Congress should not be funding it. The Executive branch, who created it, should be funding it from what has been allocated to the Executive branch from Congress.

Congress and the Senate approved the EPA in the summer of 1970 , Boebert is lying again!

@@roddneyfett444 Who cares who funds it, it needs to be done!

Kickbacks

Actually is was authorized by congress in 1970 after being proposed by REPUBLICAN president Richard Nixon. Time you took reading lessons

@@micheleholmes9692 Is a rebel a person or persons who acts on known fabricated evidence? To the best of my knowledge, if one wants to know Jesus, he/she could get a head start by going to church.

​@@JackeryThompson-lq8zk its clear you do not know jesus

@@yoitscharms If you think knowing Jesus is admitting defeat, you don't either.

bingo. Stop giving them money

@JackeryThompson-lq8zk never said any of that , but , okay

The House floor isn’t a courtroom. Congressman are legislators not judiciary.

@@33greenleaf true but it sure would be nice to compel a witness to answer the questions as asked.

@@phillipalder9045 I agree

Relying on integrity ended in the 60's at best

lately no one seems to answer CONGRESS QUESTIONS OR SUBPOENAS ID THEY ARE DEMS..

Many of these agencies have gone rogue because the house and senate are derelict in their oversite duty. If congress wanted to fix these problems, they'd refund these

The EPA is tiny compared to other agencies, with a budget of around $6 billion! DHS is around $80 billion, Transportation is $145 Billion, etc...!

The FBI and ATF too and there work is not making rules but enforce the ones approved by congress. God bless America.

@@Zavala-z9g Unfortunately these agencies are so large they are not only legislating but fighting in court against legal legislation.

@@Dan-sc7us The budget of the EPA is indeed smaller than other agencies. However their fees fines and penalties dwarf the other agencies.

They were enforcing regulations which is what they were created (by executive order) and funded (by the congress) to do. Now every decision will have to be made by a judge....lol. Enjoy your lead paint.

Kind of like presidential immunity, huh?

​@@user-ch8su2hv3l Ummm ... sort of. Needs more backstory ... Executive orders is NOT how entire new agencies with ANY regulatory power are created ... officially. CONGRESS does that ... officially. In the case of the EPA, Nixon had created what can best be described as a "quick reaction task force" via Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. He basically threw together 300 to 500 employees into temporary office space, all funded with "re-allocated" (misappropriated) funds from other formally established (by Congress) and funded (by Congress) agencies to expeditiously address growing bipartisan concerns over high-profile environmental disasters occurring at the time, such as the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 and the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. At the same time, he was working with Congress to legitimize and, therefore, fund the EPA. Congress obliged by passing a series of environmental laws that gave the EPA authority and resources to carry out the specified missions. These laws included ... Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (aka, Clean Water Act) Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Strangely enough, NONE of these environmental laws OFFICIALLY established the EPA. It's more like the EPA was "implicitly established" or "congressionally authorized" by these environmental laws. Nixon didn't care at that point because the EPA had what it needed from Congress regarding authority and funding to do what it needed to. There are several other quasi-official agencies formed in a similar manner, which include ... Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) So, Boebert is technically right, but functionally wrong being that no one seems to have made a big issue about it previously. As for SCOTUS scuttling Chevron, judges are already involved in other business affairs now, including bankruptcy and asset recovery. They can easily handle lead paint issues ... though, not quickly. So, I wouldn't be surprised if judges simply delegate certain items back to the EPA on a case-by-case basis. After all, who will stop those judges from doing that other than SCOTUS? ... and SCOTUS has plenty of other much bigger fish to fry.

@@paulm518 You mad bro?

@eddaniels3404-You appear to have missed the ENTIRE point of the SCOTUS ruling that scuttled Chevron. Those "mandates" you are referring to included many that the EPA came up with on its own to align with whichever POTUS was in office at the time. Meaning they were NOT mandates from CONGRESS. Instead, they were mandates from POTUS SCOTUS simply ruled that the EPA is to enforce mandates specified in laws from Congress. Full stop. If Congress doesn't specify a mandate that the EPA (POTUS) thinks should exist, then they need to work with Congress to pass new laws that specify those mandates. Why is any of this so hard to understand?

Initially, there were several laws.passed that were administered under several different executive branch departments: public health, agriculture etc. Congress then authorized the creation of a commission (called something else) Republican President Richard Nixon.brought all of the authorizations under that one roof in 1972. Congress subsequently passed supporting legislation. So the idea that EPA was never authorized by Congress is false.

