All Quotes

This new definition once again places unnecessary burdens on the communities, farmers, businesses, and industries who rely on clean water and clarity of the law.

I was heartened in 2020 when the Trump administration released the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which finally brought some clarity and predictability to the nagging question of what a WOTUS should be.

The WOTUS question has been debated for decades in court, and varying Presidential administrations have issued regulatory definitions of WOTUS that are quite expansive and subjective.

Importantly, this definition is used for determining who must obtain a Clean Water Act section 404 'dredge and fill' permit, which is well known for being a costly and time-consuming process.

Unfortunately, that is not the case here. As I have said before, there is no greater example of bureaucratic overreach under the Clean Water Act than the regulatory nightmare of complying with and understanding the definition of a 'water…

Regulations of any type should be simple and easy to follow.

However, sweeping legislation like the Clean Water Act, while certainly beneficial, can lead to bureaucratic overreach and regulatory headaches that often don't make sense to regulated communities.

For more than a half century, the Clean Water Act has functioned to improve the quality of our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and we should be proud of what we have done and acknowledge its success in protecting waters all around the…

It would be common sense to pause and wait to see what the Supreme Court decides before jamming this through now.

I am confident the House will pass the resolution.

At the same time, we need to ensure that consumers and new investors are properly protected.

I welcome the efforts by our Chair and this subcommittee to enhance capital formation and remove roadblocks.

We need to have a democratized approach to this to benefit more people.

Chair Gensler is too busy trying to change the SEC into the, 'Securities and Environment Commission,' rather than its capital formation and investor protection role.

I think it is time for us to reevaluate the definition of an accredited investor and ensure that it serves its intended purpose of protecting investors rather than excluding them.

We could do is change the definition of, 'accredited investor,' to the following standards: someone who is investing less than 5 percent of their net worth in a particular investment.

Investor protection not only protects investors, it is necessary for the business economy as a whole that is seeking investment.

We need the right blend of investor protection and securities regulation on the one hand, and access to capital and access to investments on the other.