Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes three riders that undercut sound implementation of the Endangered Species Act as it pertains to the gray wolf, the greater sage-grouse, and the lesser prairie chicken.

Despite what many of my colleagues assert, the gray wolves are not recovered. Attempts by the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves have failed time and again, and they have failed because the Endangered Species Act requires listing and delisting decisions be based on sound science.

The scientific experts have shown, and courts have confirmed, that the best available science does not justify the removal of all ESA protections for gray wolves at this time. This is true whether you are talking about proposals to delist wolves in the western Great Lakes, Wyoming, or nationwide.

In fact, the only instances in which wolves have been delisted is through unprecedented and unfortunate congressional action in 2011 to remove protections from wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. These wolves are now continually persecuted by hunters and ranchers despite the positive impacts they have had on the ecosystem and the minimal toll they take on livestock.

Gray wolves are incredible animals. Their reintroduction to the Western United States has revitalized Yellowstone, and wolf-related tourism around Yellowstone generates more than $35 million annually for local economies. And, yet, gray wolves occupy only 5 percent of their historic range.

With respect to the lesser prairie chicken, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to great lengths to accommodate development interests and, at the same time, protect the bird. Populations of the bird are declining rapidly, and 80 percent of the short grass prairie it calls home has been plowed, paved, or otherwise destroyed.

The Obama administration is undertaking an unprecedented effort to conserve the bird and its habitat, and, thereby, avoid the need for Endangered Species Act protections.

Federal agencies have worked closely with the States throughout the process of developing science-based strategies to conserve sage-grouse and their habitat. Claims that the States have been frozen out of the process just don't reflect realities. In fact, the 10 resource management plans released by the Interior Department are all based on plans developed by the States, not one-size-fits-all plans, but individual plans to suit each State. Because of these plans, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that listing the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted.

The ESA has been the catalyst for the conservation of many species and landscapes across the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague and cosponsor of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I firmly believe that addressing the causes and consequences of climate change is perhaps the most pressing issue of our time.

Each week, I share the latest scientific facts with my constituents about climate change--its impact on coral reefs, on disease migration, community displacement, species extinction, sea level rise, cloud movement, and so much more.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is no shortage of material to draw upon. Our best scientists are warning us that, unless carbon emissions were dramatically cut, we face severe consequences ecologically and economically, not to mention global instability.

We need to be doing more in this body to address the causes and consequences of climate change. Instead, we have an appropriations bill laden with riders aimed at undermining climate action.

We have section 122, which prevents the Bureau of Land Management from cutting emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas; section 417, prohibiting regulation of carbon dioxide methane as part of Clean Air Act title V permits; section 418, prohibiting establishment of a greenhouse reporting program for manure management; section 436, stripping the executive of its ability to incorporate the social cost of carbon into rulemakings and guidance; and, section 439, prohibiting regulation of oil and gas sector methane emissions under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

Another provision of the bill requires the EPA to make the false assumption that burning biomass is carbon neutral. In reality, in 2012, EPA's scientific advisory board directly challenged the claim that all forest biomass is carbon neutral, explaining that while some type may indeed be carbon neutral, it is not appropriate to assume that all types of forest biomass are carbon neutral.

Numerous studies have underscored that using some types, particularly slow-growing trees, can actually increase atmospheric carbon for many decades. To know what types of biomass are truly low carbon, scientists need to assess them, and EPA deserves to have its scientific judgment uncorrupted by Congress.

With this amendment, I seek to render inert the anticlimate action riders of this bill. Executive Order 13653, titled ``Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change,'' requires Federal agencies to integrate considerations of the challenges posed by climate change effects into their programs, policies, rules, and operations to ensure that they continue to be effective, even as the climate changes.

Executive Order 13693, titled ``Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade,'' requires Federal agencies to carry out a range of actions to improve Federal sustainability. These include tracking and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate resiliency measures, energy conservation and renewable energy targets, green building goals, and other positive steps. Federal agency actions have major impacts on our contributions to global warming.

For that reason, I offer an amendment to ensure that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with the President's 2013 executive order on climate change adaptation and the 2015 executive order on sustainability.

It is the right thing to do to run an effective and efficient government. It is the right to do to return the highest value to the American taxpayer.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment would essentially prohibit geological or geophysical activities in support of oil and gas exploration and development in the Atlantic in fiscal year 2017. Most importantly, this includes seismic airgun blasting.

In March of this year, the Department of the Interior removed the Atlantic Ocean from offshore oil and gas drilling until 2022. However, the administration is still considering permits to conduct seismic airgun blasting for subsea oil and gas deposits. Not only is this unnecessary, because drilling is not permitted, but this exploratory process would cause undue harm to marine resources.

Seismic airgun pulses are loud, repetitive, explosive sounds. The produced sound can travel over enormous distances, due to its low pressure and high amplitude. Because sound travels so efficiently underwater, the noise from a blast can be heard up to 2,500 miles from the source, roughly the distance from Washington, D.C., to Las Vegas.