@@pmclaughlin4111Nixon did it by executive order and gave EPA law enforcement authority, which congress never specified. That's the point she idiotically tried to make. The president invented a law enforcement agency via executive order. And then EPA tried to write new laws for it to enforce. The SC was right to rule against that. Boehbert isn't smart enough to properly articulate the issue.

Few of them are smart...agree

Most federal agencies operate under the authorization of the executive branch.

@@jhansen6180 Constitutionally they are supposed to be established and authorized by congress. The president is simply meant to dictate policies for agencies to approach enforcing the laws made by congress, but agencies' authority is from congress. Seriously, nobody understands the separation of powers.

This is the dirty little secret behind why these agencies were created-to govern and tax ( fees) without going through congress hence without representation.

In December 1970, Congress authorized the creation of a new federal agency to tackle environmental issues, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

​@@randyeilers4061creating it is different than having the power to write laws. Congress has no jurisdiction to part out it's responsibilties.

​@@whatthephuck4588 this is exactly how democracy fails. Because the power we're supposed to have gets delegated out to unelected agencies that are exposed to zero consequences, monetary or otherwise

....same can be said about the ATF.

Arrogance? Authoritation is not even a word ...

Lauren was elected, what are talking about?

​@@KD0AFK33she was grilling the Biden crony that doesn't know where his agency began.

The people can stop the EPA whenever they choose to.

@@markedgette5463 why would we want to?

Exactly, something that dopey Boebert doesn't understand.

​@beastslayer3228 she did understand, that's why she was pushing him, and pointing out that the epa was going to be acting unlawfully now.

​@@frankhubbardiv8711 what you just said not only makes no sense, but if she did "understand" she wouldn't have gotten so many things blatantly wrong in her statements.

@@frankhubbardiv8711 No, that is not what it means. As I wrote, it only means that now when challenged in a lawsuit, an agency can no longer tell a judge that he's not allowed to review the agency's decisions for legality. Before, a court had to give deference to the "experts" at an agency and virtually wasn't allowed to say a rule of theirs is illegal. It kind of gave the executive branch agencies immunity from oversight by the judicial branch, i.e. lawsuits brought against them by the public.

I don't get why Republicans have a hard time reading. Despite overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court emphasized that the ruling does not invalidate prior cases decided under the Chevron framework. The specific holdings of those cases, including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself, remain valid under the principle of stare decisis. They regulations in place will stay in place.

You hate clean air and water too. 😂😂😂

@luvitluvitbaby ya that's what the EPA does.......

@@luvitluvitbaby No fcrazyflood hates the unreasonable directives of the EPA. We can still have clean water and clean air without the draconian administration.

it always is

It is a brick wall.

It seemed to me to be more like a brick wall talking to garden in front of it.

@@johnathansaegal3156 EPA was not approved by Congress. Congress approved the NEPA in 1970. The NEPA is a group of laws dealing with the environment. The agency called the EPA was established by president Nixon as a way to enforce NEPA.

Well at least the Brick Wall got her nails nice and pretty.

And fining diesel performance shops for deleting DEF systems when they never had the legal authority to do so.

Even making us smog our cars and crushing those cars that can't meet imposed standards is now suspect.

And banning 2-stroke dirtbikes .

@@richb.4374 Deleting DEF Systems can be a violation of local laws. Any reputable performance shop would know that and know what laws apply to their area.

Even in her home state, they went after PFI speed who has a huge youtube presence and has been in the industry atleast 15+ years. They were trying to strong arm him and pay huge fines or else. He has spoken about it at length on his channel and at the PRI show

There are a LOT of alphabet agency shuttering.

The rivers were on fire.

​@@kerryholifieldjr6395 where?

Do you want clean drinking water? Safe roads? ...

@@basengelblik5199 yet some places do not have clean drinking water and safe roads? When has that been a thing?

@@AeroGuy07 and have no clean water or air. Great idea!

@ajlsrv5490 so clean air and water didn't exist before government? How did the human race survive without government telling them what to do?

@@AeroGuy07 do you have any idea how bad our air and water pollution were before the EPA?! Ever hear of acid rain? Look it up. People are dumb.

@@ajlsrv5490 Wrong, we can still have clean air and water with the EPA being more reasonable.

@@timotb1 he didn’t call for the EPA to be more reasonable. He called for it to be disbanded.

And the takeaway is that he has quite a bit more than her.

He doesn't get the chance to respond. Forced to listen to this irrational diatribe from LB.

@@zentherewasone Authoritation.

He sounds pretty educated to me. I believe an investigation would reveal not only that, but also that Boebert doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about.

@@Carini76Which one? Authoritarians need some power to become potent and neither of those people qualifies.

