Matt Gaetz on Environment

Introduced bill to abolish the EPA

In fact, more than half of the Republicans on the caucus earned less than 10 percent (Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who once proposed a bill to abolish the EPA, is among them with 6 percent).

[The Climate Solutions Caucus's] critics charge the caucus has expanded its size at the expense of its credibility, providing Republicans who have been actively hostile to government programs a low-stakes opportunity to "greenwash" their climate credentials without backing meaningful action--just in time for midterm elections.

Introduced legislation to abolish the EPA

So why have they enlisted? The evidence suggests that most of the Republicans who populate this group hold imperiled seats in competitive or swing districts.

A case in point, some say, is Rep. Gaetz, who once introduced legislation to abolish the EPA. "The supposed Climate Solutions Caucus is welcome to add any member they'd like--even climate deniers who propose legislation to terminate the EPA," said a Sierra Club's spokeman. "But, until the silent half of the caucus backs up the name of the caucus with actual votes for clean energy solutions and against the fossil fuel industry, being a member will be nothing more than a line on representatives' resumes."

Environmental regulations are job-killing overreach

Loosen restrictions on predator control in Alaska.

Library of Congress Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on Aug. 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

Case for voting YES by House Republican Policy Committee: The Fish and Wildlife Service rule--which lays claim to more than 20% of Alaska--violates ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act) and the Alaska Statehood Compact. Not only does [the existing 2016 rule] undermine Alaska's ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.

Case for voting NO by the Sierra Club (April 6, 2017):

• President Trump signed H.J. Res. 69, overturning the rule that banned "predator control" on federal wildlife refuges in Alaska unless "based on sound science in response to a conservation concern."
• Any rule mentioning "sound science" is in trouble under a Trump administration.
• So what kinds of practices will the Trump administration now allow on our federal wildlife refuges? Activities that include shooting or trapping wolves while in their dens with pups, or hunting for grizzly bears from airplanes.
• It's all about ensuring a maximum yield of prey species like elk, moose, and caribou for the real apex predator: humans. So if having more elk requires killing wolf pups in their dens, then so be it.
• The Obama administration's rule (which Trump revoked) never tried to stop all hunting. Subsistence hunting was still allowed. What's changed is that the predators on federal wildlife refuges are now under the control of the state of Alaska. And that makes them prey.