Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Since day one, everything about EPA's waters of the U.S. rule has been flawed. The Obama administration claimed that it was not expanding the waters under their jurisdiction, but we know that more permits will be required.

The Obama administration claimed that the rule was based on sound science but only released to science after publishing the rule. The previous administration changed the name to call this the clean water rule and took to social media to lobby the public, which led to questions about whether the EPA violated law, which the GAO later confirmed.

It was clear the previous administration had an agenda to implement a rule, and they weren't going to be told otherwise. Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit Court put a stay on that rule.

The language of the FY18 bill authorizes the withdrawal of the Waters of the U.S. rule and seeks to bring resolution to the issue. The language in this bill is consistent with the steps the new administration has already taken.

For that and many other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, where I come from, Midland Empire, which is where I have lived my whole life, is part of the South Coast Air Quality Basin, which has been a nonattainment ozone area for about as long as the Federal standard for ozone has existed. But it is not for a lack of trying, as the south coast has a long history--actually the longest history--of implementing some of the most stringent Air Pollution Control measures in the entire United States.

We have done about all we can to reduce emissions from stationary sources. Our issue is the amount of cars and trucks traveling through the region. So you will find no stronger advocate for clean air than myself, which is why this bill funds targeted Air Shed Grant Programs and DERA grants. States and communities need resources to help meet the overlapping 2008 and 2015 air quality standards.

To be clear, the language in the bill does not change ozone standards. It gives communities some administrative relief to allocate more resources to meeting the 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion.
Similar language, by the way, passed the House in July. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I understand the importance of agencies working together to protect our coastal resources for future generations. We must also ensure that such coordination is done carefully with congressional input to ensure that it does not lead to Federal overreach.

When the previous administration created the National Ocean Policy through executive order, the impacts were so broad, so sweeping, that it would have allowed the Federal Government to evaluate everything from agricultural practices, mining, energy production, fishing, and anything else with activities impacting our oceans.

This subcommittee asked the CEQ, DOI, and EPA on a number of occasions to provide estimates of the impact of the policy on their budgets, but the administration failed to work with Congress and provide such information.

How can Congress adequately budget for something without knowing the expected expenditures and implication of the policy? The bottom line is, if the administration wants to fund the National Ocean Policy with such sweeping implications, it must work with Congress to provide relevant information and allow Congress to provide the necessary oversight to prevent that Federal overreach.

I support the language of the underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source