OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

Date: July 9, 2013
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Environment

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. CAPITO. I rise today in opposition to the Moran amendment.

Basically, at a May Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee hearing on water, I specifically asked the EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, Nancy Stoner, what specific problems with the current definition of fill material was prompting the agency and the Corps to examine changing their current definition. Administrator Stoner at that time did not identify any problem--this was just recently, in May--with the current definition and instead told me there were no active discussions with the Corps on revising the 2002 definition of fill material.

I do live in an area that this greatly affects. We've got a lot of water in West Virginia, by God's good grace. Given that the EPA official charged with overseeing water problems did not identify any problems with the current definition of fill material in response to a specific question from me, it is difficult for me to see why the EPA and the Corps would attempt to change an established definition.

The current definition of fill material has been in place for over a decade and provides a fair standard for protecting our water while allowing for economic activity. The 2002 definition was the result of a very lengthy rulemaking process that began under President Clinton's administration and was finalized under the Bush administration.

A balance between our economy and the environment is absolutely essential. A balance between protecting our environment and creating jobs is essential. The current definition does just that.

The Federal Government must provide regulatory certainty to job creators and not change definitions without adequate justification. If the administrator had responded differently to the question that I posed to her, I might not be standing here today with this type of opposition. But, in my view, I think that we need to oppose this amendment and keep the current definition of fill material. It's been well researched, well used. It is in effect in the State of West Virginia and is used quite a bit to continue our mining operations and to continue to keep good, solid West Virginians working.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward