[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12714]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
                           WATERS OF THE U.S.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the Environmental 
Protection Agency's regulatory attack on our economy and way of life in 
central and northwestern Pennsylvania has been growing for some time.
  In recent months, the EPA moved forward with an egregious power grab 
to redefine the Agency's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act through 
a new proposed rule commonly known as the Waters of the United States.
  In Pennsylvania, agriculture is our number one industry. As in other 
parts of the country, our farmers and ranchers know that clean air, 
clean water, and being good stewards of the environment in which they 
live and work is of fundamental importance to their livelihoods.
  Despite local prerogatives and successful State and regional 
initiatives to protect our natural resources, the Federal Government, 
once again, has chosen to undercut these efforts with punitive Federal 
regulations.
  In March, the EPA issued the Waters of the U.S. proposal, explaining 
that the rule expands neither Federal authorities, nor the amount of 
water or land under the Agency's jurisdiction.
  Well, the EPA has argued the action is necessary to eliminate 
ambiguity over which bodies of water are jurisdictional under the law. 
Unfortunately, this is a far cry from the truth. In reality, the EPA's 
plan represents an unprecedented expansion of Federal power that will 
harm our economy and erode the rights of both States and private 
landowners.
  Enacted in 1972, the Clean Water Act was created as a partnership 
between the States and the EPA in order to better manage identified 
pollution sources through a range of pollution control programs, such 
as setting wastewater standards.
  The scope of the law is limited to navigable waters, and for the 
first time, it made it unlawful to discharge any pollutants into these 
bodies, unless a permit was obtained.
  The law was never intended to impinge upon States' authority as the 
primary managers of water resources within their borders. The law was 
never intended to regulate small, noncontiguous bodies of water, such 
as streams, ditches, ponds, and creek beds, which would impose 
unnecessary burdens on economic activity. Unfortunately, that is 
exactly what the EPA has proposed.
  Despite Supreme Court rulings interpreting the regulatory scope of 
the Clean Water Act more narrowly than what the Federal Government has 
asserted, the EPA's new rule moves in the opposite direction.
  In fact, essentially all waters in the country under the EPA's 
proposed rule could potentially be subject to regulation and permitting 
approval by the Federal Government.
  The Obama administration and the EPA have argued the rule is intended 
to eliminate ambiguity and offer greater protections for States, 
farmers, and landowners when, in fact, it will create new regulatory 
burdens, more ambiguity, and less certainty.
  EPA Chief Gina McCarthy earlier this month characterized the growing 
opposition to the Waters of the U.S. rule--which has come from both 
Republicans and Democrats--as ``ludicrous'' and ``silly'' and recently 
summarized the backlash as a ``growing list of misunderstandings.''
  Madam Speaker, it is no misunderstanding. EPA's new Waters of the 
U.S. rule is a historic power grab that poses a fundamental threat to 
our economy and way of life in Pennsylvania and for communities across 
the country.
  Unfortunately, the only thing ludicrous is how the EPA continues to 
believe a punitive one-size-fits-all approach to environmental 
stewardship is the only way forward.

                          ____________________