Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass Bill H.R. 4304

The purpose of this bill is to do several key things; redefine "navagatable waters," redefine "wetlands," and cut down on what the EPA (Envirnmental Protection Agency) can do. Contention 1: Commerce Clause and innerstate regulation.Firstly for this debate lets define the Commerce Clause as this is a key part for this debate. Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Supreme Court Case, Gibbons V Ogden ruled the following three things: Commerce is "intercourse, all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse." Commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary-line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior... Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one." The Commerce power is the power to regulate, that is "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" which "may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." [1] Escentailly meaning that the Commerce must travel outside of state lines in order to be regulated by the Commerce Clause and hence the federal government. This is one thing this bill intends on doing by limiting what the EPA can regulate to that what goes across state boarders. This also exspands to allowing the state governments to regulate on their own as well as many instances and run ins with the EPA have been that of ones of which the accused has gotten proper authorization from the state government and most times even from the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers themsevlves, but still somehow find themselves in violation of EPA rules and regulations. Contention 2: Redefine "Navigatable Waters."This bill will redefine "Navigatable Waters" as it is highly key that this is done so. In the Supreme Court Case Rapanos V. US, the Supreme Court Justice Roberts defined such as, "" "includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographic features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams[,] ... oceans, rivers, [and] lakes" [2] However, the EPA and the Army Corps of Enginers continue to insist on using a broadend definition that includes many other things and they also use the loosely defined "wetlands" as well. In this case Rapanos's land was over 20 miles away from the nearest waterway and the EPA attacked Rapanos claiming that he had Nexus Waters. This means that simply that his lands were "close" enough to Navigatable Waters, but once again they were over 20 miles away. Another crime was that it was "Hydrologically connected" and in violation of the Migratory bird test. This means that during the birds migration south for the winter is a bird lands on your land it can be protected by the EPA for it being Hydrologically connected. Under this bill this corrupt protection will be nullified. [3] This bill will ensure that these waters are in fact navigatable meaning that not only can one travel through said waters, but they are also flowing and standing wateres as well. This is a key part as to actually protect these waters we have to ensure that there actually is water to protect. Things have gotten so obseen that things as simple as drainage ditchages are concidered "Navigatable Waters" by the EPA and that shouldn't be permitted. [4] Sources1. (The Steamboat Thomas Jefferson, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 428) 2. (http://www.gpo.gov...) 3. (http://www.epa.gov...) 4. (http://dailycaller.com...)