Concurrent Resolution On The Budget, Fiscal Year 2016 -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, my amendment aims to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from entering into settlement agreements without seeking approval from State, county, and local governments that would be affected by the settlement.

All too often, rather than writing and implementing environmental regulations in an open, transparent process, environmental regulations are implemented as the result of citizen suits that establish arbitrary timelines that force the agency to rush through the regulatory process. As a result, regulations that affect all sectors of the economy are implemented without following the proper administrative procedures.

It is unfortunate, but legislating by lawsuit has become commonplace as agencies repeatedly miss deadlines and are challenged by citizen suits alleging improper agency action.

A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found that legal mandates do influence an agency's selection of regulatory options. These lawsuits leave inadequate time for agencies to analyze the options available to them. As a result of this shortened timeline, agencies cannot do a proper analysis of proposed regulations. This leads to inadequate time for notice and comment. It keeps the citizens in the dark about economic impacts of significant regulations and does not allow for State and local governments to provide input regarding how these regulations will affect them.

For example, in 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entered into a settlement agreement with environmental groups that will lead to the potential listing of more than 250 species. Millions of acres across the United States will be impacted. Yet no State or local government was allowed to give input into the process.

Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency has entered into settlement agreements on issues such as regional haze, which have no impact on public health but cost billions of dollars in impacted States. While the EPA is willing to talk to radical environmental groups in the settlement process, they did not consult with the impacted States or communities.

A vote for this amendment is a vote to say that we should fix this problem and that we make certain that our State and local governments are given a say in settlement agreements that will have impacts within their borders. A vote against this amendment is a vote against transparency and a vote to give radical environmental groups more say in the process than the States or local governments where the impacts actually occur.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source