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

As a result, the Corps' review could not find a justifiable basis in the analysis for many of the documents' conclusions.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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