Dan Sullivan

We are still getting a ton of veterans weighing in with my office on this issue.

This is about oversight.

It seems like everybody is wrong with the exception of you in this case, and the EPA.

But your own chief counsel thinks that this is likely not going to pass constitutional muster.

So you have the authority as a political appointee to look at your folks not on a judgment call, but just say, hey, general, I know you know more about science than I do, but you are wrong; I am right.

I think we in the Congress need to do a lot more in terms of oversight on this process.

Arbitrary limits within the definition of neighboring are not rooted in science.

Oversight is particularly important when we have a pattern of behavior from certain agencies, like EPA, of consistently issuing rules that completely disregard the limits on their authority imposed by Congress.

This is incredibly, incredibly damming. The Justice Department can't rely on this agency deference when the agency itself is saying it had nothing to do with it.

Congress has the constitutional authority, and indeed obligation, to conduct oversight of the actions of executive branch agencies.

The Corps was not part of any analysis to reach the conclusions described. Therefore, it is inaccurate to reflect that the agencies did this work or that it is reflective of the Corps' experience or expertise.

We all want clean water. My State has the cleanest water probably anyplace in the world, and, to be perfectly frank, it is not because of the EPA.

The Administrator of the EPA essentially said, hey, whether we win or lose in the Supreme Court, it doesn't really matter because those American people who they are supposed to be represented, that we represent, they have to do what we say…

This arrogance and disregard for the law are evident in the WOTUS rule as well.

If you find a species that is threatened or endangered, that should be good news.

Anything you can do to provide more opportunity for the States to play a bigger role in this I would be for.

This is an important bipartisan reform: good for species, good for the economy, and good for the country.

I am in agreement with you on the issue of State involvement.

I am wondering if you have thoughts about that. You know, Director Ashe mentioned, well, that doesn't happen now.

If this is a priority, we have to put resources in it. We have to think of conservation.

We in the West refuse to be a zoo. We have to feed the citizens; they have to have jobs.

I think there could be room in the reform, whether it is Alaska or other States where you are the only State impacted with the Federal Government that you could have some kind of co-designation authority.

The law could allow that if we amended the law.

We can take into consideration national security; we can take into consideration economic impacts or social impacts.

What about the endangered jobs act? What about making sure we take care of employment?