Do you understand the Supreme Court’s decision?

​@@earlyriser03do you?

@@saw31489 I do, and it’s not whatever Beetlejuice Bobo is screeching about. Do YOU?

It would be helpful if you would actually try to correct the OP instead of just repeating 'DO YOU?'. From what I have read, the EPA has not lost ANY of their power to execute on the current set of legislation/rules. However, the SC decision has reduced their powers on INTERPRETING ambigious legislation. Thus, the EPA has lost the power to 'define the fine print' in environmental legislation - from now on this power is left to the courts. The EPA has *not* lost all of their power. And arguing for it's complete removal (as Boebert does) is assuming that it does in no way provide any value to US citizens, which I believe is founded in ignorance and/or a desire to appeal to a broader audience.

@@trondsteensns8670 pay attention. The person that replied to me wasn’t the OP.

You be very welcomes!

I lost hope… until coming upon this beautiful little jab. The best part by far being its “obscure” 😉 association with any given ’side’ 😂 Thanks 🙏🏻

If one ever "doubts their intelligence" its for a reason - Id call it deep seeded guilt for believing the nonsense of a Biden regime. Reassure yourself all you want still wont make amends for everyone unconstitutional action against America's republic that the Biden regime has created that has been known by those with actual political intelligence

You're not very bright. This is your wakeup call.

@@CypressItaliansooo… they should be …. Awakened? I think that’s the right word. You know… if they Woke up 😏

You should know what you are talking about before you post. This is a huge problem with social media.

Defund the EPA

In order to make the laws work on a day-to-day level, Congress authorizes certain government agencies - including EPA - to create regulations. Does she really think that Congress has unknowingly been funding the EPA? Just negotiating how much to give them every year while all the while not having to do so? Boebert is an idiot.

@@peterwookie7779 Lauren is all bark no bite

​

So... you can delete this message. the main point of this is that hoebert didnt understand what the ruling was in the first place... The ruling was allowing the courts tp interpret the language that is used in the new legislations, not that they cant make anymore. She had no idea what she was talking about the entire time. Please delete your message, I dont want anymore reason for the dems to not vote republican.

Boebert is a dope. She doesn't understand the recent SCOTUS ruling striking down Chevron deference. It doesn't require that agencies suddenly start "rolling back rules" as Boebert ridiculously interprets it here. It just means that if a rule of an agency like EPA is challenged in court, the judges DO get to decide if it passes legal muster and are no longer bound by the Chevron deference of having to defer to the judgment of the agency on the legality of their own rules.

This is why the 1A and 2A are so important to our liberty.

LOL! You obviously don't understand the ruling, just like Bobo!!

@@Sarah-im3lp It is my understanding They as a regulatory Agency Are no longer able to interpret rules as they see fit under Chevron Deference and Inforce them as if they where law If you think otherwise then please in lighten the rest of us?

DEI

@@ZONEPRESSLLC Yep!

Yep, Didn't Earn It.

You already know… 🤷🏽‍♀️

How do you think?

Because americans let the government rule them without actually holding goverment accountable

They can't now by law. Ignore all epa regulations. They are all unconstitutional.

@@driftitlikeyouownit Same nonsense here in 🇨🇦 pathetic

All of the government alphabet organizations are unconstitutional.

They were, its called the administrative procedure act.

This is D.E.I. working your tax dollars; that dude being hired is a direct result of D.E.I.: DIVISION, EMPOWERMENT, and INDOCTRINATION. This dude must think so highly of himself to argue with a duly elected Congresswoman. He didn't answer her question, he just wanted to argue. He's gotta' go, along with many D.E.I. hires.

For what exactly??

Saying he wont follow law ........

@@user-bo1uk8it7d where did he ever say that exactly?

This is such a silly statement. He did not use the f word. Also, what law would be applied for indicting him for anything? I understand that you do not sympathize with him and/or the work that he is set to do, but I suggest you express that in a different form than suggesting he is breaking the law in his statement for the committee.

Why are we talking about the Supreme Court?

💯 agree

Because he doesn't seem to understand that the court deems the government agency's "rules" ​unconstitutional. Pretty much sounds like he's saying he doesn't care what the SCOTUS, Constitution, and our Representatives in Congress think. @@AngryPirate0

@@thedude8976Supreme Court sounds good to me and all other appointed judges.

@@user-lk2og7rb2o Boebert IS an elected official.

I just googled the EPA and Congress and is was not ratified by the whole of the US Congress. It was an executive order by Nixon, passed in the House and Senate committees but never taken to the floor for a vote. So technically no Congress did not authorize the EPA through law. Committee’s don’t pass laws, they do oversight and recommendations, and are the first congressional set of eyes to see new legislation to see if it viable and constitutional.

