EPA Overregulation

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. I thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership on this issue and for bringing this issue to the attention of all Members, more especially those of us in our conference, but this should be a bipartisan effort.

I rise today to join my colleagues in discussing yet another--yet another--job-stifling and unjustified regulation proposed by this administration.

The EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Agriculture--what? the three horsemen of the regulatory apocalypse--have proposed a rule that after careful review and study we believe would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private property--control of private property--under the guise of the Clean Water Act.

They claim that the proposed ``Waters of the United States'' rule ``simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction.'' Well, here is the catch: The ``clarification'' is from categorically classifying so-called ``other waters'' as regulated, even if the water cannot be navigated and was previously outside of their authority.

This proposal is another example of why many Kansans, many farmers and ranchers from Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, feel their way of life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and overregulation.

To date, the Kansas associations of grain and feed, agribusiness retailers, ethanol producers, soybeans, wheat growers, pork producers, livestock, watersheds, golf course superintendents, and the Kansas Cooperative Council all have opposed this rule. Similar organizations in Wyoming and North Dakota and South Dakota and all across farm country have also been in contact with their Senators. These organizations and their members fear the EPA will use this rule to further regulate farmers and ranchers, as well as other normal land uses, such as building homes.

If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for ordinary fieldwork or for the construction of a fence or for even planting crops near certain waters.

Kansans are justifiably worried that the permits would be time-consuming, costly, and that the EPA could ultimately deny the permits, even for longstanding and normal practices--even practices that help the environment.

A friend of mine, Kansas farmer Jim Sipes--he is out there in Manter, KS; that is way out there; that is way out there by the Colorado border; he still has not gotten much rain after 3 years--he explains his view and said: ``The only thing that is clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make changes to the land--even if those changes would benefit the environment.'' He knows what he is talking about.

For the folks back home, the issue of the EPA trying to control more water, whether it is actually ``navigable,'' is not new. We have had this before. We have been down a similar road before with the agency wanting to regulate all of the water in the country, even small farm ponds, I would tell my colleagues, that no self-respecting duck would ever land on.

Now, I think maybe there is a file, I say to Senator Hoeven--I think there is a file down there in the basement of the EPA. It must be a big one: rural fugitive dust; the navigable waters situation; endangered species, so there is the taking of farmers' ground to force them to plant native prairie grass to save the lesser prairie chicken, which we cannot even find; and on and on and on and on. I think it must be labeled: What Drives Farmers and Ranchers Crazy. And about every second foggy night, why, somebody pulls open that file and we go through the whole thing again. It is not as though we have not done this before on this issue.

After personally calling on the EPA and Army Corps to withdraw the proposed rule, I want to make sure the expansion of regulatory jurisdiction over ``Waters of the United States''--let's shelve it for good. Let's shelve it for good.

Last week I joined the distinguished Senator from Wyoming Mr. Barrasso and the majority of our caucus in introducing straightforward legislation that prohibits the Administrator of the EPA and the Secretary of the Army--the Secretary of the Army, for goodness sakes--from finalizing the rule or trying a similar regulation in the future. Put the file back. Just file it away. Maybe put it somewhere where the hard drive is that Lois Lerner lost.

We will continue working here in the Senate, as well as the House, to either convince the administration to back off of this proposal or, if necessary, to block the agencies from moving forward. We have stopped this type of foolishness before, and I expect we will be successful again.

I thank my colleagues for their arduous efforts.

I say to Senator Hoeven, thank you for leading this effort.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source