Dan Sullivan

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am honored to be chairing this subcommittee in the 114th Congress with my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Ed Markey, as Ranking Member.

More than ever, we are seeing agency regulatory regimes expanding Federal jurisdiction beyond their statutory limits.

Throughout this Congress, we will be focusing chiefly on good governance and making certain the agencies are operating transparently.

So you think it's not only within the realm of the EPA's because they're a--remember, they're a Federal agency that has to get its authority from Congress.

Our fishermen and women are classic--the definition of small businesses.

Fishing means business and it means jobs in Alaska.

Just from my perspective, I think that's something that needs a lot more congressional oversight because in my experience in Alaska, it seems completely random and prohibitive in terms of some of the value that they've put on some of these…

This process, I believe, has been flawed, has been very rushed.

Any other comments on that initial primacy directive from Congress to the EPA with regard to the States' primacy--primary responsibilities on these issues?

I urge Senator Sullivan and the members of this committee to consider the wide-reaching and economic and cultural benefits that this proposed rule will have for the State.

I support the proposed rule because it clarifies protections to waters upon which these fisheries rely.

Those that claim the sky is falling with regard to the cost of complying with the proposed rule... fail to recognize that even greater value, clean water and the fish and wildlife it supports, provides to Alaskans.

Fifty-five thousand dollars an acre for a small business like that will absolutely put them out of business.

Do you think that the consultation that is required by the EPA...was undertaken in a way that was sufficient?

These are good jobs that can provide high school-age kids with the opportunity to pay for college.

Fishing isn't just part of the Alaska way of life, it's also big business.

My view is it hurts us. It hurts our future. It hurts my kids' future. It hurts your kids' future.

Well, even 3 percent in Alaska is huge.

If it is, if it's a major expansion, it is clear, it is clear, it's abundantly clear that the power to dramatically expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act does not reside with the EPA. It resides with the Congress of the United…

Lunacy, in my view, that's killing our small fishermen.

There is simply no nexus between cryogenically isolated permafrost and waters of the United States.

This demand mischaracterizes the state of the law and unconstitutionally interferes with our authorities.

Keep fighting the fight and we're behind you 110 percent.

The rule will have a direct and potentially costly impact on small businesses.