In a nutshell, all of the three letter agencies exist so both houses of congress can pass the buck

And it does sound nice and neat like that (and well written by the way)- on paper. I seem to remember some other way of running things that seemed good on paper (unless you studied the humanities), but once out in the real world and after human nature is added to the mix, it goes bad in ways more terrible than ever seen before. In this case, simple laziness is the simple human failing. After congress started deferring some of their duties and power to unelected bureaucrats (“interpreting” laws passed by congress and making “rules”) bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the voters and can only really get fired by their friends and not the people, that is where this whole thing came from, and why it had to be stopped.

Rules that by the way have real legal and financial influences on the American citizenry. i.e. having to abandon the $50k you sunk into a plot of land along with your plans to build your dream home because one pink bellied finch (or some such), which is “endangered” was discovered living on the far corner of the property, and thanks to EPA “rules” (that once again unconstitutionally carry the weight of law) it cannot even be relocated (which is also stupid - animals are adaptable as their world is more real than ours by far). Yeah. BS like that Also don’t get me started on waterways. Makes the finch kind of stuff look like child’s play in comparison with how they (seemingly) maliciously attack citizens for no apparent reasonable reason other than they can. Everybody who has ever built anything knows to run in fear of the EPA and that absolutely should not be the case. They have no fear of the people they ruthlessly and arbitrarily go after because they don’t have to worry about reelection. They are appointed. This is a huge problem, especially if the “rules” they make, near enough as makes no matter, carry the weight of law.

Apparently you didn't read the ruling by scotus it found that for the last 70 years the process you just laid out has been unconstitutional and if Congress wants it to remain as it was it needs to write law laying it out in that manner. The legal authority of these agencies is to record not enforce they are not a law enforcement body or a legislator that determines law any fines they have written were written without legal authority to do so only.

It's obvious you don't understand the Chevron ruling.

​@@s51curtisthe Chevron doctrine was overturned, in other words....the EPA is screwed.

It's obvious that 2 supreme court justices are going to continue to ignore rules about reclusal and corruption

@@saltygenx2743 not just the EPA, you are as well 😀 Have fun eating e-coli lettuce that could have been stopped or drinking water contaminated by big industry

Do you not want clean air and water? You want companies to be able to dump chemical in your back yard?​@saltygenx2743

Committee hearings allowed for enabling legislation to proceed to a floor vote which never happened. No bill creating the EPA was ever passed by either house and as such, no bill could have been signed into law by a president.

@@946towguy2 : Congress enacted the Reorganisation Acts Amendment in 1984 (signed by Reagan), to strengthen the EPA's standing. And the Chevron Deference was the brain child of the Reagan administration as well. It's small-government conservatives that wanted strong agencies, to undermine Laws on Environmental Protection (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.), because trying to repeal them in Congress would have caused a political shitstorm that would have ended their reign.

That’s not true. The EPA was delegated significant authority in the Clean Air Act among others.

@@946towguy2this is false.

​@@jcnash02They still don't have the authority to create laws, or rules. They also can't punish people for rules that they created themselves and ruin their lives.

Yes it does, it is a branch of the DOJ.

@@mikegrant8031 not authorized through legislation

@@seanlee2650so they can’t do anything?

@@jalomba21 They can't make up rules and then enforce them however they see fit, they have to have congressional instruction and authorization for their actions to have legal standing.

@@jalomba21 criminals do whatever they want

You ain't kidding. This is the right response.

You do realize that the EPA did not get all of the 1.2 trillion dollars. If you watched the entire hearing, they broke down the millions of dollars going to help republican districts. So I agree with you. I'm worried about all that money in MAGA republican hands. They are the best grifters I know.

@ggcastill Hey Flash, in case you didn't know, we're farrr past Republicans and Democrats. If you one is more corrupt than the other, you're clearly not paying attention

@@myob3574 honestly I don't even know what DEI is and have never run into it in all my years on earth. Have you been affected by DEI?

Think of all the steak dinners we will never be a part of.

Do you want to elect every government official.

No, people Voted for her. 😂

@@derekcoaker6579 I was talking about the EPA Admin.

@@You_CantHandleTheTruth By definition, bureaucrats are spending US tax payer funds. I take it that you do not appreciate government and/or bureaucrats much, but let us just assume that some of them actually provide some valuable service to the citizens. Some reductions here and there, sure - it is always healthy to look for and remove bloated bureaucracy, but please do not stigmatize all bureaucrats.

