Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title United States Code, of the Rule Submitted By the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to Revised Definition of Waters of the United States

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the joint resolution for congressional disapproval striking down the President's revised definitions of waters of the United States.

As a fifth-generation farmer, I know how hard-working Kansas farmers work daily to protect our environment and conserve our precious resources. Farmers serve as our land's original and best stewards. We all want to leave this world cleaner, healthier, and safer than we found it.

Since coming to Congress, we have worked hard alongside our farmers and ranchers and rural landowners to ensure our waters become cleaner and healthier and, at the same time, protect our land and water from aggressive government overreach.

This includes working with the previous administration to roll back purposeless, ``one size fits all'' Federal WOTUS regulations that drive up the cost of doing business for Kansans and are detrimental to their ability to care for their crops and livestock.

As Kansas farmers, ranchers, businesses, and even municipalities know all too well, the Obama-era definition of WOTUS in 2015 dramatically expanded the Federal Government's reach with minimal improvements in water quality.

Today, this White House's reckless expansion of the WOTUS rule only adds more regulations, more redtape, and costs to everyday life in Kansas. This level of Federal overreach is harmful and ill-advised.

It is important to note that my colleagues and I requested the administration suspend the rulemaking until the Supreme Court completes its consideration of Sackett v. EPA. This would allow Congress to craft a lawful, predictable, and reasonable rule.

But this request has fallen on deaf ears. Moving forward with this rule is the administration's attempt to revive the Obama-era WOTUS rule, which was rightfully blocked in nearly half of the United States due to litigation in courts across the country.

Now, as the saying goes, history repeats itself, and a Federal judge recently blocked the implementation of the brandnew rule in Texas and Idaho.

Now, back home, my farmers are already bracing for the impact. In fact, I heard from one organization that said:

Farmers and ranchers should not have to hire a team of lawyers and consultants to determine how we can farm our land.

And I agree.

Kansan after Kansan I have met with on this issue has told me this administration didn't consider their input on the new WOTUS definition, further proof of the clear disconnect between DC bureaucrats and the hard-working farmers and ranchers who provide our Nation's food.

Agriculture, oil and gas, energy, the housing industry, road builders, bridge builders, construction workers, and municipalities have all voiced their disapproval of the rule and the costs of the negative impacts that its adoption will have on American industries and consumers.

It seems this administration only listens to radical environmentalists rather than the hard-working, pragmatic voices of the people who love the land which has been handed down from generation to generation, just like in my family--people who care every bit about the environment as any soul on Capitol Hill does. These are the same people who feed, fuel, and clothe America.

This rule is the Biden administration's attempt to federalize our waters and take control of our private land and leave our producers with more questions than answers, more costs than gain.

In fact--get this--mitigation costs related to the current White House WOTUS may cost farmers and ranchers over $100,000 per acre. The value of this land itself might be $1,000, $2,000, maybe $5,000 an acre, but mitigation will cost us $100,000 per acre.

Let me ask a couple of simple questions: Should a dry creek that only has water run through it during a rain be a waters of the United States?

Should playas in western Kansas be a waters of the United States?

Should ditches draining into a dry creek bed be a waters of the United States?

Should water trickling off the terraces my grandfathers built 50-some years ago to prevent soil erosion and the tall lush grassy waterway that is home to pheasants and quail and turkey and deer and rabbits-- should this be a waters of the United States?

Under President Biden's rule, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineer will attempt to answer these questions on a case-by-case basis, meaning that the answer and the cost might change every time. That is no way to do business.

In a time of economic uncertainty, this unpredictable, ambiguous rulemaking will amplify the efforts of inflation felt by ag producers and American consumers. No American industry would be safe from the impending rising costs, all while the Biden WOTUS rule fails to achieve the goal of improved water quality.

The regulated community spent the better part of the last decade trying to operate under several different definitions of ``waters of the United States.'' We cannot allow the Biden administration to take us backward yet again.

Farmers and other ag producers are the original stewards of the land, and we all have a special interest in protecting the quality of our Nation's waters. Consistent and clear guidelines and regulations are key to such protections. We cannot keep moving the proverbial goalpost.

The Biden administration's failure to understand the ramifications of this is alarming. As Members of Congress, we must ensure agricultural producers and other stakeholders have the regulatory certainty to take care of our Nation's land and water resources, the lands and waters that we love, the lands and waters that we are leaving to the next generation--to my children and to my grandchildren.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source