Fighting Regulations

Federal regulations are a costly, overreaching web which stifles innovation, germinates uncertainty, and often burdens the very people they purport to protect. Regulatory overreach by the Obama and Biden administrations extended well beyond congressional intent – creating the potential to upend industry. I have continually worked to rein in this unchecked rulemaking and restore accountability to federal agencies, and I appreciate the progress we have made since January. President Trump’s day-one executive order, which required ten regulations be eliminated for every new one issued, set the tone for his administration, and I am pleased with the progress made in addressing numerous problematic regulations since then.

Over the last decade, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have had changing definitions for waters of the United States (WOTUS), causing significant uncertainty for farmers, ranchers, and landowners across America. While the Clean Water Act defines WOTUS as including only navigable waterways, both the Obama and Biden administration attempted to substantially expand this definition to include many unrelated waters, down to local drainage ditches. This definition is critical, as it sets the parameters for the federal government’s ability to dictate land use decisions on private property. In 2015, I led a joint resolution of disapproval of President Obama’s original WOTUS expansion and continued to engage on this issue across administrations. I was glad to see the Trump Administration’s proposed rule clarifying and narrowing this definition in November, which restores certainty and common sense to these regulations. 

The Department of Labor’s so-called fiduciary rule is another vestige of the Obama administration which re-emerged under President Biden. If fully implemented, this rule would vastly expand the number and type of financial services to which advisors were subject to higher compliance burdens – unnecessarily raising costs and making basic financial advice less accessible. Because I want to ensure these services remain available to Nebraska families, I have continually fought this overreach, most recently by joining an amicus brief opposing this overreach in federal court. Following the filing of this brief, I was pleased the Trump administration withdrew federal opposition to the suit opposing the rule.

In addition to addressing problematic regulations, House Republicans have also been working to reduce other barriers to infrastructure projects, such as frivolous lawsuits. This week I was glad to support one such bill, the SPEED Act, which would restrict lawsuits opposing projects utilizing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) only to parties directly impacted by a project. NEPA already provides stringent review process; allowing extremist environmental groups to stand in the way of progress for obstruction’s sake benefits no one.

Restoring balance to our regulatory system is essential to preserving opportunity, growth, and personal freedom. By reining in agency overreach, ensuring regulators follow the law as Congress intended, and removing unnecessary barriers to investment and development, we can protect families and our environment without sacrificing innovation or common sense. I will continue fighting for a regulatory reform grounded in transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. 

###