On the recordJune 7, 2018
In closing, I respect the concern about an overinterpretation of existing law that has been on the books for 40 years. The real challenge with section 107 is it throws out the entire exemption process and makes everything legal. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, again, it has been a much more aggressive interpretation of the exemptions under the Clean Water Act that were clearly made by Congress to allow normal farming activities, the normal crop rotation that you would use. Indeed, if these activities were applied even more aggressively, normal year-to-year crops could find themselves unable to be planted because of plowing or disking or land planing, things that are considered normal in the millions of acres we have in northern California that are under agriculture. So the activities of the EPA and the Army Corps go above the law to impose these requirements, and they certainly expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act well beyond what Congress had ever intended 40- plus years ago. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer). The amendment was rejected. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Ruiz The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in part B of House Report 115-711.