Actually the EPA was created by Congress and each year that a Budget Bill is passed that directs funding at any agency is considered lawful and reinforces the Constitutional Authority of Congress to fund agencies within the federal government. Boebert is performing for the MAGA crowd - are you one of them?

@@samanthahatch Not true at all. Nixon signed an executive order establishing the EPA. He wrote a lengthy proposal and sent it to congress who did ratify it but they were not the ones who had authority over it. It is an executive branch bureaucracy not legislative branch.

​@@samanthahatchThe point is, the EPA does not legally have the power to create legislation or regulatory law, which they have done in abundance. All of those actions are unconstitutional. Congress must pass the legislation to create regulatory power. So basically, every regulation that the EPA has created and enforced without a signed bill from Congress is illegal and legally must cease until Congress passes it as law. Only elected representatives, not bureaucracies, are imbued with the capability to create laws.

I Agree. But we cannot stop there. By the time this whole thing is rolled up, I think that we will Shed 50% of govt. jobs.

​@vikinglife6316 so Congress rarified the EPAs formation and that means Congress HASNT authorized the EPA??

Ask yourself, were cars more powerful then or now?? And how much more stinky were they??

@@bikkiikun ask yourself how much better cars would run now without ethanol gas and EPA restrictions on those motors. Diesels are a perfect example of the EPA destroying a very good engine platform with their stupid rules. DEF is the worst thing they could’ve put on the road.

"Bring back steam powered, coal fired railroad locomotives. Like when America was great!"

@@hateforall4012 : They wouldn't be better, because without the pressure to develop more efficient engines, more powerful ones on the bigger end would simply not exist. Without regulations you'd still have engines like the Model T's 2.9L inline-4 producing 20HP in your middle-class sedan. Just look at European engines vs. American ones. The much stricter regulations in Europe lead to small engines being far more powerful than the huge American lumps. Only now, America is catching to power vs. displacement ratios that European makers have achieved 20-30 years ago. And as for Diesel, it may have been a nice idea (in terms of fuel efficiency), but the soot spewed out by them make them far worse offenders than gasoline engines in terms of pollution. Unless of course you sacrifice efficiency in order to clean out the soot. I'm not saying, every regulation is perfect or even good. There are certainly a couple of duesies among them. And enforcement against large corporations vs. enforcement against small business is appalling. Still, we're better off with the EPA, than without it. Maybe you're to young to know how much of a stinker cars used to be. And we still haven't talked about leaded fuel.

@@bikkiikun In order to match China in the upcoming international vehicle trade industry, the USA will likely need to match regulations(Substantially lower them) to enable automakers to produce more competitively priced cars. So there's more to this than "Big Gov VS companies", it's more about "China vs USA".

The ones I have dealt with are on power trips.

DEI

@@davidmontroy3408it must be great to not have to use your brain and just vomit out clichés. Must be peaceful to not be burdened by thoughtfulness.

The Peter Principle

They are.

Political appointments....

the rules are literally created around the template that congress gives them. Thats literally how it works congress tells federal agencies how to operate through legislation

@@kimknowles3681 you don’t get it.

and when a sewage removal company dumps a load of crap (no pun intended) in your back yard, you are of with it right?

The words of a person who's never lived in a 3rd world country and experienced actual pollution.

@@robertterhune4612all the laws are still in place just as before. These 3 letter agencies can still pass laws but it has to be done through congress. They CANNOT just dump shit into your yard. Actually read the ruling if you’re going to argue something from it.

​@@xlZENlx the ruling allows garbage companies to challenge the EPA in court when it says "don't dump garbage in citizens yards. If the judge doesn't care about citizens and they side with the garbage company, then the garbage company will start dumping in citizens yards until congress is forced to intervene, which they won't. Do your research. This ruling has done inestimable damage to America.

They won't. They will threaten and run their mouths, but never do what needs to be done.

make them unemployed heaven knows they cost Americans jobs to make jobs for themselves. and many more agencies. and all bad references.

YEAH ! Let the big corporations pour toxic chemicals into the drinking water and pollute the air we breathe, who cares about the consequences, as long as the rich can make more money, right.

Do you even know what the EPA does?

Hell. yes. We need to return to a better time in our country’s history when we had really poor air quality and dirty waterways.

All of them Standard boilerplate language includes instructions to the executive to execute laws passed by congress (It's also part of the Constitution but most people can't understand the "fancy language")

Yourself being one of them. 🙄

None. That's why the EPA has to do it on your behalf.

