Can I get that commitment from you on that?

Can I get a commitment as soon as possible so we can work with you to announce what we are going to do there?

Will the Alaska plan kind of address some of these issues that are directly coming from our vets?

I just wanted to work through first the timeline on the issues in Alaska.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

I wish to say a few words about the bill that we voted on this afternoon and put it into a broader context. This was the bill to begin the vote and debate on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, which passed…

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…

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

This is about oversight.

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.

I think that is a clear aspect of our oversight, she refused to do it.

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

The EPA's interpretation is unreasonable because it would bring about an enormous transformative expansion of the EPA's regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

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

we have to make a determination whether a species is facing an imminent threat, that is, endangered, or whether they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.