PSI Sci
New here? Follow the money and the votes · Not sure of your district? Find your U.S. House member · Find your state legislators

H.R. 1732: Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015

Before you vote › Federal bills

H.R. 1732: Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015

114th Congress · introduced 2015-04-13 · Environmental Protection · Latest: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

  1. Where it came from: introduced 2015-04-13 · official record
  2. Who proposed it: Rep. Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] · what a sponsor is
  3. What happened next: 3 recorded votes in our records. Latest: House roll call 217 (2015): On Agreeing to the Amendment, HR1732 (2015-05-12), Failed. See all
  4. Where it stands now: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
  5. If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015

Plain summary

Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 (Sec. 2) This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw, within 30 days, the proposed rule, "Definition of 'Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act," dated April 21, 2014, describing the water bodies that fall under the scope of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act), as well as any final rule based on the proposed rule. (Sec. 3) The Army Corps and the EPA must develop a new proposed rule to define the term, "waters of the United States" as used in that Act. In developing the new rule, the Army Corps and the EPA must meet requirements concerning consultation with states and localities enumerated in this bill. The new rule must specifically identify those waters covered and not covered by the Clean Water Act and incorporate the areas and issues where consensus was reached by the interested parties. The Army Corps and the EPA must prepare a report with details about the new proposed rule and its development, including: (1) explanations of how the rule addresses public comments filed on certain related rules and reports and addresses recommendations provided in the consultation process; and (2) comprehensive regulatory and economic impact analyses of how the rule will impact interested parties and each program under the Clean Water Act. The Army Corps and the EPA must: (1) publish the report, a description of the areas and issues where consensus was reached with the state and local officials consulted, and the new proposed rule; and (2) make them available for public review and comment for at least 180 days. (Sec. 5) Within 90 days of issuing a final rule to define the term, the EPA must determine whether each permit program administered by states under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program, the program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the program regulating the disposal of sewage sludge is in compliance with the rule. States are given two years to bring any noncompliant programs into compliance before the EPA withdraws approval of the state program.

Congressional Research Service summary (Passed House amended), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Passed House amended)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] · 70 cosponsors

Cost estimate: CBO cost estimate: H.R. 1732, Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 (2015-04-27)

Cosponsors on this site

Sam Graves (R-MO), Eric A. "Rick" Crawford (R-AR), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Brian Babin (R-TX), David Rouzer (R-NC), Paul A. Gosar (R-AZ), Daniel Webster (R-FL), David G. Valadao (R-CA), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Michael K. Simpson (R-ID), Rick W. Allen (R-GA), Andy Harris (R-MD), Elise M. Stefanik (R-NY) and 10 more.

Recorded votes

Words on this page, explained (3)
Bill
A proposed law. It becomes law only if it passes the legislature and is signed by the president or governor (or a veto is overridden).
Public comment
A chance for anyone to tell a government agency what they think about a proposed rule or plan before it is final. Agencies must consider the comments they receive.
Rulemaking
The process agencies use to write regulations that carry out laws passed by Congress or a legislature. Usually an agency publishes a proposed rule, takes public comments, then publishes a final rule.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Record fed-us-cong114-hr1732 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong114 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong114