Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio, for his leadership on this issue.

My amendment is a simple reaction to conversations that I've had with the administrator and others at the EPA and also with the President of the United States.

In questioning the President, I asked:

Mr. President, when you're going forth on your rules and regulations at the EPA, do you consider jobs and economic impact?

He said we should and I say we should, and that is the purpose of my amendment. This requires the EPA to analyze the impact on jobs and economic activity prior to issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, or
prior to implementing any new or substantially altered program under the Clean Water Act.

Earlier this year, the EPA retroactively vetoed a previously approved Clean Water Act permit in West Virginia at the Spruce Mine. This came as quite a surprise, and it was very unprecedented because I don't believe the EPA--if it has, it has been maybe once or twice in its history--has ever retroactively vetoed a permit. It had a very chilling effect not only on jobs but on the economic activity in our State. This action has caused a slow bleed of jobs throughout Appalachia. Reaching back to revoke a permit is particularly concerning because it causes great uncertainty for job creators in our State. This is at a time when we have as a Nation 9.2 percent unemployment.

We need to get people to work.

Why would a company invest in a new project that has been permitted when it would think that there would be a reach-back by the EPA under the Clean Water Act which could revoke this permit? To me, this just chills job creation in our State.

The EPA's ideological war on our energy producers is manifesting itself in other ways in my district and across the country. In the eastern part of West Virginia, the EPA--listen to this--is using aerial surveillance of family farms with the goal of ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act. According to an article in a local newspaper, the EPA is going so far as to regulate the types of sheds that family farmers can have for their cattle operations. Yet, when asked about the economic impact of this kind of regulatory overreach, the EPA's representative made it clear that jobs are irrelevant.

As the Nation faces 9.2 percent unemployment and as hundreds of thousands of jobs hang in limbo, the administration has refused to reconsider this agenda. The negative impact of the regulatory actions upon jobs is obvious. However, the EPA has been unable to give me a straight answer on whether it does or does not consider the negative impact on jobs or economic impact.

So let's put it clearly in the law:

You must consider this to strike that balance between environment and economy.

All this amendment is asking for, quite simply, is transparency. It doesn't mandate what decision has to be made when considering what jobs or economic impact is discovered. It does say that, when jobs and economic impact are negative, the EPA has to go to the local governance authority, whether it's the Governor or the smaller community, and explain this action. So it's transparency. I think it will help further clarify decisions, but it will also help our energy producers figure out how to weave the balance between the economy and the environment.

In closing, I've heard a lot of talk about our collective goal of clean air and clean water. We all share that--and no one more than everyone on the floor who is sitting here today and those of us across the country--but we cannot afford this continued unaccountable, nontransparent assault on our American jobs, so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source