Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman so much for his leadership on this issue. WOTUS, waters of the U.S., it has really been talked about for a number of years. This is a classic case of Barack Obama, the administration previous to the…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman so much for his leadership on this issue.
WOTUS, waters of the U.S., it has really been talked about for a number of years. This is a classic case of Barack Obama, the administration previous to the Trump administration, overreaching its authority. This is executive branch takeover, waters of the U.S., saying that we have got what is called navigable waters and using the executive authority to redefine what navigable waters are.
This hurts farmers. This hurts small businesses. The suggestion that just a puddle, a small creek is defined as a navigable water, we know that is simply not the case.
Let me remind folks about the three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judiciary. We have Supreme Court decisions that were putting a stop to the overreach of the Obama administration's WOTUS rule. Thank you to the courts.
We now have an opportunity as the legislative branch. We appreciate the work of the executive branch. We appreciate the fact that Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt and this administration are working to put a stop to it, because the Court said, as we all know, the Obama administration overreached.
Now what we are doing, what this appropriations bill provides is the voice of the legislative branch to say, yes, the prior administration overreached; the executive branch historically needs to be curtailed; the courts were right. We need to speak as the legislative branch giving the authority to stop this onerous rule.
I applaud the work of the Appropriations Committee. We need to put the legislative stamp of approval on what the Trump administration is doing to stop this overregulation.
I thank the chair, and I certainly oppose this proposed amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment.
The fossil Energy Research and Development account actually helps the Nation use the full extent of our resources safely, wisely, and efficiently. I always hear Members say--and I have heard it several times tonight already--that they support an ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy.
Unfortunately, this amendment does just the opposite. It picks energy winners and losers. The level of funding for fossil Energy R&D in this year's bill recognizes the important role fossil energy plays in our Nation's future.
At a time when fossil power generation is actually expanding around the globe, the activities funded in the bill advance our Nation's position as a leader in fossil energy technologies.
I just hosted a conference in my home State of West Virginia on something that is getting a lot of attention lately: rare earth elements.
I want everybody just to think about that phone that they hold in their hand or, if they are watching on TV, that TV in their home.
Guess what. These phones and those TVs have what is called rare earth elements. And you would think by the term ``rare earth,'' it must mean, gosh, they are rare, hard to find.
Guess what. Rare earth elements are found in many places. Amazingly, coal contains an abundant supply of rare earth elements.
This is important to our national security because, currently, China has a monopoly on the rare earth element market. Ninety percent of all rare earth elements that are in every phone and every TV are controlled by China. But we know that coal, through research, can unlock an abundant supply of these critical elements that we need for everyday technology.
So this just isn't about energy production. This is about everyday items that impact our life.
So for our Nation's security and electric grid reliability and use of our domestic fossil fuel resources, investment in fossil R&D is critical. Each of these programs represent a partnership with the private sector that provides an even greater leverage to Federal funds. Therefore, I urge our Members to vote against the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment so we can support fossil energy R&D for our country and for our future.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment.
Let me simply state, while he politely suggests we have agreement, bottom line, his amendment guts the fossil energy R&D. It takes over $300 million out of the fossil research and development, the kinds of research and
development that can generate rare Earth elements and other things that we have talked about, in addition to use for our power generation.
Mr. Chair, I simply oppose this amendment and ask for its rejection.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
By my calculation, this is about the third or fourth amendment from the minority trying to take money out of a very important future- looking initiative, the fossil energy R&D, and redirect it elsewhere. They keep trying to raid this important funding.
I am sitting here with my colleague from West Virginia, who NETL is actually physically in his district. There is no stronger champion of NETL than
the gentleman from West Virginia. This is hundreds of jobs in our State, in his district, but the impact of their work reaches across the country and literally around the world.
I spoke on a previous attack on this funding a moment ago. I defend strongly the work of the fossil energy R&D. And to suggest this is just looking to yesterday is missing the point that I made a moment ago talking about rare earth elements and unlocking the potential that these fossil resources have in so many ways, not just energy production.
So I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for recognizing and supporting fossil energy R&D; and my colleague from West Virginia, who is such a staunch supporter of NETL, and my ability to work with him.
Please, I encourage people to reject the gentleman's amendment.