Providing For Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted By the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. And that deals with the waters of the United States rule; is that correct, Mr. President?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. If I could, I would also like to ask that Senator Blunt's poster be placed back on the easel, because I agree with what the Senator from Missouri had to say about the so-called waters of the United States rule. It is a massive Federal overreach, a massive Federal land grab with hardly any environmental benefit, if at all. The map behind me of my neighboring State of Missouri points this out. Everything in red would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. Almost every square inch of the State of Missouri and other States would be subject to this massive overreach of a statute that was never intended to do that.

So I was pleased just a few weeks ago when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pretty much agreed with us, on a temporary basis at least. They ordered a nationwide stay of the Obama administration's wholly unnecessary waters of the United States rule. I agree with the court's action. I agree with the 31 States that have filed lawsuits against this rule. I agree with the efforts in this Chamber to overturn it.

I appreciate Senator Barrasso's legislation entitled the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, and I certainly appreciate the efforts of the junior Senator from Iowa, Senator Ernst, and will be supporting her efforts when we vote at the top of the hour.

The waters rule is an unlawful--unlawful--attempt by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to wield enormous power over our Nation's land mass, as this chart points out very dramatically. Americans are concerned--and Americans are right to be concerned--by this Federal overreach. The rule could have far-reaching effects on our lives and on our private property.

I am particularly concerned about what this rule could mean to our Nation's farmers and ranchers, especially in States such as Mississippi, where agriculture is one of the leading industries. The administration's attempt to expand the scope of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act would lead to unprecedented regulatory authority--unprecedented regulatory authority--and everything from property rights to economic development could be affected. Small ponds, even ditches would be subject to the decisions of Washington bureaucrats.

This expansion of Federal regulation could also adversely affect conservation efforts that are working at the State level in States such as Mississippi. We have begun considerable work with farm drainage ditches to enhance conservation. The waters rule threatens to undermine this important work. So it actually puts us back a step in terms of conservation.

Moreover, this rule makes States, cities, counties, and private citizens vulnerable to confusing and expensive legal challenges.

Just get ready for the Federal Government to come in with legal challenges. Because of the regulation's lack of clarity, the Federal Government could declare jurisdiction over almost any kind of land or water, as this map of Missouri points out. Even areas that may have been streams or wetlands more than a century ago could come under the rule of this expansive regulation. The rule's exemptions do not make clear whether water in tile drains, for example, or erosion features on farmlands could fall under Federal control. At the very least, these flaws should be fixed before the rule is fully implemented, and I do appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Iowa in challenging this.

Americans should worry and Americans should be concerned that the Obama administration has pushed forward with this rule despite these legitimate concerns being voiced over and over again by 31 States. State and local governments, farmers, small business owners, and landowners are worried about how this unilateral expansion could lead to substantial compliance costs, fines, legal battles, and permitting requirements--very expensive to job-creating agriculture and agribusiness.

As they do with many of the administration's other onerous rules, Americans are asking: What is the benefit? What is the environmental benefit here? No one is arguing that our waters should not be protected, but water sources such as isolated ponds and ditches that do not threaten to pollute navigable waters should not become a regulatory burden for States, for municipalities, or for private citizens.

I am a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I participated in a number of hearings on the WOTUS rule this year. It is clear the rule should be revised in a way that protects the rights of farmers, ranchers, and landowners--and the American public, for that matter.

Senator Ernst is absolutely correct. Her resolution of disapproval would allow us to send this message to the EPA and the administration: Americans do not deserve this unnecessary confusion and job-killing redtape.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source