A New Rail Title can transform the transportation paradigm so as to reduce the nation's congestion and carbon footprint while binding area economies.

It is important that we recognize the Federal partnership that exists to allow these commuter rail networks to flourish.

This proposed new rail program is not aspirational; it is the practical next step. Further, it must be bipartisan.

The losers are our families, our local communities and businesses, and our environment that will have to live with the long-term consequences of dirty water.

The Obama rule would reduce the amount by 1.4 billion pounds, 90 percent.

President Trump often says he wants 'clean water,' but, time-after-time, his actions undermine or eliminate existing protections of our waters and put the health of our families and our local economies at risk.

But you are saying some percent. Eight thousand, ten thousand, twelve thousand polluters would no longer be regulated because those permits would just go away.

These are the predicted impacts of their rule. Oh, minimal kind of stuff.

But you people have the gall to try and do all this stuff administratively, dismantle more than half a century of progress.

This is unbelievable. You know, I sat in this committee back during the Gingrich era...

The Trump administration has taken and is taking several misguided, misinformed, and fundamentally flawed actions that will undo the progress we have made.

The EPA itself says we need $270 billion in the next 20 years.

Long before I was in Congress, 1972, an overwhelming bipartisan majority and President Nixon agreed... that we needed to do something about it.

Submitted for the Record

The administration has no legal standing or standards by which they can roll back Washington State's fish consumption rule.

You are going to reverse those efforts that will allow up to 90 percent more pollution by these persistent toxic materials.

Many States, in fact, can't exceed Federal Clean Water Act requirements.

So maybe before you propose anything, you should go out and get some damn data.

So you are proposing to undo protections on intermittent streams, ephemeral streams, and wetlands, and you don't know what the impact of what you are proposing would be.

We are just going to go back to this very confusing time with that as a directive?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for letting me go out of order because of my schedule constraints.

Clearly, the winners of this administration's roll backs are the developers, manufacturers, and corporate farmers that don't want to be responsible for the pollutants they dump into our rivers and streams.

Clean water is a basic human need and human right.

We are no longer doing enforcement.

The administration's next step is to roll back the scope of waters covered by the Act.