Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as has been pointed out, this would block the EPA from regulating air pollution under section 115 of the Clean Air Act.
Section 115 deals with international pollution and allows the United States to work with other countries in transboundary pollution issues. As we know, pollution doesn't stop at a border. It moves. And it is moving around the planet.
This amendment is a transparent attempt to clearly stop the Paris climate change agreement reached in December 2015. The Paris climate agreement is a milestone in the global effort to combat climate change, something which my constituents feel is very clear, very present, and is a huge problem of which the United States should show leadership in.
More than 190 nations have made commitments to limit their climate- damaging pollution, including all the largest developed and developing countries.
Future U.S. administrations could use section 115 to help ensure that the United States does its part and to provide that other countries do their part too.
The Perry amendment would prohibit the EPA and the White House from even developing a well-considered recommendation or whether or not to use this authority. Congress should not take a tool out of the toolbox for a future administration's climate change mitigation toolbox.
This is a matter of global leadership. The United States needs to meet its Paris climate commitment and, subsequently, any commitment to act in the future.
Congressman Perry's amendment and similar efforts to thwart the progress on climate change could--I would say ``would''--undermine our ability to achieve needed pollution reductions and hit our Paris targets.
This amendment is the latest in a long line of Republican attacks on the Clean Air Act and the EPA's authority to respond to the urgent threat of climate change. A vote for this amendment is another vote, in my opinion, for those who deny climate change is real and to block action to curb the carbon pollution that is driving dangerous climate change.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity recently to be in China, and because of our administration and as the Chinese people and government saw, our bold leadership in standing up and saying that the United States was going to play its role in reducing the harmful effects of climate change, China came to the table for the first time ever and said: You know, we are going to do something about it too.
Now, the gentleman keeps saying that the Senate never voted on it. This has never happened. Well, the Clean Air Act is a law and climate change is real.
This is not 1972, 1973, when I graduated from high school back many years ago. The planet, the climate, the oceans, the ice shelves are all changing. The legacy that we leave for our children and for future generations will be: What does the United States, what does our country do? How do we stand up and show leadership?
So this amendment clearly is an attempt to stop the Paris climate change agreement reached in 2015, something that I say with great pride my constituents in the State of Minnesota think is a good idea and something that we need to move forward on.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the debate couldn't be clearer here right now. Either you believe that climate change is real and it presents a clear and present danger--if you read some of the reports from the Department of Defense, they are very concerned about what is going on in the world with food scarcity, with rising sea levels, with all kinds of potential things that could bring real security risks to our Nation. Do we as a country stand up and do something about it and bring other countries with us? My State is not going to be compelled by a foreign government. My State is part of the United States of America, where we will work together under leadership to do something about climate change. Or do we continue to deny that climate change is real? We ignore what the Department of Defense is saying, and the United States doesn't play a clear leadership role in moving forward and bringing people with us on this issue that affects today, tomorrow, future generations and what this planet will be like for our children.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would block the EPA from finalizing or implementing a proposed rule that establishes accidental release prevention requirements.
Earlier this year, the EPA issued a proposed rule to amend its risk management program regulations response to a 2013 executive order on improving chemical safety. The proposed rule seeks to improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness to chemical hazards at regulated sources.
This is an important regulation and its need was underscored in the tragedy like the one that occurred in 2013 in west Texas, where a massive explosion in a fertilizer plant killed 15 people and injured more than 160.
This amendment would needlessly and recklessly block efforts to further improve chemical safety and security in coordination with owners and operators, and I strongly oppose that.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I just oppose this. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing or implementing designs and details for the Clean Energy Incentive Program. The Clean Energy Incentive Program is voluntary. It is an option for States. States can choose whether or not to do it. It is not a mandate. The program provides incentives to develop renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
The amendment is another example of some in the majority's obstruction to anything that the EPA or this administration does to attempt to address climate change. This program is designed to diversify energy supplies used by power generation and provide cleaner power generation to improve air quality. This amendment is a job creator.
Let me highlight again, this program is designed to reward early investments in renewable energy generation and energy efficiency to reduce harmful emissions from electric-generated facilities. Many States have embraced this. Many States are voluntarily moving forward with this.
But this amendment seeks to remove the barriers that we are trying to bring down in low-income communities so that they are able to invest in renewable energy, they are able to help low-income customers reduce their energy bills; and that is what we should be working forward with States and with consumers who want to reduce their energy bills and reduce the effects of climate change.
