[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 1, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S546-S547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Biden Administration

  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I rise today really to take a moment 
and evaluate the repeated and unfortunately habitual overreach of the 
Biden administration.
  When our Founding Fathers established our Nation, they were certain 
to build a government that rejected undivided sovereignty, or the rule 
of a single person. They had the monarchy, and they didn't like it. 
This structure features three distinct branches of government: the 
legislative branch, where we are here, to create and pass laws; an 
executive branch, responsible for enforcing the laws; and a judicial 
branch to make certain these laws and actions hold just with our 
Constitution.
  Typically, this is a lesson we all learn in high school, but it seems 
like President Biden and his administration must have missed that 
lecture on balance of powers because their actions throughout the last 
2 years have shown a lot of disrespect for our Constitution--and 
disregard.
  A recent analysis by the American Action Forum found that in just 2 
years, the Biden administration has imposed 517 regulatory actions--
517--creating $318 billion in total costs--a figure that massively 
outweighs the regulatory costs generated by the last two Presidential 
administrations.
  Executive overreach has become synonymous with the Biden 
administration and has created a desperate need for oversight from our 
Republican colleagues here in the Senate, and certainly that is 
occurring across the way in the House of Representatives.
  We have seen overreach from the Biden administration in areas that 
impact just about everything, whether it is how we heat our homes or 
whether we are going to have a gas stove or not, how we fuel our cars, 
how we educate our children, how we move goods across the country, how 
we spend private investments, how we enforce law and order, even how we 
define ``water.''
  Plain and simple, President Biden and unelected bureaucrats in 
Washington are continuously overstepping their boundaries, creating 
hurdles and interfering with how we live our everyday lives.
  On top of this, congressional Democrats continue to obstruct critical 
oversight efforts on these harmful policies, and they are blocking 
opportunities for the American people to hear directly from the 
administration about policies that impact us directly every day. It is 
kind of--it is not ``kind of''--it is very unfair, and it is a 
disservice to folks across the Nation who want the leaders to be held 
accountable.
  In the face of such rampant overreach, my Senate Republican 
colleagues and I continue to push back on President Biden's out-of-
touch mandates and bring the voices of the American people to the 
table.
  My colleague from Tennessee, Senator Bill Hagerty, has introduced a 
bill that blocks Washington, DC's dangerous and irresponsible rewrite 
of their Criminal Code that lessens punishment for violent crimes.
  My colleague from South Dakota, Senator John Thune, has introduced a 
bill to prohibit the President from canceling outstanding Federal 
student loan obligations due to a national emergency.
  Another tool at our behest against this unprecedented expansion of 
the administrative state is called the Congressional Review Act of 
disapproval. It sounds kind of bureaucratic, and it is, but it can be 
very, very meaningful.
  As you know, through a Congressional Review Act of Disapproval, or 
CRA, Congress can vote to overturn rules from the executive branch that 
are classified as overreach. My colleague from Indiana, Senator Mike 
Braun, has introduced a CRA that would block a recent Department of 
Labor rule allowing retirement plan fiduciaries to consider climate 
change and other ESG--or environment, social, and governance--factors 
in their investment decisions. I don't know about you, but I think most 
people who are retired or beginning to retire and looking at their 
accounts that they are going to be living on, they would rather see the 
returns come in the most

[[Page S547]]

profitable way possible so that they can live out their life. In the 
end, that is better for all of us.
  This effort would nullify the Department of Labor rule and prevent 
similar rules from taking effect. Actions like these have direct impact 
on energy-producing States like mine by steering capital away from the 
American energy sector. We should be investing in our American energy 
sector.
  I, too, have introduced my own CRA in response to a repeated 
overreach from the Biden administration. Last December, the Biden 
administration launched its latest round of regulatory overreach 
through the waters of the United States, which we refer to here as the 
WOTUS rule. It marked the third major change to the definition of what 
waters are in this country and which ones are subject to Federal 
jurisdiction. It is the third time this has changed over the last 8 
years. Think about if you are in agriculture or if you are in 
construction--big impacts.
  Like many regulations from this administration, it is very 
overreaching. It is misguided, and it is just not necessary. Even 
worse, it places an undue burden of uncertainty directly on America's 
farmers, on America's ranchers, on America's miners, on America's 
infrastructure builders, and, quite simply, American landowners.
  The Biden WOTUS rule repeals the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection 
Rule that provided predictability and certainty and protected our 
waters. Most importantly, it properly implemented the Clean Water Act 
by protecting our waterways through coordination and cooperation from 
States and the Federal Government.
  You may hear that without this new definition, some waters may go 
``unprotected.'' That is not true. It is an insult to our State 
officials who know their local ecosystems and have jurisdiction over 
their territorial waters.
  So what does the new definition really do? It requires more people to 
get more permits who can't get permits, and it causes fear of EPA 
enforcement actions and frivolous lawsuits from environmental groups.
  This all comes at a time when we should be streamlining our Nation's 
permitting and review process. Instead, the administration is using 
their classic overreach tactics to make more projects subject to 
Federal permitting requirements and add more bureaucratic redtape.
  My CRA gives every Member of Congress the chance to stand with our 
farmers, our ranchers, our landowners, our miners, and our builders. It 
is also a chance for us to protect future transportation, 
infrastructure, and energy projects all across the country.
  For this particular rule, CRA, we have seen widespread support both 
in the House and the Senate in an effort to overturn this rule, and I 
look forward to having that here on the Senate floor.
  As ranking member of the EPW Committee, I have made it a priority to 
ensure that the historic investments that we have made in 
infrastructure are being implemented as Congress intended.
  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--we call it here IIJA; we 
have an acronym for everything--that we passed in 2021 and the 
President signed will benefit all communities by providing our States 
with the flexibility needed to upgrade, expand, or modernize our 
Nation's core transportation infrastructure. That is why ensuring that 
the letter of the law is followed, as we intended it, will be and has 
continued to be a high priority for me. We do not want to miss this 
moment.
  That being said, the Federal Highway Administration, or FHWA, 
released a memo a little over a year ago in December that found its way 
into numerous guidance documents attempting to enact a wish list of 
policies we--when I say ``we,'' I mean the bipartisan EPW Committee--
intentionally negotiated out of the final law.
  I, along with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
chair, Sam Graves, had announced our intention to formally challenge 
this rule. The FHWA heard what we were saying and also heard what their 
State transportation folks were saying. So just last Friday, FHWA 
released a substantially revised replacement, reversing course from 
that December 2021 memo.
  The new memo removes the policies that Congress rejected--because it 
is not administrative policy, it is congressional law--and issued a 
revised memo. And the administration basically admitted that they were 
wrong in their attempts to undo the flexibility provided to States in 
the law by establishing preferences for certain policies. Building 
highways, maintaining highways, creating bypasses, however you want to 
do your State--it is different in Nevada; it is different in Indiana; 
it is different in West Virginia--we need to give our States the 
flexibility.
  This is a good example, I think, of the Biden administration knowing 
they were overreaching, and they actually corrected that. I am grateful 
for that.
  As my colleagues and I highlight the continuous level of overreach 
this administration has grown comfortable with, I would suggest that 
the President reference a U.S. history book and leave the legislating 
to the legislators. Until then, my colleagues and I will continue to 
stand for the way of life outside the beltway and provide solutions 
that strengthen our families and communities instead of having 
setbacks.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I see my fellow Member of the Senate from Indiana, Senator Braun, is 
here to talk on this topic.
  Thanks for coming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.