Which detailed laws have they passed for anything. I read somewhere the clean waterways act was supposed to clean up the waterways by 1985, but that hasnt happened yet. Can any environmental group now sue to stop any dumping of any harmful chemical into any waterway because itnis in controvention of the clean water act?

She didn't understand 100% of what he said and neither did you.

He was being condescending and Bobert didnt handle it well

He was a diversity hire

He doesnt understand 90% of the English language or simple math.

​@@ksbans1oh, he understands. He's being extremely obtuse.

SCOTUS reversal of Chevron changes everything.

@@greg_austin Executive Branch: experts Judicial Branch: Vacations and gratuities

@@DaTooch_e No legal authority "experts?" Plenty of those "experts" around.

​@@DaTooch_e haven't seen a single expert in any of those agencies in my life. You mean bought and paid for "in house experts"? Like "in-house oversight"? "The government has investigated the government, and the government found the government guilty of no wrongdoing, case closed" 😂😂😂

@@greg_austin : No legal authority?? You might want to check the law. They do have the authority. Oh... and fun fact, the Chevron Deference was the brain child of the Reagan administration. The small-government Republicans wanted a strong agency... well, they wanted it to be strong to undermine environmental standards, without the political shitstorm that a discussion in the open would cause.

What do you mean? Women shouldn’t be allowed in congress?

Congress is going to be busy playing catch-up.

No what it means is that people and companies with a lot of money will be suing the regulatory agencies over EVERYTHING. Like someone else said "The law said yellow. It didn't say school bus yellow." All of our tax money will be going to defend lawsuits. All of which will be raised to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS will be pissed that all of those cases are being raised to them so they won't hear them. So, the appeals courts will be determining the laws of the land and not SCOTUS. They won't have time. In the meantime, pollution will mount, products will fall apart, quality will go down (which will impact trade) and people will wonder why the government isn't fixing things. People will point fingers and it will just get worse. Just so that the rich didn't have to spend money.

@@oldinmassachusetts6251 like the fisherman that had to spend 700 bucks of fucking day, taking out an inspector to inspect every single fish that they catch….. that seems like bullshit to me and that’s an every day Joe that has to work a very difficult job and then gets taxed on top of being taxed on top of being taxed. The people make these rules were not voted in. Let the people that are voted in make the laws. Let the laws prevail, not the rules made by people that are not voted in….. that’s my opinion old person in Massachusetts

@@Chef-vg4pu I agree that paying 700 bucks a day for a local fisherman to inspect the fish is a waste of money. But, the people that make the rules are the ones that were voted in. They just delegated. NOW, every single decision is going to be challenged and will go through multiple levels and SCOTUS will decide. So, let's say that there is a toxic dump discovered in your town. The EPA will not be able to do anything about it for years because their order for it to be cleaned up will be challenged and it will go through the courts. Your issue needs to be raised. Get visibility to show how stupid the regulation is or to find a cheaper more efficient way to deal with it. Media support helps with showing how bureaucracies can be nuts.

The EPA by all indication have been running this rogue/regime/agency by chevron deference for many years! From the banning of cfc and hcfc refrigerants, to the closing of coal fired power plants by moving a decimal point on mercury emissions from parts per million to parts per billion. GET THE EPA off of our backs so we can get back to our business of producing energy and keeping the HVAC/R industries robust.

Yeah, she could've attended civics lessons, learn about the basics of government, you know... how Congress works and whatnot. And how the EPA was established by her own party (Nixon), and how her own party increased the power of the EPA (Reagan).

I was thinking the same thing.

Rhetorically she seemed out of her depth, but her logic circuits are fully intact...

@@dcstrng1 : Considering there is some logic, if you feed it non-sense conclusions will be non-sensical as well.

That's an understatement on par with "Wow, that atomic bomb kinda had a little oops. Sorry, Nagasaki".

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was one of the first laws ever written that establishes the broad national framework for protecting our environment. Learn to read and stop listening to BoBo...

@@adamreynolds1851 the EPA has been to court hundreds of times

@@gregorymilla9213bot since Chevron

@@BobM.-to9jiBut yet they can’t make additional regulations above what Congress approved by law. It’s not a blanket, do whatever they want to do.

@@BobM.-to9jiNo it is a illegitimate rules being created by illegitimate agencies to purposely impoverish the people under government tyranny and control.

Yep. Just theater to make people feel like someone is looking out for them.

@@johnfrederick6640 nothing ever does get done when the premise of getting something done is nonsense.

They are not laws, they are rules and regulations(As to execute the laws passed by congress), and congress had oversight over them. They could have at any moment change the law, or restrict the regulation broadness, they did not, thus showing approval of it. (Doubly so by keeping funding all those agencies). They do NOT make laws.

make them unemployed heaven knows they cost Americans jobs to make jobs for themselves.

remove the epa, the nea and a ton more of the agencies within our gooberment.

