Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule for consideration for both H. Con. Res. 79, directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 719, and H.R. 719, the…

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my friend again for also emphasizing the areas where we agree, which is on the maintenance of the government. And while we may have a difference over the rule, I would…

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to, first, point out a couple of areas where my friend and I do disagree. We certainly disagree about the value of the Benghazi Committee. Frankly, I think it has been…

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to begin by congratulating both my chairman and my ranking member for the exceptional job they have done this year in getting all 12 appropriations bills through the full committee for the first time since 2009…

To me, this is further confirmation that the EPA is truly an agency that is out of control.

This is considered to be, by the people in my State of Oklahoma, the most significant raid that they have ever had.

This Administration has a policy of, if you can't get something passed by people who are answerable to the people of America, then do it through regulation.

Is everybody wrong?

On the record before the court, it appears that the standard is the right standard because the Agencies say it is.

I would like to ask for a copy of the analysis by your economists and the technical experts you used, who advised you.

The overregulation by the EPA... is the No. 1 concern of all the problems we are having.

The Waters of the United States rule is not just another example of regulatory overreach by the Obama administration. This rule is not only unlawful; it is completely unfounded.

I think that the final WOTUS rule goes far beyond the authority granted by Congress.

We recognize that the EPA may have been in the driver's seat in developing the legally questionable WOTUS rule, but Assistant Secretary Darcy signed the rule, along with Administrator McCarthy.

According to the one court that has looked at the merits of this rule, EPA and the Army simply made up new tests for expanding Federal control over land and water without any support in the record.

To either imply or portray that the United States Army Corps of Engineers is a co-sponsor, co-author, or contributor to these documents is simply untrue.

This is not one of those examples of, hey, on the one hand, on the other hand.

I would hope that all members of this subcommittee agree that when agencies make claims about a rulemaking record that are flatly contradicted by senior staff within an agency, that is a cause for concern.