Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016—Motion to Proceed
by Senator Joni ErnstPosted on 2015-11-03
Tweet
ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Waters of the United States Rule
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about this ill-
conceived and harmful waters of the United States rule--better known as
WOTUS--and how its implementation threatens the livelihoods of many of
my fellow Iowans.
As the Presiding Officer knows, recent court decisions have forced
this rule--EPA's latest power grab--to come to a screeching halt across
the country because of the likelihood that EPA has overstepped its
authority. To be clear, it is not just me saying that; it is the court.
As my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, Chuck
Grassley, often says, Washington is an island surrounded by reality.
There is not a more perfect phrase to describe how the events and
processes have unfolded surrounding this confusing rule. Only in
Washington do unelected bureaucrats take 300 pages to simplify and
provide clarity. This rule is so complex and so ambiguous that folks in
my State are concerned that any low spot on a farmer's field or a ditch
or a puddle after a rainstorm may now fall under the EPA's watch.
We all want clean water and clean air. That is not disputable. Time
and again, I have emphasized that the air we breathe and the water we
drink need to be clean and safe. Statements suggesting otherwise cannot
be further from the truth. It is unfortunate that the EPA continues to
fuel that line of false attack through their election-style tactics and
controversial lobbying efforts on social media.
This rule and this debate are not about clean water. The heart of
this debate is about how much authority the Federal Government and
unelected bureaucrats should have to regulate what is done on private
land.
You can see the map behind me. Look at my State of Iowa. This rule
would give the EPA extensive power to regulate water on 97 percent of
the land in the State of Iowa--97 percent. If you compare that to
Iowa's Federal land percentage in acreage of 0.3 percent, it is quite a
shift in the current makeup of Federal authority over the land in Iowa.
I spent the weekend going back through letters my fellow Iowans have
sent me on this issue. So many of them are frustrated with the lack of
common sense coming out of Washington. They are taking this issue
personally because their livelihood depends on it. Many of the letters
I get are from farmers who spend their days working land that has been
in their families for generations, some going back over 100 years. They
have an incentive to take care of their land and conserve it for future
generations. Caring for the land and conserving is a way of life in the
heartland. It is as if the EPA turns a blind eye to that fact.
One Iowan wrote:
This proposed rule is so vague, long, and very unclear,
that I feel they are wanting farmers to fail so a large fine
can be assessed. Why am I taking this so personal? Because
for me and my family, we live off this land. If we don't take
care of it, it will not take care of us. So I will do
whatever I can to protect this land and water for my
children. My family lives on well water. My cattle drink from
the same wells. I don't want either to get sick.
That is what one Iowan wrote. I believe the same exactly.
This rule would give EPA the authority to expand its power over
family farms, small businesses, ranches, and other landowners in our
rural community. Iowans are so concerned about this rule because they
know it will actually create a negative impact on conservation and it
is contradictory to the commonsense and voluntary work that is taking
place in communities across Iowa today.
In Iowa, we have had a State-level clean water initiative in place
for several years now. It is a partnership between the State
legislature, the Department of Natural Resources, the Iowa Department
of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa State University, and a
myriad of stakeholders across the State.
The voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy is based on extensive
research and provides a path forward for conservation efforts that
individual farmers can pursue with matching funds from the State. This
science-based approach provides incentives for farmers and other
landowners to make sustainable decisions on their own land rather than
be forced to adhere to a one-size-fits-all regulation that would do far
more harm than good. A farm in Iowa is not the same as one in Montana,
and the rolling plains of Texas are very different from the hills and
valleys of
[[Page S7702]]
Pennsylvania. This is simply one more reason this WOTUS rule is the
wrong approach. A one-size-fits-all solution from inside the beltway
could have disastrous effects nationwide.
As I mentioned, I have heard from constituents across the State of
Iowa who have grave concerns with the ambiguity of this rule. They are
holding off on making conservation improvements to their land for fear
of being later found out of compliance with this WOTUS rule and facing
significant fines. Maybe it is because we are so ``Iowa nice'' that we
are inclined to work together collaboratively rather than simply
issuing more onerous regulations.
Take the Middle Cedar Partnership, for example. This project in
Eastern Iowa uses local dollars and State funding, coupled with Federal
grants from the USDA, to organize and advocate for land practices that
improve water quality downstream. The coalition is made up of city,
county, and State officials, businesspeople, farmers,
environmentalists, and other concerned citizens. Together they are
making meaningful progress on multiple watershed projects within the
Cedar River basin and sharing what they have learned. This approach is
now being adopted by other municipalities within the State.
Contrary to what some claim, Iowa has done all of this on its own,
not at the behest of the EPA. In fact, the EPA has asked the leaders of
Iowa's efforts to come to DC and explain how they are able to get such
grassroots buy-in on voluntary conservation projects and programs. The
other States in the Mississippi River Basin look to Iowa as a leader on
water quality and are modeling their own State-level efforts after ours
in the State of Iowa. While there are clear indications that this WOTUS
rule is illegal and likely to be scrapped by the courts, that process
could take years to play out--and all at the expense of the average
American.
Let's not wait around for the inevitable and force our small farmers
and businesses to operate in the dark while they wait. Let's fix this
now and give American families the certainty they deserve. We can do
that by passing the legislation before us.
I have led the charge in the Senate on this joint resolution of
disapproval which would scrap the rule entirely. My legislation is the
necessary next step in pushing back against this blatant power grab by
the EPA. We will send this to the President, and he will be forced to
decide between the livelihood of our rural communities nationwide and
his unchecked Federal agency.
I also voted for S. 1140, which provides the EPA with clear
principles and directions on how best to craft a waters of the United
States rule. It spells out steps they should have taken prior to
finalizing this rule to guarantee they can take into consideration the
thoughtful comments from folks such as farmers, ranchers, small
businesses, and manufacturers. Congress is acting because it is evident
that the EPA did not seriously consider the comments and perspective
from those whom this rule will directly impact, and it is clear they
are far outside the bounds of the congressional intent of the Clean
Water Act.
Iowa is bounded by rivers. The very shape of our State is dictated by
the mighty Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Take one look at commerce
and recreation happening on them, and it is easy to see why these are
considered navigable waters. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act,
this was the type of water it intended to protect, not a grass waterway
running across a farmer's field or a ditch bordering it. This rule
ignores congressional intent and is nothing more than a power grab by
the EPA.
The EPA continues to run roughshod over Iowans, acting as if they are
a legislative body--something they have no business doing. It is no
wonder they have lost the trust of the American people and many in
Congress. Every community wants clean water and to protect our Nation's
waterways, but we simply cannot allow mounting, unnecessary regulations
to overwhelm the commonsense voice of hard-working Americans,
especially when they are not based on sound science. Again, it is not
just me saying that, the courts and the Army Corps have both called the
EPA on their shaky data, or lack thereof. Yet unelected bureaucrats
remained committed to making a political decision instead of the right
decision.
As Iowa's U.S. Senator, it is my responsibility to speak for the
folks I represent and hold the Federal Government accountable when it
is clear they have gone too far. And make no mistake--they have here.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
