Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, the gentleman's agreement is an extraneous amendment that puts the same parameters on attorneys' fees under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that are already in place for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. In other words, the attorneys' fees are already set for this. The Equal Access to Justice Act caps the hourly rate and requires that the parties be the prevailing party--so the fees are capped.
Maybe the gentleman is not aware that the Equal Access to Justice Act, as I said, caps the hourly rate for attorneys' fees unless the court--this is up to the court--unless the court determines an increase in the cost of living--a special factor, such as limited availability for a qualified attorney for the proceedings involved--justifies a higher fee. So the court would look at this very, very carefully, take everything into account, and then only when the court would see a need to make sure that we have paid an attorney fairly for their time.
So the gentleman's amendment is already codified and is not needed.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, once again, I rise to object to this.
The Equal Access to Justice Act already caps the hourly rate--it already caps it--and requires that the parties be paid a prevailing wage.
Madam Chair, I believe we do not need this redundant provision to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders.
Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to reject the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment would block the EPA from regulating methane emissions from sources in the oil and gas sector.
Late last night, we had a discussion about whether or not methane from flare-ups should be captured and saved as energy and used as energy. Although this amendment is different, I think it begs the question as to why we aren't making sure that we are capturing every ounce of energy that is produced in this country and reusing it.
But back to the gentleman's amendment today.
Methane, I want to point out, is a primary component of natural gas. It is a potent greenhouse gas, with global warming potential more than 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.
In 2013, nearly one-third of methane emissions in the United States came from oil and gas production, producing transmission and distribution. There is no doubt at all that methane contributes to the increased levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, which contribute to the long-lasting changes in our climate, such as rising global temperatures, sea level change, in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in the ecosystem's habits and species diversity.
But more important, I think public health is at risk, including more heat waves and drought. That means worsening smog, increasing intensity of extreme weather like we are seeing again this weekend, increasing
the range of ticks and mosquitos, which can spread disease, such as Lyme, West Nile virus, and Zika.
Madam Chair, I would just ask the majority to stop this assault on the environment and let us work together not only to capture all the energy possible, but work together to reduce the climate change that our planet and the United States, this weekend, is experiencing.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, once again, I would like to point out that the rule will prevent the waste of an estimated 65 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year and save the taxpayers $330 million annually, and that is energy that could be put to work here in the United States.
The public health risks, including more heat waves and drought, as I talked about, the climate change, the health and welfare of our current and future generations must be taken into account. We must take action; we must do something about this.
This is a step backwards to adopt this amendment, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to work to protect our planet.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, this amendment is a harmful rider. It has no place on an appropriation bill. This is a big policy discussion that we are talking about that impacts every man, woman, and child here in the United States, and, I might add, I believe, around the world, the amendment that would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of carbon as part of its rulemaking.
The social cost of carbon is an estimate of economic damages associated with small increases of carbon dioxide in emissions in a given year, and it does represent the best scientific information available for incorporating the impacts of carbon pollution into regulatory analysis.
Weakening or eliminating the use of the social cost of carbon as a tool for Federal agencies would ignore the sobering costs of health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts.
Madam Chair, last night we had many amendments reducing the ability of the EPA to take into account the public health. I believe we have a responsibility to make sure that we are not only the watchdogs and stewards for making sure that our public lands are used in appropriate and effective ways, but we also have a responsibility to use science to make sure that we are doing our due diligence to protect the health of the American people.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time until closing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, once again, I know that the gentleman who brought the amendment would like to have an active debate and like to see some movement on this issue, but by doing it on an appropriations
rule this way, where we don't have a full transparent discussion, we don't have the scientific community coming in, the health community, and the industry that he would like to see testify, we find ourselves doing these stopgap riders on appropriations bills that only work for the year of the appropriation. It is a way in which we are not using our power as legislators effectively to have change. So these riders are best done in the policy committee, not on the appropriations bill.
In closing, I would like to just clearly say that I support science and I believe we should not abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, and, therefore, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would encourage a ``no'' vote.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I also rise in support of this amendment. It is nice to be able to support something today. And I really would caution that, although they didn't talk about closing regional offices, Madam Chair, they did talk about moving and rearranging. Congress needs to be involved. I have a Superfund site being cleaned up right now by EPA Region 5.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I rise to support the chairman of the subcommittee.
Colleagues on both sides of the aisle clearly rejected President Trump's budget.
Hurricanes Harvey and, now, Irma have highlighted the need for a strong EPA to ensure Americans have clean air, clean water, and help to prevent exposures to toxic chemicals. They are doing that right now on
the ground. They are leaving from other places around this country. They are leaving their homes, and they are going there to be first responders when it comes to toxic cleanup.
As has been pointed out, the EPA was cut coming into this floor action by $240 million, and it was cut another 17 percent last night. In fact, since 2010, the EPA has already been reduced by $2.2 billion and has 2,000 fewer staff.
The EPA never knows when it is going to be called on. Madam Chair, just a couple weeks ago we got a call about a businessowner who abandoned a plating company, left chemical barrels literally disintegrating before the eyes of the St. Paul Fire Department. The EPA was there to help.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The EPA was there to work with the city when the fire department found out what a danger it was. When the county wasn't able to handle such an extreme toxic cleanup, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was able to call on EPA Region 5. They knew the people. They had worked together on other projects, and they gave comfort and aid to homeowners that this toxic waste site that people didn't even know existed from as close as you and I are to each other, sir, was in their backyard.
The EPA does a lot of work. We are asking them to do it on a shorter budget. This would make it impossible for them to do their work at all.
Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his support of the EPA, although sometimes we disagree at what level.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source