I want to state again, State participation in this program is totally optional, so this amendment is another attempt by some in the majority to block any action to address climate change and to continue this Nation's dependency on Big Oil. There is no reason to block a voluntary program from moving forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I can't stress enough, the Clean Energy Incentive Program is voluntary.
Why would we tell States that they couldn't choose to participate in something that will help their customers have lower utility bills, help with renewable energy, and help with the environment at the same time?
I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the Department of the Interior's ability to conduct damage assessments and inland oil spill preparedness by prohibiting the support of restoration work that is paid for by recovered settlement funds under the Superfund.
In fiscal year 2017, the Department of the Interior will receive nearly $500 million from the Deepwater Horizon settlement. This amendment would prohibit the distribution of any of those funds to the impacted Gulf States.
The Department's inability to distribute jointly recovered funds to its co-trustees would have a devastating affect on strong Federal, State, Tribal cooperation that the Interior Department has developed over the years, and could lead to a reduction of future joint restoration settlements and a splintering of cooperative restoration efforts among co-trustees, and that would be a travesty.
The amendment could also create uncertainty about its impacts on authorities under CERCLA to retain recovered settlement funds and manage the $800 million previously recovered in past settlements. This is a reckless amendment with far-reaching impacts.
If the Department of the Interior is unable to effectively administer its Natural Resource Damage Assessment program due to a change in its ability to use appropriated funds, it would likely have a significant effect on NOAA's own ability to effectively manage many of these cases, including the Deepwater Horizon. So I strongly oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I believe I have the right to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to state again that this would not allow the Department to distribute jointly recovered funds with co- trustees. It would have a devastating effect in the way the Federal, State, and Tribal governments work together and as they have worked together over the years. It could lead to a reduction of joint future restoration settlements and a splintering of cooperation restoration among co-trustees. And when people work together, we have better outcomes, we have better results, and that saves the taxpayers money.
This amendment would clearly limit the Department of the Interior's ability to conduct damage assessments and inland oil spill preparedness by prohibiting the support of restoration work that is paid for by recovered settlement funds under the Superfund. I recommend that the amendment be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in March 2015, the court found the Fish and Wildlife Service had violated NEPA, in giving an open-ended approval for the lethal removal of the double-crested cormorant, and that they were committing or were about to commit predation on fish, saying that there was not current data or adequate analysis to support this depredation order. The court didn't stop depredation but required a mediation plan.
In May 2016, the court revoked these depredation orders stating that individual permits should be sufficient. The court noted in its decision that the service had ignored environmental benefits of the double-crested cormorants by controlling invasive species fish and economic disruption claims were imprecise, speculative, and not compelling.
This amendment seeks to ignore the findings of the court. In other words, this amendment would tell Fish and Wildlife you don't have to follow what the court said you needed to do, and it prevents the service from using appropriated funds to enforce a court's order on the taking of the double-crested cormorant.
This language does not affect the law's prohibition against the taking of migratory birds, and people who would take the cormorant would knowingly be violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and be subject to charges from wildlife officials or other law enforcement agencies.
So the gentleman might not like how the court ruled, but this is the ruling of the court. We are a society that follows the law, and Fish and Wildlife is compelled to comply with the court.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the Equal Access to Justice Act is the law of the land. It allows for the Federal payment of legal fees-- within limits--to individuals, small businesses, and nonprofits where they are the prevailing parties in actions against Federal agencies unless the agency is able to show that the action was substantially justified or that special circumstances make the award unjust. This law helps deter government misconduct and encourages all parties--not just those with resources--to hire legal counsel to assert their rights.
Now, I know my colleagues, including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, will agree with me that the ability to challenge Federal actions is the most important tool for ensuring government accountability.
The Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Endangered Species Act are also the law of the land. These laws have contributed greatly to the protection and improvement of public health in this country.
A study by the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute found that the Equal Access to Justice Act has been cost effective, and it only applies to the meritorious litigation and that existing legal safeguards and independent discretion of Federal judges continue to ensure its prudent application.
Here is a fact: the claim that large environmental groups are getting rich on attorney fees is simply not supported by available evidence. In 2011, the GAO did a study. It was requested by House Republicans on cases brought against the EPA. They found that most suits were brought by trade associations and private companies and that attorney fees were awarded only about 8 percent of the time. Among environmental plaintiffs, the majority of cases were brought by local groups rather than national groups. That is just a fact. It is completely unfair to target these important environmental safeguards for removal from the protections of the Equal Access to Justice Act.
