[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3820-H3821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
                          SUPREME COURT RULING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Gibbs) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, just 2 weeks ago the United States Supreme 
Court issued a ruling on an important case that deals with private 
property rights, the Clean Water Act, and the ability of Americans to 
challenge administrative decisions made by Federal agencies.
  In the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes decision, a private 
company wanted the ability to dispute a proposed determination by the 
Corps before they were put through the burdensome and costly process of 
applying for a section 404 permit. When the Hawkes Company, which 
wanted to harvest peat from a tract of land that is 120 miles from the 
Red River in Minnesota, began the process with the Corps, the Corps 
provided a jurisdictional determination--also called a JD--that stated 
there was a ``significant nexus'' between the Red River and the acreage 
Hawkes expected to harvest. Thus, requiring a permit.
  But there was no guarantee that the permit would even be approved. 
The Hawkes Company believed they should not be forced to spend 
thousands of dollars in permit applications only to be denied and then 
go through the long process of appealing the decision.
  The government's lawyers tried to argue that the approved 
jurisdictional determination is not the same as the final agency 
action, which is required before any legal or judicial review can even 
begin.
  This is one of several important points made in the Supreme Court's 
unanimous decision siding with the Hawkes Company. While the Federal 
Government argued to the Court that an approved JD is not a final 
agency action, the Court found that the Army Corps considers it so in 
other Federal regulations. Using conditions set by previous court 
precedents, the Supreme Court sided with Hawkes and agreed that an 
approved JD essentially constitutes a final agency action. This now 
gives Hawkes and other entities applying for Clean Water Act permits

[[Page H3821]]

in the future the ability to dispute rulings by the Corps before 
spending thousands and thousands of dollars for permits.
  The Federal Government's arguments in this case were unconvincing at 
best and repugnant at worst. Army Corps lawyers contended that Hawkes 
had an alternative to the expensive permit application. They argued the 
company could simply begin their operations without a permit, face the 
wrath of the Environmental Protection Agency, and attempt to argue in 
court that a permit isn't necessary. The problem with these 
alternatives is that Hawkes would be facing fines as much as $37,500 a 
day by operating without a permit.
  In their 8-0 decision, the Court rightly sided with reason and 
sanity. American citizens and private companies should not be at the 
mercy of a bureaucracy that is effectively extorting them to have their 
day in court.
  On the surface, this court case was about a peat company in Minnesota 
trying to sell some turf to golf courses, but it represents much more 
than that. We have a government that is too large, spends too much, and 
interferes with the private sector, especially at a time when our 
economy is stagnant and millions of Americans are struggling to find 
the work they are eager to take on. We have the ability to return the 
government's role in the economy to its original and appropriate place 
by creating the conditions for economic growth for all Americans rather 
than attempting to pick winners and losers through a centrally planned 
economy.
  Yesterday, Speaker Ryan introduced a proposal by House Republicans 
that provides a better way toward economic prosperity for all 
Americans. One of those ways is to reduce the regulatory and 
administrative burdens placed on the private sector. If we modernize 
the regulatory framework, provide real and aggressive oversight of 
major regulations by requiring an up-or-down vote by Congress, and give 
the American people a larger role in the development of the Federal 
rules and regulations that affect them, we can set our economy on a 
path towards prosperity. More importantly, we can make sure all 
Americans have the opportunity to improve their lives, to live out 
their own version of the American Dream, and allow their children and 
grandchildren to inherit a more confident and prosperous Nation.

                          ____________________