It has been suggested that President Barack Obama’s motivation during his final months in office was to solidify his legacy. He certainly did that, in a variety of truly upsetting ways ranging from releasing a traitor from prison early to accelerating unnecessary environmental initiatives.
Some of Obama’s legacy has been solidified. His presidential commutations of criminals’ sentences cannot be reversed.
But some of the damage the former president attempted to do can be prevented. U.S. Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va.; U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.; and U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., are at the forefront of a move to kill one of the most potentially harmful actions.
It is the so-called Stream Protection Rule, which Obama declared ready to go during the last few weeks of his stay in the White House.
Environmental Protection Agency officials see the SPR as part of their suite of initiatives aimed at destroying the coal industry and depriving millions of families of affordable electricity generated from that fuel.
As critics of the SPR have pointed out, it is not needed to safeguard water quality. Its draconian stipulations would make it impossible to mine as much as 85 percent of the nation’s coal reserves.
That would force layoffs of thousands of coal miners — in addition to the thousands who already have lost their jobs because of Obama’s war on coal.
McKinley, R-W.Va., is leading a campaign to force the EPA to drop the SPR. That would be accomplished through passage by the House of Representatives and Senate of resolutions of disapproval. Under the Congressional Review Act, such action forces federal agencies to abandon implementation of certain rules.
So objectionable is the SPR that McKinley assembled a coalition to fight it quickly, with U.S. Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, co-sponsoring the proposed resolution. In the Senate, both Capito and Manchin have introduced resolutions on the issue.
Lawmakers have much on their plates, in part because we have a new president, Donald Trump. But stopping the EPA should be a priority for action. Saying no to the Stream Protection Rule would be a good start.
See the article here.
- On February 1, 2017