But more importantly, this amendment would have a serious consequence on the public health. In order for our Nation's environmental safeguards to work properly and ensure the protection of public health, citizens--including those citizens with limited means--must have the ability to challenge Federal action. The Smith amendment is clearly designed to make it more difficult for citizens--every citizen--to ensure the accountability of the Federal Government.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to state again that the GAO report clearly found that most suits were brought by trade associations and private companies and that attorney fees were only awarded about 8 percent of the time, and among environmental plaintiffs, the majority of those cases were brought by local groups rather than national groups.
So this amendment is clearly designed to make it much more difficult for citizens--my constituents--to ensure that there is accountability in the Federal Government so that they can have their day in court with being a plaintiff against the government when they feel it necessary.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment would block the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from finalizing regulations that deal with exploratory drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf that has conducted mobile oil offshore drilling units. Oil and gas exploration on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf is expensive and requires industry to make significant investments. Blocking this rule creates uncertainty for industry and other stakeholders. Delaying or inhibiting implementation of this rule will likely defer, rather than encourage, future Arctic exploration and development.
The amendment would also undermine efforts to protect Alaska Natives' health, livelihood, and cultural traditions. As we know, there are Alaska Natives that do have grave concerns about what is going on with oil drilling and exploration in Alaska.
The impact of a catastrophic oil spill would have extremely high cultural and societal costs to these Native Alaskans. The amendment would derail efforts to set specialized safety requirements and environmental precautions to account for the extreme environmental conditions, geography, and remoteness, like to fix infrastructure in existing operations in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.
The amendment stands in the way of efforts to reduce the risk of oil spill in an extreme sensitive environment where responding to any spill may be beyond current oil spill response capabilities. We need to protect our precious Arctic resources and ensure that they are managed responsibly.
Therefore, I must oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think this is something where people clearly in this Chamber know that the gentleman from Alaska and I are going to disagree on.
I will state for the Record that I have spoken with many Native Alaskans who do oppose this, so they are not all of one mind throughout Alaska on this issue. They are concerned about the effect an oil spill would have on their coastal and societal costs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to be up in this area, and this protected area encompasses a wide range of Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems. The native flora and fauna is magnificent. The refuge is incredible with its biological diversity.
I understand that the gentleman from Alaska feels strongly about this issue in a way that I feel differently about and that he has been an advocate for his State for decades, but on this important issue, we just simply disagree.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't point out one more obvious truth. The President will not sign a bill loaded up with anti- environmental riders just like this one. We only make our path for this bill harder by including it. I hope my colleagues would join me in opposing it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for the purpose of a colloquy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I pledge to work with the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, this amendment circumvents the established rulemaking process, which solicits public input and uses the best available science to reach a decision. Alaska's aggressive predatory control practices and disregard for science-based management in the approach of the Service would negatively impact the stability of the ecosystems and wildlife throughout the region.
Thirty-one biologists and scientists stated on March 28, 2016, in a letter to Interior Secretary Jewell and Service Director Ash:
The most current and best available science is clear that predator control measures that are intended to restore the herd, such as moose and caribou, are doomed to failure because the herds need to access nutrition. Their main limiting factor is Alaska's intensive management scheme, which is the wrong approach to conserving natural systems.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would mandate that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management include specific areas in the Alaska region of the Outer Continental Shelf in its 2017-2022 lease schedule. This amendment would undermine the Bureau's fundamental mission to manage the development of offshore resources in an environmentally and economically responsible manner.
The 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program was proposed in March of this year, and the public comment only closed a few weeks ago. The Bureau is required by law to consider the environmental impacts of the leasing decision. This includes a comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. It is inappropriate to circumvent this process.
Lease sales should be informed by sound science and by using the best data available. This amendment would violate multiple environmental statutes, including NEPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The amendment undermines the environmental protection that is required by law. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, obviously, we disagree once again.
My concern is that this amendment would mandate the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to include specific areas in the 2017-2022 lease sale schedule and that the Bureau needs to uphold the law. It is required to follow the law and to consider the environmental impacts of leasing decisions. This amendment would also violate, as I pointed out, quite a few statutes: NEPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, most of the 186 active mining operations on the BLM--these are Federal managed lands in Alaska--are placer mining operations.
Between 4 and 800 miles of BLM Federal managed streams have historic or active placer mining impacts, and there is a legacy of historic claims with reduced ecosystem function.