What these loud, repetitive, explosive sounds ultimately do is harm a range of aquatic species and the communities that rely upon them.

Numerous studies have shown that noise from seismic airgun testing negatively impacts fish. Examples include 40 to 80 percent reduced catches in the Atlantic of cod, haddock, rockfish, herring, sand eel, and blue whiting. Sea turtles and invertebrates have also been found to demonstrate alarm and avoidance responses when exposed to seismic blasts.

The critically endangered North Atlantic right whale species, of which less than 500 remain, use sound to find food, locate mates, and keep track of their young. The area proposed for blasting includes the only known right whale calving grounds in the world. Seismic airgun blasting could displace right whales from their habitats and tip the species toward extinction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. How much time is left, Mr. Chairman?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk just for 1 minute about the community impacts. Along the Atlantic Coast nearly 1.4 million jobs and over $95 billion in gross domestic product rely on healthy ocean ecosystems. In my State of Virginia that is 91,000 jobs and nearly $5 billion in GDP.

The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils have formally updated their policy position to express opposition and serious reservation to seismic airgun blasting.

Our chair kindly says this isn't necessary because the Obama administration has taken the drilling off the table until 2022, but it has not taken seismic airgun off the table, and that research will go on.

I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to put a moratorium on airgun blasting. Oil and gas development should not come at the expense of coastal communities and the marine species on which they rely.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strips the dirty water riders in this bill. These four poison pill riders do not need to be in the bill. Each in its own right is a good example of a bad rider, and together they represent an assault on clean water, an attempt to forcibly supplant Agency expertise with ideology.

The first dirty water rider, section 120, undermines the Interior Department's Stream Protection Rule which updates regulations which would allow coal mining companies to pollute and often extinguish altogether our mountain streams. We need this rule, and it is sufficiently flexible to accommodate regional variability. It is stringent enough to protect the people of Appalachia from the negative health and environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining.

The second dirty water rider, section 425, prohibits the EPA from updating the definition of fill material under the Clean Water Act. It was never congressional intent to allow mining refuse and similar material--some of it hazardous--to qualify as fill material and thereby bypass a more thorough environmental review and meet Federal pollution standards.

Downstream water users have every right to be concerned that the section 404 process fails to protect them from the discharge of hazardous substances. To freeze those definitions in time, as section 425 does, ties the hands of implementing agencies despite evolving scientific understanding and current regulatory insights. Current and future administrations must have the discretion to implement key terms and clarify them when needed.

The third dirty water rider, section 426, requires that certain dredge and fill activities be completely exempted from the permitting process. This is in direct contravention to the text of the Clean Water Act and essentially bars the executive from being able to implement the environmental safeguards contemplated in the act.

The fourth rider, section 427, blocks the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Rule, which restores critical pollution standards to our Nation's small streams and wetlands. At stake is the protection of almost 60 percent of U.S. streams. Headwaters and nonperennial streams supply drinking water to more than 117 million Americans.

American businesses need certainty. They need to know when the Federal Government has authority and when it doesn't. Without updated guidance, businesses will often not know when they need an Army Corps permit. This uncertainty will continue in the light of the recent Supreme Court decision and underscores the need for the Clean Water Rule to clarify the limits of Federal authority.

These riders are a far cry from sensible adjustments to the Clean Water Act. On the contrary, they are just the latest in a seemingly endless effort to undo clean water protections and regulatory clarity. All four of these riders are not only unnecessary, they pose a significant threat to water quality, public health, and fish and wildlife populations.

Just as important is poison pill riders like these that prevent us from doing our jobs and pass appropriations bills that have any chance of passing the Senate, any chance of being signed by our President. I urge my colleagues to oppose these riders and support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I heartily agree with my friend from West Virginia that it is time we stand up for coal miners and their families. It is time we stand up for their health. I don't know West Virginia's health statistics, but I do know those from southwest Virginia. They, unfortunately, have the highest negative health consequences of any counties in Virginia.

The New York Times did a story a few years ago about the 20 counties in America where the death rate was going up. Seven were in the coalfields of southwest Virginia. The incidence of sickness, birth defects, cancer, and all kinds of illnesses are much higher when you look at the streams that have been buried by coal refuse.

Let's look at this. In this so-called war on coal, no administration has put as much money into research on trying to bring coal back--coal gasification and carbon capture sequestration--trying to make coal a vital part of our economy again, without the health consequences and without environmental consequences. This is what we are trying to do.

We cherish these people also. Let's take care of them in a strong way rather than subjecting them to environmental conditions and lifestyles that destroy their lives.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I would just agree with the distinguished chairman of this committee that, yes, we have had debates. It is important that we continue the debates, and ultimately, wisdom will emerge. It is this back-and-forth, hopefully, that gets us to the very best policies and the very best laws.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source