Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Supreme Court in 2001 and again in 2006 determined that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers' definition of waters of the United States was too broad, and it directed them to narrow that rule, that definition, to bring it into compliance and within the four corners of the law.

This poster here indicates the absurdity of what we are dealing with. Clearly, you wouldn't have folks out on a kayak in a field fishing. It is simply nonsensical. That is what we are facing today.

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers didn't come back and say, ``We are going to reduce the footprint. We are going to reduce the area that is now subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps under waters of the U.S.'' They came out with a rule that actually expanded it. They came out with a rule that the cost of compliance didn't decrease, as you would expect, based upon the rulings of the Supreme Court. The cost of compliance grew, and there were many reports about discourse within the Corps of Engineers and the EPA in regard to the approach that is being taken today. This is simply absurd to come in and attempt to regulate snow melt and drainage and things like that.

Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Louisiana, we drain about 42 percent of the contiguous landmass of North America. It is one of the largest watersheds in the world. You can't take a definition of waters of the U.S. and try and apply it to Arizona and Louisiana. Waters of the U.S. is our State, based upon this definition. Much of the area of south Louisiana would be subject to this.

So what does this mean? It means it is an infringement upon our private property rights: homes, businesses, land that we bought, that we own. We can't have the Federal Government come in and grow jurisdiction beyond the scope of the law.

I want to be clear. I am not talking about paving all the wildlands and open lands that we have in the United States. We certainly want to protect the environment, want to protect our water quality. But the irony here is that this is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA involved.

In my home State of Louisiana, we have the greatest rate of coastal wetlands loss in the United States, which I want to make note, Mr. Speaker, is the fault of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is their fault. The greatest rate of wetlands loss in the United States, their fault. Then here they are standing up saying: We want to protect the environment and be good stewards of the environment, and we are going to grow the jurisdiction of this amendment.

This is absurd. This is not antienvironmental. This is simply complying with the law, and this rule clearly goes beyond the scope of the law. You are not going to see scenarios like this because it is absurd. That is what we are facing today.

What is going to happen is this rule is once again going to be thrown out by the Supreme Court. It is once again going to be thrown out. But what Americans are going to face between now and when this is thrown out is they are going to be facing additional scrutiny. They are going to be facing the additional cost of compliance. They are going to face the additional encroachment and infringement upon their private property rights.

It is wrong. This isn't antienvironmental. This is within the four corners of the law.

I strongly urge you to support this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source