Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2018, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Utah on the occasion of his birthday and convey my warm birthday wishes to the gentleman from Utah.
Despite it being his birthday, however, I have to disagree with much of what he said regarding the rule and the bill. I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill.
This is an important debate that our country has had for generations with regard to State sovereignty and the role of the Federal Government. It is an ongoing discussion since the revolutionary discussions of Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton. And as the pendulum of popular discourse swings back and forth on this fundamental issue, our country has concluded without a doubt that at the very least there are certain decisions that affect the whole country and interstate commerce that cannot be made unilaterally by different States.
That is true for civil rights with regard to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. It is true for immigration, which can only be addressed at a national level, and it is undoubtedly also true, as I will describe, for the protection of our environment and public health. Responsibility is fundamentally an American value, taking responsibility for your own actions.
But, Mr. Speaker, cancer clusters, polluted air and polluted water don't know State boundaries. The Cuyahoga on its way to Lake Erie literally caught on fire from overpollution when the Clean Water Act was written. It wouldn't stop burning simply because of a State borderline. Spilled oil in Montana's Yellowstone River won't stop at the border of North Dakota as it joins the Missouri River and makes its way down to the mighty Mississippi. Maintaining the Federal Government's basic safety net, the Clean Water Act, ensures that each State meets the basic safety standards in their own way, giving them flexibility; but it is a critical application of Federal authority with regard to interstate commerce and interstate activities.
The interstate nature of polluted air, polluted water and the devastating effects that pollution has on all of our health, as well as our economy and jobs with regard to recreational opportunities, demonstrates clearly that it is an issue that should be confronted by all of our States together in the United States of America here at the seat of the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, let's not fool ourselves. The bill before us today isn't just about the role of the Federal Government. The bill isn't just a push for State sovereignty. Rather, this bill is satisfying two very niche special interests at the cost of the American public. This bill is designed to benefit mountaintop coal mining companies and large factory farms.
H.R. 2018 would restrict EPA's ability to revise an existing water quality standard or promulgate a new one, unless the State concurs, effectively giving veto power to each State. It would prohibit EPA from rejecting a water quality certification granted by a State. It would prohibit EPA from withdrawing approval of a State or from limiting Federal financial assistance for the State program if a State is out of compliance with water quality standards.
Mr. Speaker, mountaintop coal mining deserves a legitimate debate here in this body, and perhaps the gentleman from Utah and I might agree on some parts of that and disagree on others. That debate needs to carefully examine the arguments of jobs in the coal industry, energy independence versus environmental and public health concerns, also legitimate concerns; but that debate shouldn't be held under the guise of State control or under the guise of water pollution permits. This is a backdoor handout for a few destructive companies. It is not something that should be discussed under the concept of federalism.
I, for one, think that oversight of mountaintop mining is critical; and, again, I am happy to have that discussion. Continued handouts to the coal industry keep us addicted to a dirty source of energy when more jobs and a better standard of living and true energy independence are possible today through clean energy born of American innovation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, recent peer-reviewed scientific studies suggest that mountaintop mining is associated with higher cancer risk and elevated birth defect rates and many other health problems in Appalachian coal mining communities. Rates of cancer and birth defects are much higher, and with direct links to mountaintop mining practices, than the national average and even higher than in areas with traditional coal mining. Is this really what the rest of us are being asked to subsidize at the cost of our own States and our health?
If we want to debate mountaintop mining, let's do it--and there are pros and cons, legitimate issues and stalking horses as well--but we don't want to hurt the rest of the States in that process. This bill throws into question a balance between State and Federal authority that has served the American people well for 30 years. Why should the rest of us, once again, pay the price for a gain of a few coal mining companies or of a few factory farms when most Americans would prefer that we protect the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades?
Oklahoma continues to battle Arkansas over water pollution from poultry farms, which starts in Arkansas and flows into Oklahoma. Why are we voting on a bill that would let Arkansas decide the fate of Oklahoma's waters?
Why should a community in Tennessee, whose economy is booming thanks to white water rafting and the growth of the outdoor recreation industry, live and die by the decisions of a North Carolina mining company?
Are we really going to vote for the ability of Pennsylvania to decide the fate of New York, Maryland and West Virginia rivers when Pennsylvania has decided that fracking with chemicals should be done without meaningful oversight?
I will be interested to see how these pronounced downstream States vote on these measures, and it will be interesting to see the outcome of this bill and how anybody who supports it from the downstream States can possibly justify the votes to their constituents, who are on the receiving end of interstate pollution.
H.R. 2018 would undermine the Federal Government's ability to ensure that States effectively implement or make necessary improvements to their water quality standards. If States fail to adhere to their own existing water quality standards, the bill would prohibit the EPA from insisting that States make the improvements that are necessary.
Regarding dredge-and-fill projects, H.R. 2018 would stymie the EPA's ability to stop discharges that have unacceptable adverse effects on municipal water supplies. Now, although this veto authority has only been used 13 times in the past 38 years, it is a critical tool that safeguards against the most destructive and health-threatening proposes.
Americans expect and rely on clean water and clean air that we breathe and drink every day. The Nation's lakes, rivers, bays, wetlands, and streams are vital to our health and vital to our economy. From the Chesapeake Bay to the Great Lakes to the Florida Everglades, all of these waterways and beaches are of interest and value and importance to our entire country. They need to be clean enough to swim and drink and fish from. Americans should have safe, clean water to drink.
H.R. 2018 would remove the EPA's ability to protect communities from unacceptable adverse effects for our Nation's waters and public health. Before the Clean Water Act, there wasn't an effective Federal safety net to ensure the health of our waters, but since the passage of the Clean Water Act, we have made great strides in restoring our waterways. This bill threatens to move that back.
Our current waterways are critical for our economy in my home State of Colorado and across the country. Waterways sustain the activities of 40 million anglers and sportsmen, who spend about $45 billion a year, and of about 2.3 million people who spend over $1 billion a year hunting, as well as the multibillion dollar commercial fishing industry.
Again, we have a national interest as to these issues, and it should not be, consistent with the American value of responsibility, within the ability of any one particular State to damage the economy and health of people in another State.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, from a purely self-interested perspective as a Coloradan--and perhaps we have very little to lose as we're a headwaters State--snow that falls in my district on the continental divide will either end up in the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers, flowing toward the Gulf of Mexico, or will end up in the Colorado River, supplying my friend from Utah's State as well as Arizona, Nevada and California. The continental divide runs right through my district in the State of Colorado. If Colorado, for example, opened its doors to unregulated uranium mining, it's Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and California which would have to pay that price.
Regardless of self-interest, clean water is an interstate issue that deserves an interstate solution. I can't think of anything that better fits the description of interstate commerce, which is enshrined in our Constitution, itself. Truly, how we deal with our interstate waterways is at the very base of interstate commerce.
Safe drinking water is critical to economic growth, to the survival of all communities nationally and to all people in the entire world. While States appropriately have led the role in implementing clean water safeguards, the law does not function effectively without a backstop and a floor provided by the Federal Government which ensures that people have clean water and safe drinking water regardless of the State in which they live.
Mr. Speaker, you've heard today the call from the right of Federal overreach, of an out-of-control EPA and that kind of rhetoric. Again, these are valid discussions about the degree of regulation from the EPA, how to deal with mountaintop coal mining--all important policy discussions--but they're simply avoided and punted in the wrong way by saying that these aren't legitimate interstate issues that have their nexuses here at the Federal level.
This bill is truly about a handout to special interests. A vote for this bill is a vote for a few well-lobbied companies and a vote against the health and environment of downstream States and downstream residents, which, as I noted above, include just about every person in the country. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source