn from that sba roundtable? >> well, on the water side,

believe it or not we're learning that small businesses really want clean water, and it's becoming clear. there was a recent poll done by the american sustainable business council that found 80% of small business owners want protection similar to what we're talking about, 71% said clean water is necessary for their businesses. but we're also finding -- we're also finding they want to it be -- they want to be clear when they are in, when they are out of that jurisdiction. and so one of our objectives is to take the existing regulations, which are -- see one of the issues we have is people haven't looked at those old regulations back in the '70s and '80ss for a long time. when we put out a new one trying to replace it they only look at the new one and the old one is vague, very vague, downstream interstate commerce. not a scientific principle. so we're trying to pull it back

into a more defined place to provide that increased certainty and that would be our objective and we're hoping to get more comment on that. >> thank you. >> to clarify real quick. you bring up dredging. there's no exemption for ag. >> if they are discharging pollution like from a points source of pollution. >> okay. that can include again rainwater -- >> if it's runoff rain it's nonsource pollution and wouldn't be covered under secretary show 7b 2. would have to be in a pipe and something that is discharging and congress in 1987 asked that large animal feeding operations that discharge into a point source would be covered under 402. that's in the 1987 clean water act amendments. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

administrator perciasepe, i want to thank you first. i know that one of the things i'm working on is the proposed rule that is out there with regards to wood burning heaters. i've offered a bill to stop the nonsense of what you're trying to do. and i understand that there is some discussion going on between you and industry folks which i'm very thankful for and i hope that proceeds. i think this is -- i tuned need for conformity across spectrum of this, but to go down the direction that we were going down there is problematic for me so i thank you for the willingness to work with industry. with regards to the other issue before us today, it is stunning to me when you make your statements, sir, that you didn't see the effect on small business from trying to define the word

in the law. to redefine or clarify is going to have dramatic impact. when you say -- if you just define the word "customer" you redefine it, suddenly you have from a small group of people to a large group of people. take the word "navigable" out of this is unbelievable to me. and to not then go through the process of checking out and doing the due diligence and the small business report and analysis before this is either extremely naive and incompetent or it's arrogance in its highest to flaunt your authority by ignoring the laws, the rules, the process the procedure. this is unacceptable. absolutely unacceptable, especially whenever you look at the fact that within this law there is also the word

hydrologically connected. which means all the waters above ground, underground, wherever hydrologically connected it affects everything. this is extremely important. extremely important. i can't stress it enough. especially for rural parts of our country. i offer you the opportunity to discuss it. >> well thank you for that question. you know, those are really -- you're getting at the crux of the issue under the clean water act, and we have to look at the body of everything that's been going on, not just old rulemakings of the corps of engineers and epa but also the supreme court rulings and what they have been telling us to do and they have consistently been clear that it is not -- it is not just navigable in the traditional sense but particularly when you deal with clean water the stuff that floss into the navigable, if it's polluted it will pollute the navigable. so everybody from justice scalia to justice kennedy have made it clear that it's more than just

the navigable, it can be seasonable. i think that's a quote from justice scalia. justice kennedy uses the word significant nexus. to go back to your question and i think, mr. chairman, may get to yours as well, significant nexus is a new thing that the supreme court gave us. so we're trying to find out how, the purpose of the executive branch putting out a proposed regulation -- and i have, you know, dicta here from chief justice roberts telling us to do these regulations. one more second. so nexus is definitely hydrology. you can make the argument that rain falling is connected somehow. so one of our jobs in this rulemaking, one of the things we're most interested in getting back, more input on is how do we define significant?

everything might be connected but it's not all significant. so back in the old regulation it said if it had any impact, probable or any impact on downstream interstate commerce what we're trying to use is the say evens of hydrology and saying it has to have certain characteristics that are identifiable by a hydrologist that there's enough flow that's frequent enough and enough that it carries these characteristics on the landscape. we tried to do that in this rule. >> you just made my point, sir. why didn't you have -- why didn't you go through the rulemaking process that you're required to. you just admitted it's a tremendous impactful situation that you're discussing here and you don't think it won't impact small businesses when you say it's huge, you're getting the supreme court involved to define things in your activities and it's not worthy of going through the process that you're required

to do to go through and figure out the impact on small businesses? that's what this hearing is all about today. >> we're work with small businesses and the small business administration. >> up just talked about how important it was and how big a problem it was and still you didn't go back what you were suppose dodd which was to determine the impacts based on the effects of it. i see my time is over. stunning. absolutely stunning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to submit for the record a letter from the waters advocacy coalition. it is signed by 39 different organizations, among those the american farm bureau, the american gas association, foundation for environmental and economic progress, national association of home builders, many others. the basic content of the letter is objecting to the insufficient

analysis offered by the epa on the impacts that this rule will have. >> without objection. submitted. >> thank you. mr. perciasepe, i'm sorry. okay, bob. as the letter that i'm just referencing from the waters advocacy coalition is noting the agency certified waters of the united states rule as one that will not have significant impact on a substantial number of small agencies. but you didn't provide any factual basis for that. did the epa simply fail to do this because a factual basis didn't actually exist? >> we provided an analysis to make the determination that the rule itself, looking at direct impacts, which is what we're

required to do under the rfa would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. >> what do you qualify as a substantial number? >> well it's more the direct impact hand the number. >> so we don't know what the number is when we talk about who will be impacted? >> we're not expanding the jurisdiction of the clean water act. any entity that's covered by the clean water act will continue to be covered by the clean water act. >> actually you're saying not making more covered but in your testimony you said people wanted to be clear whether they are in or out of jurisdiction. but under the determinations that are being made you can extend jurisdiction. >> that's not what we're promotions. we're proposing to not add any new waters to what is covered in jurisdictional. we're trying to exclude -- >> is there any connectivity between all waters. >> there is. >> doesn't it give you complete

control? >> they are not all significant. we make it clear in the rule they are not all significant. >> what's significant >> we define some hydrologic characteristics that would make it significant. >> what are they? >> if you look at a flowing area whether flowing all the time. >> year round? >> i said whether it's flowing intermittently. >> what's intermittently. >> not year round. it could be ten minutes? >> well -- it could be enough that water floss there frequently enough. >> what's frequently? >> you're not going to let me answer. >> i'm just trying to get down the actual definition because of the arbitrary nature of this rule. >> it's not arbitrary. if you'll let me answer i can give you some clarity. >> go ahead. >> in the science of hydrology you can look at a depressed area where water flows whether it

flows full time or part time it will exhibit characteristics on the bed. there will be banks. there's a high watermark. these are identifiable to hydrologists. you don't have those characteristics there's enough volume of flow that makes it jurisdictional under the clean water act. that's limiting to anything that might have an impact downstream to interstate commerce. >> what you jubs described to me, i live in southwestern united states, colorado. we get one rain storm and with the lay of our land you can get a high watermark with a ten flow that then disappears. what you're describing to me a high water flow that happens once a year. >> an ordinary high watermark is not something that's wet for ten minutes. it's seen on the rock from debris or discoloration or cut

in the bank of dirt. erosional features are not covered. we excluded those. >> i would like to move on a little bit. move in a different direction. if you put out a rule under epa do you expect it to be followed? >> well, yes. >> do you. should you comply with the rfa? >> yes. we do. >> is it appropriate right now under section 104 of the existing clean water act that both retroactively and preelm tlif you're shutting down projects before determinations have been made under the rfa? >> i can't answer that question because i'm not sure what zmoosh your preemptively shutting down projects right now based off the proposed rules? saying that you cannot proceed? >> we have not done that. >> what about -- i'm sorry.

>> they have not issued the rule. >> but we got a proposed rule. >> right but we have existing regulations that are more expansive than the proposed rule. >> up in alaska i read pebble mine, crystal bay, have you shut that down before the analysis has been done? >> our regional administrator made a finding that is out for public comment. there's been no action taken on that. >> no action, so it's not allowed to move forward until the action takes place? >> they can do whatever they want while that action is under consideration. that action is to look at an area of water that we would not want to see discharge into. >> thank you. i don't know if we'll have a second round. i'm way over time. >> mr. collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. perciasepe, i got to give you credit.

i think you knew you were coming in to the lion's den today and here you are. do i give you a lot of credit. it's hard to defend the indefensible and that's what your agency has cents you here. in full disclosure, mr. perciasepe and i participated in a hearing a week or so ago on this very same issue on the science committee and i'll admit i concluded that hearing by saying to bob that the public doesn't trust the epa, farmers don't trust the epa not to overreach, congress doesn't trust the epa. and at that point in time i pointed out the rule should be withdrawn. plain and simple. and the epa should start over. what we had in our committee hearing in science is we kept hearing words like "confusion," "uncertainty," "misunderstanding

" throughout this hearing. this was democrats and republicans alike. i would also like to point out, we all know about gridlock in washington. there's only one agency that unites democrats and republicans and that's distrust of the epa. your agency has united us where it's very hard to do so. >> please don't talk -- don't represent me, okay. >> well here's what i can say fact tally to our ranking member. a majority of congress. a majority of congress. 240 plus members, republicans and democrats signed the letter that i authored to the epa saying we don't trust you, withdraw the rule. that was a majority of the members of congress. and your agency has continued to disrespect congress to go down your own road and, again, continue in this rulemaking when a majority of congress, democrats and republicans and on the science committee the harshest questioning came from

the democrat side about this particular rule. and i just came from a hearing in science on the clean air act and the war on coal and a former obama administrative official from the department of energy summed up the epa this way. to paraphrase the are a a arrogance of the epa is beyond pale. the department of energy was not legitimately asked to participate in some of this rulemaking and, in fact, he called it a political agenda by the administration and the epa. this is a former obama administrative official less than two hours ago. so, my question is very simple. given the facts, the majority of congress has asked you to withdraw this rule, why won't the epa withdraw the rule, start over? there is no rush. you're not under a deadline. there's no judicial dead lynn.

what's the harm in listening to congress and withdrawing this rule, clarifying all the misunderstandings and confusion and everything else and come out with a clean rule? why won't the epa do that or will do you that? let me start with will you withdraw the rule, yes or no? >> the agency -- >> yes or no. >> no. >> why not give end that congress has asked you to do so. >> you all have put the agency in a very difficult situation. we're trying to improve the situation out there, given the supreme court constantly -- >> why won't you withdraw the rule and start over. what harm is there in withdrawing the rule and starting over when a majority of congress is on the record asking you to do so, republicans and democrats? what is the harm in doing that? and do the rfa. what's the harm? is there any harm? is there something we don't see?