Now, BLM continues various outreach activities, including public meetings and interactions with individual miners, and is working with industry to incorporate best practice management and to use new science-based reclamation techniques to accelerate stream recovery.
I hear what the gentleman is saying about State lands and State recovery. And what the State of Alaska chooses to do with recovery in its own State boundaries is one thing, but these are Federal lands. In the course of reclamation activities, it may be necessary to increase an annual cost to miners to recover these streams and restore the ecosystem function.
The amendment prohibits assessing the cost of reclaiming these areas to placer miners who are profiting from Federal mineral extraction on federally managed lands, BLM lands. So the taxpayers all across this country should not be shouldering the burden of these restoring costs. The responsible party should. So that is why I strongly oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska has convinced me of one thing: I need to go back to Alaska, and I need to spend some time with you there.
I still oppose this amendment. The American taxpayer should not be accepting the burden of restoration costs to make sure that these waterways are reclaimed to how they should be.
I continue to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), we agree that these roads need to be fixed. In fact, Chairman Simpson and I, just sitting on the bus, we did 500 steps. I had one brand of tracking equipment, and he had another. I won't mention the names here.
We are not opposed to fixing these roads, but we just wanted to take an opportunity on this amendment to point out how much has already been cut from the Environmental Protection Agency. They have had $164 million cut. There have been other cuts that have come through. At the same time, Members come to the floor and complain that they haven't done the delisting, and they haven't been out there, and they haven't checked this out, and they haven't done this, and they haven't done that. Well, we need to give them the tools in the toolbox.
We know that this amendment is going to pass. We hope that the schoolchildren arrive to school safely. As a teacher, I want them there every day to be educated, but we really need to figure out a way to fund some of these other projects besides already taking out an already pared-down Environmental Protection Agency.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, just so I can make a comment and share a concern.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. I am from a water State. I am from Minnesota. And I know that sometimes boating becomes an issue where it hasn't been an issue before because of popularity and the number of people coming to an area.
So sometimes our State DNR or sometimes, in our State, it is actually municipalities that oversee some of the waterways, or we have a park board that oversees it. Sometimes we have to go back and we have to reexamine what is going on because of the way that something has just caught on with people coming. And the more people that are in an area in water, whether it is swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, sometimes it becomes that, all of a sudden, this resource where there was plenty of room and opportunity for everybody to do what they wanted to do, now we finding people are on top of each other. And then you add the fact that this is a body of water--and I have pictures up here--where you also have wildlife habitat.
So I hear clearly what you are saying, that it doesn't appear that the people in the area who have recreated in this wildlife refuge felt they were given much advanced notice or much input on in this.
Here is the concern that I have about us taking a vote here on this. I think you raise legitimate concerns. I think we need to make sure that it is addressed. But I don't want to start having every refuge start being managed by Members of Congress.
I think you show that you have a lot of people in support of what you are doing. It is bipartisan in nature. The way that it appears that the Fish and Wildlife Service handled it wasn't in an open process where people either understood what they were doing or could comment on what they are doing. But when we come to the floor here and legislate this, I think it sets kind of a bad precedent.
So the question I have to the gentleman: Do you really feel you need to pass an amendment to legislate this? I am willing to work with you on this. Is there a way that we can get the achieved goal and objective that you are seeking and making sure visitors' safety and recreational use is preserved but preserved in a way that is safe and enjoyable for everyone? A part of this is that there is multiple use with more people coming in a confined area.
I understand your frustration. That is why you are here on the floor. But I am wondering if there is a better way you can accomplish the goal.
I yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, and this is why I think it becomes a little cumbersome. When you have people swimming and fishing and water-skiing all in the same area, there is more and more pressure on it. So I just rose in opposition to have a discussion to understand this issue better.
With that, I withdraw my opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to figure out exactly what this amendment does. So, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to evaluate potential loss or shifts of employment as a result of air pollution regulation. No one is disputing that requirement.
So this would tell the EPA that they are not allowed to spend any funds in the course of not doing any analysis. It is just illogical to prohibit the agency from spending money not to do something, but it is also pointless.
The employment impact analyses are already required under the Clean Air Act. The agency regularly undertakes them as part of rulemaking.
Mr. Chairman, why I look baffled is this amendment is impractical, and it is unnecessary. So it appears to me it is just another attempt to come to the floor and undermine the EPA's efforts to make sure that they are able to do their job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source