Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars, and I certainly support her in all of the endeavors that she has done over the years to do that. But this is not the type of approach that I can support. I certainly like the idea of challenging the agencies, and I believe that the agencies are going to meet that challenge to cut spending in a responsible way.

This bill has made some very tough choices, within a subcommittee allocation, that adheres to the current law. The Budget Committee asked us to meet certain budget caps, and we have done so in this bill, while asking that we increase spending for our national security, which is in woeful shape.

So we had to make some very difficult tradeoffs. This bill, in its current form, balances our needs, those tradeoffs carefully weighed for their respectful impacts. We prioritize funding for fire suppression, PILT, national parks--maybe the most popular agency in the United States Government--and meeting our legal and moral obligations in Indian Country.

Unfortunately, the process that the gentlewoman proposes--an across- the-board cut--would cut all those programs, including Indian health, national park programs, and other programs, which already are taking significant cuts.

This amendment makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to invest in, say, energy independence, or to limit spending to meet our deficit controls.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, but I certainly support the fact that we are trying to get our budgets in line.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I understand, and I have taken a lot of criticism over the last few years for cutting EPA's budget by 27 percent over the last number of years. However, I believe this amendment is just going too far.
We have a new administration. We have a new Administrator. I think there is a new day over at EPA. None of us want to see our rivers polluted, toxic waste either on the ground or in the air, and I think this administration will administer the law properly.

We may not always agree on where it is appropriate to draw the line on environmental laws and regulations. Some think some standards are too stringent, some think they are not tough enough, and that is a fair policy debate to have. However, we know that no matter where the line is ultimately drawn, there are individuals out there who are willingly and knowingly trying to find ways around those laws. As such, EPA needs the ability to look into criminal activity, whether it is illegal dumping of waste, negligent dumping of toxics or oil, or the illegal importation of products from other countries by those who would choose to ignore United States law.
So we can debate the law and what is appropriate, but we can't give criminals a free pass or ignore the laws that are on the books. Mr. Chair, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I encourage a ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source