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

Statement

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Chair, as I noted in our full committee markup in July, there are no regional closures proposed in this legislation; therefore, it is an unnecessary amendment. This topic was discussed at our EPA hearing in June. Administrator Pruitt called rumors about regional closures ``pure legend.''

Further, it costs money to close regional offices and move staff, and funding has not been requested to do so.

In addition, the closure of regional offices is something the administration would need to propose and go through the deliberative process here in Congress. It would require a multiyear effort.
As a wise man within the administration once said, ``we can close any
lab or Federal building that is not located in Washington, D.C., or in a congressional district.''
As the fiscal year 2018 process has already demonstrated, while the President may propose changes, Congress has the final say in funding decisions.

In addition, this amendment would have unintended consequences as agencies review their footprints and propose ways to reduce their rent, security, utility costs, and operate more efficiently. All executive branch agencies are required to submit plans to the President on ways to operate more efficiently. We need to see these plans before jumping to any conclusions. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Chair, I would like to remind the gentleman, with this bill, we have cut EPA almost 30 percent since 2010.

While we have expressed a number of frustrations with EPA's overreach over the last few years, and even here today, I cannot support an amendment with cuts of this magnitude which put important programs at risk. An across-the-board cut of this magnitude would reduce priorities like the geographic programs, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and others, State recovering loan funds, the 28 national estuary programs, several State grants like radon, lead, and beach protection, just to name a few.

These are programs proposed for elimination in the President's budget that Members on both sides of the aisle requested funding in this bill. In fact, I had 5,200 requests.

The amendment would also significantly reduce funding for the Superfund program. The proposed budget would propose to reduce the program by 31 percent, which would impact new cleanups and slow ongoing cleanups.

The President's budget also proposed to reduce the State categorical grants by 44 percent and cut the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants by 83 percent, which are essential to air quality in my home State of California.
States need resources to best serve our constituents back home; therefore, I think this amendment just goes too far. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source