Senator Barrasso on how the EPA has changed since its formation. An excerpt:

This is not your parents’ EPA.
This EPA is distracted. This EPA has tried to regulate almost everything. It has made it so American businesses can do almost nothing. This EPA is fixated on eliminating every conceivable environmental risk – no matter how small or minor the risk and regardless of how expensive or pointless the solution. A few years ago, people used to talk about some companies being too big to fail. This EPA is too big to succeed. Don’t take my word for it. It’s all there in the data.
Your parents’ EPA knew how to do a lot with a little. They cleaned up the rivers. They stopped the smog. They made the beaches, canals and lakes safe again. And they did it all on a budget of slightly more than $2 billion.
This EPA spends a lot more, and accomplishes a lot less. Since coming into office, President Obama’s average EPA budget has been roughly $4 billion more than under President Bush. The EPA budget for last year alone was $11 billion/ This year, the President decided to pay lip service to cutting spending, and budgeted just slightly less than $9 billion for the EPA. And he is requesting $10 billion for next year.
So how does the EPA spend this money? I’ll give you a recent example. This week, the EPA put out another item encouraging Americans to conserve energy. It was a little unusual. It’s actually a rap song – a rap song – about the benefits of public transportation and reducing carbon emissions. There must be more essential uses for taxpayer dollars than that.
On top of wasting money writing rap tunes, the EPA is producing policies where only small businesses take the rap. These regulations are making our economy worse. A new study by the Phoenix Center shows that for every million dollars more that the government spends on regulation, an additional 420 jobs are lost.
Yet the EPA is uninterested in honestly assessing the economic impacts of its regulations. Following last fall’s election, the EPA issued new guidelines to its employees. Among the changes, it instructed those tasked with economic analysis to take factors like “social justice” into account. I don’t see how you can quantify something as abstract as “social justice.” How much does “social justice” cost?

The whole speech here.