You believe the 'performance' of this woman? Are you hearing the content?

Right!....more lead in the water is what we need! Wait...isn't that how we ended up with Boebert?

@@tommas2674 so they cost American jobs by creating American jobs? ROFL.

You absolutely nailed it. Spot on!

Oh geez. Try to understand what you are talking about before you post. Empty heads here.

As our friend from Argentina would say: "EPA - afuera! OSHA - afuera! ATF - afuera! FBI - afuera! etc."

Yes, but also note that the legislative branch is also NOT AUTHORIZED to do any of that shit in the first place either. Article 1 is very clear and specific about what laws and crimes Congress has any authority over, and there are only 3 crimes : Counterfeiting, piracy, and Treason. That's it. Nothing else. Anything besides those three things is OUTSIDE of the authority of the Federal Government and is reserved to the PEOPLE. I don't know why we tolerate this - 95% of the federal govt should not even exist.

Someone understands half the issue.

@@TheDreamOfATree ignorance!

​@Johnbrown-politics.. the dream of a free thinking independent American with common sense fool.

Do you realize how many of them are keeping you safe right now? Very ignorant. Stop being so extreme in your comments, you are contributing to the problem of people going way too far left/right when you do so.

NRA, as well? Yep

Why?

Loves to talk about support first responders and the military but wants to cut their funding. 😂

@@Odin4President taxes don't pay that. Taxes only paid medicare and interest on money borrowed. The money borrowed pays first responders and military

Taxes are just legalized theft. Did you know that the US Code never defines income? How can you tax something you won't even , or cannot, define?

like trump?

Yeah how does that look in Africa and South America.

A month ago trump got the oil companies together and said... give me a billion dollars and you can do what ever you want. I think the EPA would make safer regulations than a president that only cares about his own pocket instead of what's good for the country. Trump will take money from anyone and could care less about what it would do to us or our country. The superme court just gave him that right and we can't even investigate him. Talk about legalizing corruption.

You're not quite right. The EPA is an accumulation of several agencies, that existed before under several Departments (eg. pollution control and pesticide programs), with the primary predecessor being the Environmental Health divisions of the US Public health service. And it derived its regulatory authority from several laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Conrol Act, etc. And when the EPA's legality was in question, Congress responded by enacting the Reorganisation Acts Amendment from 1984 (signed by Pres. Reagan), to strengthen the EPA's standing. And fun fact: the Chevron Deference was the brain child of the Reagan administration as well. It's small-government conservatives that wanted strong agencies, to undermine Laws on Environmental Protection (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.), because trying to repeal them in Congress would have caused a political shitstorm that would have ended their reign. People then still remembered stinking cars and factories and the resulting lung diseases, or factories legally poisoning water ways and soil.

@@bikkiikun thanks for providing this. My research time for this is minimal, but I'd be pleased to see someone quote those acts of legislation you have with exact "chapter and verse" showing where or not authority was or wasn't granted. I think she must be wrong to make such a bold statement, but your post suggests less clarity, and stating there was this 1984 act to me makes it less clear.

@@mrwayneright : I suggest the Wikipedia Articles on the EPA and the Reorganisation Plan No.3 of 1970 as starting point, from there you'll find links to the actual laws. If you want to dig deeper, I suggest Title 5 of the United States Code. There you'll find the rules on how government agencies work. How they are created, what they can and cannot do and congressional oversight. And yes, that's a lot of reading... not something that the Twitter faction of the NSDA... Republican party is capable of. Nor something they'd even want to do.

@@mrwayneright even though the EPA was federalized by an EO, it was ratified by congress and continued to be proven with funds provided by congress. Ms. GED doesnt understand basic civil procedures (basically, shes just lying to the public who works too much to actually look up what shes saying)

Right on ! 👍👍👍👍

Nothing has changed for these agencies except that violators now get to have their disputes handled by the courts.

@@eddie10191 the EPA was authorized by Congress on Dec. 2 1970. Lauren isn’t proposing any funding cut now is she ? The right wing crowd is the only ones getting their chain jerked

He admitted they don't care... nothing will change

@@ksmith1298 nothing will change because the EPA is adhering to the Supreme Court decision. Lauren Boebert took four tries to pass the GED at age 34 and it shows .

This isn't the 1970's anymore, either......

What we need is anarchy. Like the movie Purge. The gov't won't help us, they actually think corporations will lol.

No need for clean air and clean water?

