Issue Position: EPA and Environmental Policies

Issue Position

As a life-long Idahoan, I am deeply concerned about protecting our environment to ensure that we continue to have clean air to breathe and water to drink, as well as guaranteeing long-term sustainability of ecosystems, habitats, and species. If we take care of our environment, future generations of Idahoans will be able to enjoy the same benefits that we sometimes take for granted today.
I believe that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an important role to play in protecting public health, but like many Idahoans, I am deeply concerned that, under the Obama Administration, the EPA has drastically expanded its regulatory authority. The EPA is pumping out new regulations every week, without Congress's consent, that impact nearly every facet of Americans' lives--from whom you can hire to remodel your house to what kind of car you can drive. I am concerned that this Administration is using the EPA to force on the American people an extreme environmental agenda that will hurt our economy and push an unwelcomed government further into the lives of citizens.
As a member of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees funding for the EPA, I am working to bring some common sense to our nation's environmental policies. I intend to do oversight that shines some light on how the EPA has been spending the dramatic increases in funding that it has received in recent years and look at whether the regulations and actions coming out of the agencies are appropriate, given the regulatory authority provided by Congress. I strongly believe that government should be responsive to the people, not force on them policies that they don't support.

As Congress considers legislation on a wide range of issues, including changes to our energy policies, efforts to protect our watersheds, or plans to manage our natural resources, I will continue to work to strike the right balance with policies that impact our public lands, environment, economy, and the ability of Idahoans to utilize and enjoy the lands around them.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Many scientists agree that the earth's climate is changing, and these assertions are backed up by land managers who are witnessing changes in plants and animal behavior as the climate shifts. While scientists cannot explain the climate changes of the past few decades without including the effects of elevated greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations resulting from the use of fossil fuels, there is widespread disagreement as to the magnitude of human influence on the climate and the degree to which any effort by humanity to reduce carbon output would slow or reverse the effects of climate change.

I do believe that there is consensus among most policy makers that we must develop clean, alternative fuels in order to curb the amount of GHG emitted into the atmosphere by fossil fuels. To that end, I am a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, a group of Members of Congress who seek to bring together industry representatives, the Administration, and congressional interests to discuss and promote the use, research and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency. I am also a strong advocate for ongoing research and development activities at the Idaho Nuclear Laboratory (INL) concerning alternative energy.

I am concerned, however, regarding efforts to tax carbon output or to layer so many regulations on top of carbon-based energy sources that it they become unfeasible. I don't think this is an answer to the energy crisis facing our nation--not only does it make energy production so expensive that American families will see their energy bills increase to unsustainable rates, but it also forces us to continue depending on foreign sources of energy. Unless growing economies like China and India participate in a cap and trade system to limit GHG emissions, U.S. industries would be unable to compete in the global market under such a system. In addition, I am deeply concerned that the Obama Administration appears to be trying to force Congress into implementing such a system, in spite of its unpopularity with the American people, by implementing its own climate change regulations.

Instead of creating a host of government mandates, I support using technology, incentives, and innovation to move our economy to a sustainable, independent energy source. I believe that to do so we must look at all the options, including renewable energy, nuclear energy, and domestic oil production.

These are real problems, and they must be addressed in a common sense, thoughtful way. I look forward to the debate Congress will continue to have on this issue.

EPA'S REGULATORY OVERREACH

Like many Idahoans, I am deeply concerned that, under the Obama Administration, the EPA has drastically expanded its regulatory authority. The EPA is pumping out new regulations every week, without Congress's consent, that impact nearly every facet of Americans' lives--from whom you can hire to remodel your house to what kind of car you can drive. I am concerned that this Administration is using the EPA to force on the American people an extreme environmental agenda that will hurt our economy and push an unwelcome government further into the lives of citizens.

I believe that the EPA has an important role to play in protecting public health, and over the past four decades our country has made great strides in cleaning up air and water and recognizing the impacts that our actions have on the environment. I am alarmed however, at efforts by the EPA to drastically expand its regulatory authority beyond what Congress intended and implement regulations that will result in little to no health or environmental benefit at a great cost to our economy. I strongly believe that government should be responsive to the people, not force on them policies that they don't support.

During the 114th Congress, I intend to continue my support for efforts to stem the flow of unnecessary or unnecessarily stringent regulations and jump-start economic growth and job creation. This is why, as a member of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, I included language in the FY15 appropriations bill to prevent EPA from using the regulatory process to impose a climate change initiative that Congress has already rejected. This language would allow for continued debate on both the merits of the President's proposals and, frankly, his lack of regard for either the legislative process or the economic impact of his regulatory actions.

If we really want to turn around our debt crisis, we need to get our economy going again. Unfortunately, the EPA is the wet blanket that is preventing companies small and large from investing in their businesses and creating jobs. Proposed regulations are creating vast uncertainty in the market, leaving employers unwilling to risk hiring new employees. I believe that we need to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of government regulation and work to create certainty in the marketplace and assure businesses that it is safe to start hiring people and getting our economy moving again.

Source