EPA Overregulation

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the former Governor of North Dakota, now the Senator from North Dakota, who knows these issues very well. And I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas, who talked about the administration's overreach and overregulations and the impact it has on the economy of the United States.

There is very disturbing news out this morning reported by Reuters. The headline: ``Bad to worse: US economy shrank more than expected in Q1 [of this year].''

U.S. economy shrank more than expected in Q1 of this year.

The U.S. economy contracted, not grew, not stayed the same but contracted at a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the first quarter. The Commerce Department said on Wednesday that gross domestic product fell at a 2.9-percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in 5 years--worst performance in 5 years.

It is because of the overreach, the overregulation that is coming out of this administration. That is why I rise in support with my colleagues and my colleagues who have very serious concerns about the EPA's proposed Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule.

Many if not all of these colleagues recently joined me in introducing the Protecting Water and Property Rights of 2014 Act. In fact, 34 Senators have cosponsored this bill. More continue to join the important effort. They have joined this effort because this important and consequential legislation restricts the expansion of Federal authority by this EPA, which the EPA is trying to use to encompass all wet areas of farms, of ranches, suburban homes all across America.

More specifically, this bill eliminates the administration's proposed rule to implement the expansion of such Federal authority. Through this recently proposed rule, Federal agencies are attempting to expand the definitions of waters of the United States. They want to include ditches and other dry areas where water flows only for a short duration after a rainfall, but the government wants to control even that.

Federal regulations have never defined ditches and other upland drainage features as waters of the United States, but this proposed rule does. It will have a huge impact on farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses that need to put a shovel in the ground to make a living. The rule amounts to a Federal user fee for farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it rains.

It forces suburban homeowners to pay the EPA and Army Corps to use their backyards after a storm. Let's be clear what is proposed in this rule. It takes money away from family farmers and ranchers who just want to grow crops, raise cattle, and it taxes suburban middle-class families who just want to recreate in their own backyard without Uncle Sam bankrupting them for the privilege.

This is the worst thing I think we can do to Americans in this economy, an economy, as I say, that is shrinking--a shrinking economy, not just stagnant, not just sitting there but actually shrinking. That is why my legislation is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau, as well as the American Land Rights Association. It is because they know how devastating this rule is to farmers, to ranchers, to homeowners, and to other small businesses.

Despite what this administration may say and has said about providing ``flexibility''--they use that word--for farmers and ranchers in the proposed rule, the farmers and ranchers of America are not deceived. They will not be misled by this administration. According to the June edition of the publication National Cattlemen, an article entitled: ``EPA's Ag Exemptions for WOTUS''--waters of the United States.

Let me point out that the National Cattlemen--it is the trusted leader and definitive voice of the beef industry, the trusted leader and definitive voice of the beef industry, and the official publication of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. What that front page article says is:

Although agriculture exemptions are briefly included, they do not come close--

Do not come close--

to meeting the needs of the cattlemen and women across the country.

The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, McCan, stated in the article:

For example, wet spots or areas in a pasture that have standing water, under this rule could potentially be affected. We now need permission to travel and move cattle across these types of areas.

The article lists some other major areas of agriculture not exempted by the EPA's proposed rule:

Activities not covered by the exemptions include introduction of new cultivation techniques, planting different crops, changing crops to pasture, changing pasture to crops, changing cropland to orchards and to vineyards and changing crop land to nurseries.

Congress never intended the Clean Water Act to be used this way. The Senate, under Democratic control, never brought legislation such as the Clean Water Restoration Act to the floor that would have removed the word ``navigable'' from the Clean Water Act. Why? Because they knew it would have been defeated.

In fact, 52 bipartisan Members, a bipartisan group, a majority of the Senators voted for the Barrasso amendment that rejected the EPA's proposed guidance to seize all State waters during the Water Resources Development Act. Yet this proposed rule by the administration is circumventing Congress by effectively writing ``navigable'' out of the Clean Water Act.

Just as troubling as ignoring Congressional intent, the proposed rule disregards the fundamental tenet embodied in two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those are decisions that limit Federal jurisdiction. It is particularly troubling that the proposed rule allows the Army Corps and EPA to regulate waters now considered entirely under State jurisdiction.

This unprecedented exercise of power will allow the EPA to trump States rights and wipe out the authority of State and local governments to meet local land and water use decisions. It is particularly troubling when we have seen no evidence--no evidence at all--that the States are misusing or otherwise failing to meet their responsibilities. Enormous resources will be needed to expand the Clean Water Act Federal Regulatory Program.

Not only will there be a host of landowners and project proponents who will now be subject to the Clean Water Act's mandates and the cost of obtaining permits, but an increase in the number of permits needed will lead to longer delays in actually getting the permits. Increased delays in securing permits will impede a host of economic activities in 50 States, cost thousands of American jobs.

Farming and ranching, commercial and residential real estate development, electric transmission, transportation projects, bridge repairs, energy development, and mining will all be negatively affected. This is at a time when the United States has seen our economy shrink. The Reuters story today talks about shrinkage much more than predicted previously. Regulations such as this continue to damage America, damage our country, damage our families, damage our communities, damage the hard-working men and woman who want to go to work, put food on the table for their kids, raise their families, and go to work, but yet we have an administration that does not seem to see, is blinded by a role of big government. They are blinded from seeing the impact these onerous, expensive, burdensome regulations are having on the American public and certainly on our economy, as pointed out today in this news release from Reuters about the shrinking of the American economy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source