[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 89 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Page S3759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CLEAN WATER ACT RULE

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to share my concerns 
regarding the administration's recently finalized Clean Water Act rule 
issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to define waters of 
the United States.
  The Clean Water Act clearly states it is the ``policy of Congress to 
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and 
rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.'' Despite 
this partnership and the limits to Federal authority, the President and 
his administration, along with some lawmakers, have sought in recent 
years to clarify and extend the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the 
Clean Water Act in a manner that would expand the Federal Government's 
ability to regulate waters of the United States--in short, a Federal 
power grab. Changing the scope of the law, including the Clean Water 
Act, is solely the responsibility of Congress. Yet, the President's 
administration has again elected to bypass the legislative process by 
finalizing this rule.
  When I am in Louisiana, I consistently hear from my constituents 
about the impacts this rule could have on private property development, 
timberland, farmland, and other bodies of water that would be subject 
to Federal control. They tell me this rule will create more uncertainty 
and impact infrastructure projects and jobs despite the EPA and the 
Corps' assurances to the contrary.
  Louisiana is experiencing significant economic growth--growth that is 
bringing jobs to those Americans who have had the hardest time finding 
jobs with this recent poorly performing economy. This progress will be 
negatively affected as a result of this rule.
  In addition to the increased costs and regulations, the rule invites 
costly litigation, and it can significantly restrict the ability of 
landowners to make decisions about their property and make it harder 
for State and local governments to plan for their own development.
  Let me note that this is not the only rule the EPA has been working 
on that will negatively impact the economy and the job growth in my 
State. Their proposed rule to lower the standard for ground-level ozone 
will hurt job development in Louisiana, carrying with it health impacts 
to workers and families that are not fully considered by the EPA. It is 
clearly established that the higher the standard of living, the 
healthier the family. These rules will lower the standard of living for 
those who lose their jobs.
  In Calcasieu Parish, more than $60 billion in various manufacturing 
projects are underway and are in the process of being approved--that is 
$60 billion with a ``b.'' These will require construction workers--
again creating the kinds of jobs our economy needs more of. These 
projects can be severely impacted as a consequence of this rule.
  We see in this graphic display the navigable waters prior to the 
release of the rule this past week in Calcasieu Parish. Now we will see 
the bodies that will fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal 
Government under the finalized rule. Again, this here is under current 
law. And that is what it will be. This will impact the ability of local 
government to plan their development.
  Instead of people in Louisiana deciding how best to use their 
property, the Federal Government will be able to dictate many land use 
decisions, which have always been local. Again, this rule is a major 
takeover effort by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The 
administration has stated that this rule is narrowly defined. However, 
under the new definitions for tributaries, adjacent waters, and waters 
that are neighboring a traditional navigable water, virtually any water 
body could fall under the Agency's regulatory authority. And if certain 
bodies of water don't fit these definitions, the Agency can make a 
case-by-case determinations of significant nexus.
  Assistant Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy from the Army Corps said last week 
that this rule is a huge win for public health and the economy and 
reflects that clean water matters to the American people.
  First, let me point back to this map that community leaders in 
Calcasieu Parish provided for me, highlighting that this is not a win 
for the economy and could significantly impact economic and private 
land development moving forward.
  Secondly, as a physician--I am a doctor--I understand the importance 
of human health, and I also understand the impacts on human health as a 
consequence of overregulation by the Federal Government. If people are 
poor, their health suffers. There is a strong statistical relationship 
when, because of regulations and regulatory uncertainty, jobs are lost 
overseas. Again, I believe this revised rule is a power grab by the 
administration and not based upon any congressional action.
  We took a vote on this issue back in March, during the budget debate, 
to limit the expansion of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water 
Act, which I supported. Last fall, we took a similar vote while I was 
in the House of Representatives to repeal this harmful regulation. My 
colleague from Wyoming, Senator John Barrasso, has a bill, the Federal 
Water Quality Protection Act. It is a good bill that provides clarity 
for how EPA should and should not define the waters of the United 
States. I know the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, intends to move this bill 
through his committee soon, and I wish to offer my support for that 
legislation.
  Again, we have seen time and again that this administration will 
attempt to overreach the limits of what the executive branch should do. 
When it comes to the EPA's overreach, the waters of the United States 
rule isn't the exception; it is the norm.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________