Why? Because Boebert is stupid?

​@@DaTooch_e 😂 EPA has had little to do with "clean air or clean water". They are not heroes. Get smart.

@@iamreadytoroam8903 No. Because they have turned into a corrupt rogue government agency and they are not working for the goals and good of Americans

​@@soakupthesunmanyeah, and when the cuyahoga river was On fire....... they had nothing to do with putting a stop to that pollution with their policies and rules forcing an end to that, or at least a major curbing of it.

You are talking about Orange Marmalade not being punished, correct!

@@richw2punished for what exactly??

@@glockdude5472 For starters, the 34 felonies he was just convicted of. Although he probably won't spend a day in jail, but being rich and powerful can do that for you.

How do they enforce those laws without regulatory agencies?

@@tobiasfunke2011 Agencies are created by Congress. Regulations are not laws, but are executive opinion on how an act of congress should be interpreted by executive employees. Regulations have no actual substance to citizens.

@@946towguy2 : Agencies are created by the Executive (they are part of the executive, afterall) and funded by Congress. And while regulations are not laws, they DO have actual substance to citizens. Congress provides the basic laws that ask for and enable the creation of regulations. The Laws set the rough framework, regulations go into detail.

@@946towguy2 Ok, then go ahead and ignore all the agency regulations if the have no "actual substance" and let me know how that works out for you. I think they'll let you get on the internet occasionally in jail. And the EPA was absolutely not created by Congress. It was created by Nixon and then approved by Congress

@@946towguy2 Regulations have nothing but substance to citizens. Regulations are how agencies interpret the laws Congress makes.

The epa was creating laws without congress, and enforcing them on people & companies. The crossing she references deemed that practice unconstitutional.

Though now I'm thinking you were mocking him, and his posing dumb.

She's so clueless.

Yep and so are you​@@TheDivegeek

@@frankhubbardiv8711 Much like the ATF and its attempt at lawmaking on bump-stocks and braces. They never had the power to make those rulings in the first place and kept overstepping their boundaries. More so that they were created by Nixon but were independent so all 3 branches kinda looking in their direction like "who gave you your job cause you lookin' real unfamiliar, now".

After the Roe v Wade decision was toppled,this rebuke of the Chevron 'doctrine' will go down in histoy as one of the Most Consequential Supreme Court rulings!!

Yeah what does it mean now?

​@@jalomba21 it means the judicial branch will interpret laws instead of the executive branch

@@jalomba21 I guess we sit and wait, I'm not sure how this will end

​@@terrypierce8815probably badly

Only enforce what is legally authorized by Congress. Executive orders are not laws! We don't live in a dictatorship!

@@AZLorie-kl5ow why?

Imagine subtracting more funds from an agency already has 20% of their budget cut. I urge you to do a little research before asking to defund an agency that literally ensures your state and country doesn’t do things such as mix waste water with drinking water

@bcba_lace4916 If they did their job, it would be okay; but when they, unelected bureaucrats, use their positions to bankrupt farmers, 20% is the least they need to be cut!

@@AZLorie-kl5ow If farmers are polluting the environment and putting other's health at risk, they should be held accountable.

@KD0AFK33 Unfortunately, it's just to get control of the land and has nothing to do with the environment. Sheeple think that their government always has their best interest in mind. We can't even vote these people out of their positions!

Just another Republican owned news media organization..

Hi. I am one of the offscreen people who's job it is to transcribe the whole conversation verbatim. Can you please elaborate on which part that would be, because I seemed to have missed it.

Not even remotely accurate.

20 bucks says you've never voted for a republican in your life.

@@powerguymark Correct. Boebert's understanding of the EPA and the SC ruling was not remotely accurate.

Because they um, polluted your neighborhood. You ok with your local auto shop putting oil and gas and fluids into groundwater? Welcome to China and Russia. Do you know what life, nature, big cities, was like before 1970?

Yeah, because who wants clean air and water? Let's go back to the days when rivers caught fire due to corporations dumping chemicals in them. DERP

Start with your state as each state has a EPA and/or DNR department that does the EXACT same thing. Good luck with that.

@@rickyricardo976 Russian or Chinese troll 👿 bot 🤖 hoping we will end up like them with a destroyed environment; or like USA was before 1970s where rivers literally caught fire. Ever heard of the love Canal? The river in downtown Portland is super fun clean up? And many other cities that are super fun sites. There was a place in Montana that mind something and they knew that there was asbestos also and didn’t say anything to the town, and most of the workers and half the town have cancer. That’s what happens when there’s no EPA and also when people even break the rules and laws set forth by the EPA.