ABQ Times

WASHINGTON—On June 23, U.S. Representative Melanie Stansbury (N.M.-01), once again set the record straight on the role of environmental protection agencies, and whether they’re overstepping their jurisdiction.  

“There's been some misinformation shared this morning, in many different sort of compartments of the conversation,” Rep. Stansbury said. “But when the National Environmental Policy Act was passed by this body in 1969, Chair Mallory, wasn't it partly the intent of Congress to have an entity that sat at sort of the tip of the spear in the federal government that could coordinate across agencies on environmental review and protection?” 

Brenda Mallory, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, agreed. 

“That is entirely the point of why Congress created the Council on Environmental Quality,” Rep. Stansbury continued. “Some of the assertions we heard today about mission creep, expansion of the role, are just actually factually untrue, on the basis of the statute that we passed, that Congress passed on a bipartisan basis.” 

Rep. Stansbury also explained that under every administration, the president is completely within their power to create an advisory board that advises the president on any matter, which means the CEQ is within President Biden’s scope of duties. 

"So, some of those arguments are just untrue,” Rep. Stansbury said. 

Rep. Stansbury’s full remarks as delivered are below. 

Rep. Stansbury: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These hearings are always an interesting adventure.  

I've appreciated the discussion—and Chair Mallory—your intelligent, calm, cool and responsible answers to many of the wild and interesting questions that we've gotten here today.  

But I do feel compelled to just do a little bit of cleanup here on some of the misinformation that we've heard here today. I want to just start with global climate change and energy transition. I heard some statements here today about there's no energy transition happening, that if we just could get China to stop its emissions, then the U.S. wouldn't have to address its emissions.  

I mean, first of all, Chair Mallory, does the United States have jurisdiction over China? 

Chair Mallory: Thank you for the question. Obviously, we don't have jurisdiction over China. But I think that China is an area and the fact that they are dominant in some areas is something that the administration is very focused on.  

And so that we too, as we think about how we shore up our own economy, are focused on putting ourselves in a position so that we can actually, you know, do our own critical minerals here. That's important to the administration. 

Rep. Stansbury: You know, in terms of talking about the overall global climate footprint, and both in terms of emissions, and in terms of reducing emissions, the United States per capita is one of the largest emitters per capita in the entire world. Is that not correct?  

Chair Mallory: That's correct. 

Rep. Stansbury: So, the United States has a fundamental responsibility, especially on the global scale of addressing our emissions across every single sector.  

That is once again, why we pass the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, because it takes each of these emission sectors, sector by sector, and tries to address those emissions.  

Now, in terms of some of the questions about whether or not that is environmentally just, whether or not that has implications for the future of our communities: one thousand percent, of course it does, we're talking about the future of our planet.  

And while I greatly respect every community that depends on resource extraction for their livelihoods, we will not have a planet that is livable if we do not address global climate change for any communities.  

The transition is occurring, it will occur, it will continue to occur over the next decade, over the coming decades. And if we are effective in implementing the policies that this body last Congress passed, with the Inflation Reduction Act, with the policies that the Biden Administration is implementing, with the global leadership that the Biden Administration is working on, in partnership with other sovereign nations including China, including other countries, then we will avert a global climate crisis, and we will have a survivable planet. And I think that's really, at the end of the day what our goal is.  

Secondly, I want to address this issue of mission creep. There's been some misinformation shared this morning, in many different sort of compartments of the conversation. But when the National Environmental Policy Act was passed by this body in 1969, Chair Mallory, wasn't it partly the intent of Congress to have an entity that sat at sort of the tip of the spear in the federal government that could coordinate across agencies on environmental review and protection? 

Chair Mallory: That's correct.  

Rep. Stansbury: So, Mr. Chairman, that is entirely the point of why Congress created the Council on Environmental Quality. Some of the assertions we heard today about mission creep, expansion of the role, are just actually factually untrue, on the basis of the statute that we passed, that Congress passed on a bipartisan basis. 

I also want to note that we do have a separation of powers, and that the president under every administration has the right and authority to create an advisory body within the Executive Office of the President that can advise that President on any matter. It can be statutory, or it can be something that the President creates, because it's part of carrying out their mission. So, some of those arguments are just untrue. 

And finally, with the remainder of my time, I do want to just say, I've heard a lot of unusual arguments today about NEPA. And I think that it's very clear from what happened in the inflation reduction, or excuse me, in the debt ceiling limit negotiations that happened, that there was a very clear intent to hold our country hostage, and to do so over a key few items. 

One: to try to cut federal spending and the spending on our agencies. Two: to gut our environmental laws, and three: to gut our social programs. And there was a very crafty and clever effort to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act.  

I believe that many of the comments here today were intended to set legal traps for the entity that administers the National Environmental Policy Act.  

I just want to say Chair Mallory, I am grateful that you are in that role, you are exactly the right person to be there defending NEPA, and we will continue to fight these efforts to undermine NEPA.  

Thank you. 

Original source can be found here.