PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 559.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 9, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 - Prohibits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from:
developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the proposed rule entitled, "Definition of 'Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act," issued on April 21, 2014, or the proposed guidance entitled, "Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected By the Clean Water Act," dated February 17, 2012; or
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
using the proposed rule or proposed guidance, any successor document, or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis for any rulemaking or decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act).
Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to withdraw the interpretive rule entitled, "Notice of Availability Regarding the Exemption from Permitting Under Section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act to Certain Agricultural Conservation Practices," issued on April 21, 2014.
Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to: (1) consult with relevant state and local officials to develop recommendations for a regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters covered under the Clean Water Act and the scope of waters not covered; (2) provide for the public review and comment of a draft report that includes a recommendation only if consensus has been reached with regard to the recommendation among the Army Corps, the EPA, and state and local officials; (3) publish a final report; and (4) report to Congress on the recommendations.
People & committees
Rep. Southerland, Steve II [R-FL-2] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 559.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 262 - 152 (Roll no. 489).
House roll call 489 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 262 - 152 (Roll no. 489).
House roll call 489 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 177 - 235 (Roll no. 488).
House roll call 488 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H7338)
Floor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Huffman motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill be reported back to the House with an amendment to add a new section at the end of the bill protecting the quality of water for public water supplies and agricultural uses and to mitigate against drought.
Mr. Huffman moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Transportation. (consideration: CR H7337-7338; text: CR H7337)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H7337)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 5078.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7335-7339)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 5078 as unfinished business.
On motion that the commitee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Gibbs moved that the commitee rise.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Bishop (NY) amendment No. 3, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced the noes had prevailed. Mr. Bishop (NY) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 715, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bishop (NY) amendment No. 3.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Bishop (NY) amendment No. 2, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced the noes had prevailed. Mr. Bishop (NY) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 715, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bishop (NY) amendment No. 2.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 5078.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Ted Poe to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 715 and Rule XVIII.
Resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 5078 and specified amendments are in order. A motion to recommit with or without instructions is also in order. Resolution provides for one hour of debate on H. Res. 644 and allows a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 715. (consideration: CR H7314-7325; text of measure as reported in House: CR H7321-7322)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 715 Reported to House. Resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 5078 and specified amendments are in order. A motion to recommit with or without instructions is also in order. Resolution provides for one hour of debate on H. Res. 644 and allows a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Transportation, H. Rept. 113-568, Part II.
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Transportation, H. Rept. 113-568, Part II.
Mr. Shuster asked unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 5078. Agreed to without objection.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 422.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 113-568.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 113-568.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5078 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5078 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5078 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5078 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.