>> we continue with the uncertainty that everybody -- >> what is the harm in withdrawing the rule? >> the harm would be in maintaining the uncertainty that currently exists, and we are not going -- we're going to continue to try to solve that problem. this is just a proposal. >> let's be clear. you don't care that a majority of congress -- >> i do care. >> who sets the laws -- >> i do care. >> has asked you to withdraw the rules. >> i do. >> why don't you withdraw. >> i need to fix the rule. >> congress has asked you pointedly withdraw the rule. you just said no, there's no legitimate reason, there's no timing, there's nothing but the arrogance of the epa. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> go ahead. >> i have a supreme court chief -- >> that was my question. >> who is saying why don't the agencies do this. so, you know, there are three branches of government.

i have one branch that wrote me when i was acting administrator please do a rule. now a branch saying withdraw it. i'm going back to the constitution. i have another branch of the federal government saying when are the agencies going to get their act together and do a rulemaking. >> just do at any time right way. >> it would be in everybody's interest to -- >> would the gentleman yield. it's kind of cynical. and look i'm a member of this committee for 22 years. i've been fighting the administration whether it's a republican or a democrat when i feel that things are not done right on behalf of small businesses. but i have to say when it comes to repealing obamacare the supreme court is the law of the land. when it comes to the issue of the water, the supreme court is telling them that they have to address the issue.

so we don't win in this house. >> just to clarify. there was a judicial deadline? i just asked to clarify. was there a judicial deadline? >> no, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i would like to submit to the record from a roundtable we held in arizona about a month and a half ago the transcript. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. perciasepe, and from future from now on known as administrator bob, how's that. >> deputy administrator bob. >> excuse me deputy administrator bob. there's a rumor going around you'll be leaving us in a few weeks, is that true? >> yes, it is correct. >> and this is how you celebrate your departure is hanging out

with us. >> i know that i'm trying to be -- i'm trying to represent my position of my agency and the president correctly here but i view this as my solemn duty, you know, to do so. >> so, you were in fronts of the science committee a couple of weeks ago and as i shared with my staff and even some of the members on the other side i thought you treated me particularly fairly because some of the discussion having spent a lot of time digging in to this waters of the u.s. rule is complicated but you do understand our stress level particularly for those of us from the arid southwest what some of these rules mean. i am going to ask a favor of you. >> yes, sir. >> because rumor is you're leaving in three weeks. in the science committee there was a request from mr. weber from texas specifically asking for any of the maps that fish and wildlife and i know you provided some of the maps but we would really like to get our hands on any of the mapping that

was provide by fish and wildlife in helping to sort of design the impacts and the calculations, particularly economic impacts of this rule. >> okay. i think we may have provided those maps earlier this week but if not i'll absolutely make sure they go in there. >> if you have my notes may be -- >> fine. there's always a running back and forth between all of us. but let me just say that when i did look into that, i did discover that some maps, the maps were created back as far back as 2005 and they have been updated since then. and they were not for regulatory purposes. but i think all the maps that i think we had, if they are not at the committee now they are going to be there this week. >> deputy administrator bob, one of our concerns was the mapping used to do the economic analysis and trying to understand the impact of the rules. there was one scenario that i left from last week and i really

want to sort of walk through because you have personal experience on this. when you were was it the sierra club before? >> no national audubon, bird conservation. one of the projects was in our dry salt river. >> yes. it's a beautiful project. under this updated waters of the u.s. rule, do you believe you would have to get a 44 permit to do that project today? >> the actual restoration. >> the retention, the movement, the capturing of the water, the actual project. would that project from beginning to end today require a 404 permit? particularly also there was some environmental damage, i mean old batteries and everything -- >> there was a battlefield site across there and i think as i mention towed i worked with the

former mayor of scottsdale to do that project. it may have gotten a 404 permit. >> i think they did some of the water channelling. >> the project was streambed wi have actually gone birding and looked at where there's been some water brought in to there and some vegetation is now growing to attract, in that streambed, if there was a disturbance of the streambed, they would have required it. >> because there's two mechanics and i have only 45 seconds to run this through. one was in many occasions where we tried to do good acts, my fear is that if this gets an expansive interpretation, all of a sudden, the good act are going to be required to get a 404 permit and go through those hoops. in some ways is there a potential we're creating a barrier.