Ron Johnson

An enormous amount of law being written by the agencies.

Good neighbor authority is really moving more toward the type of approval process, sort of the one-stop approval process

You were talking about how the agencies, particularly over time, have really become, I would say, a little more vague in their regulations because of that Chevron decision by the Supreme Court.

Well, in my background memo, one of the things the staff listed for me a number of different standards.

You really do not need the Federal Government butting in and creating high levels of uncertainty.

Those forests that are managed where we actually allow timber harvesting are far healthier.

But in Federal, you get the approval. And then there is another chance, really, for litigation.

I have done an awful lot--and by the way, you have been helpful--touring the timber land and learning an awful lot in the last 5 years.

Because we do actually have a law, the Antilobbying Act, makes it a Federal crime to use appropriated money to influence, quote, 'in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government to favor, adopt, or…

Is the Federal Government really more concerned about Wisconsin's environment than we are?

$37,000 per day could be the potential fines if you do not obtain the necessary permit.

Potentially 92 percent of land mass of Wisconsin be subject to the Waters of the United States.

You see the Clean Power Plan, for example, anticipates some type of a cap-and-trade system which has been introduced time and time again in Congress and time and time again rejected.

In the first two years of Obama Administration where they had a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

This rule really expands what we think of as navigable waters to touch pretty much anything.

Maybe, that is a pretty good argument.

The impact of the rules on our economy--it is not being exaggerated--it will be detrimental and it will be irreversible.

I had written an oversight letter to Mr. Howard Shelanski, the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, concerned about that.

But this EPA regulation is actually weaker than the one that was in effect up until 2001.

This really is an attempt for a dramatic increase in jurisdiction by the Federal Government over waters within States.

The Federal Government is ramping up its jurisdiction over the States.

But do you understand businesses and organizations are concerned that sometimes the Federal Government, even though they say they are not going to get involved, get involved in an awful lot and can do some definite overreaching?

One study on the draft rule projected the job loss to our State at 21,000 jobs for 2030 with a $1.82 billion drop in disposable income.

What is the benefit of those reductions in pollution versus what is the cost to society?

But it would have been nice to have them here, and we could have bounced some of these ideas off them.