Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I can't support an amendment taking money from an underfunded agency, reducing our bottom line, when it is already $824 million below the FY17 enacted level. Let me give you two examples of why I think the gentleman's amendment should not be supported.
One is I have been talking to EPA officials because we have a surprise toxic dump site that is as close to a residential area as I am from the Chairman. Barrels. The owner just walked away. Too much for the city of St. Paul to handle. Too toxic. Too dangerous.
The State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, had to call in the EPA for help. It is costing us as taxpayers millions of dollars to clean that up because the businessowner just walked away. Nothing that the EPA can do but clean it up, and clean it up they are, and the neighbors are ecstatic that the Federal Government is there to help them.
The EPA, by taking more money away from it and putting it in the spending reduction account at a time when I know that the EPA regions all across this country are sending men and women down to help cities and counties and communities out with the disaster that Harvey has created, this is all money that is being spent right now in an agency that is $824 million below 2017.
I think it is important that we protect the air that we breathe and the water that we drink, and the consequences of further cuts to the EPA, I believe, will be felt in communities like mine, like Houston, like maybe what we will be hearing in Florida--we haven't had the assessment yet in the Virgin Islands--all across this Nation. That, to
me, is just irresponsible.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this account has already been cut by $240 million below the 2017 enacted level, another $108 million tonight on the floor, but at least those dollars were going back into something, in my opinion, meaningful. This is just taking money away from the EPA, which is underfunded, which is undersourced, and being asked to do more for less at a time when, as I pointed out, we don't even know until there is an opportunity for the waters to subside what we are going to find at the Superfund sites from Harvey.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, while there is nothing more I would like to do, I think any of us would all like to do, than to provide more resources for the clean water SRF, it can't be done by reducing the EPA's environmental programs in management.
This administration has clearly shown that they do not regard the EPA's work as a priority, which means that they have a blatant disregard for public health and the health of our environment.
The EPM account includes funding for programs like brownfields enforcement, environmental justice, geographic programs, and lot of other critical programs, some of which I gave examples of this evening,
which would suffer with a $250 million reduction.
This amendment illustrates, because I agree with the gentleman, I wish we had more money to put in that account, what happens when we don't have adequate 302(b) allocations. To overuse a common phrase, we
are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is not making us whole. So it is with great reluctance that I oppose this amendment, but oppose it I must because the cuts that have already been made this evening to the brownfields enforcement, the environmental justice programs, and a myriad of other programs which are critical to the health and well-being of our communities, and they are out there working every day on it, is something I can just not support.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, the very employees that the gentleman was talking about that get in a car, they drive to check out the sewer waste plants to make sure that they are operating. They are making sure that the water is clean. They are doing their job.
Tonight we have cut this account already by 16 percent. That means we are cutting programs. We have cut brownfields enforcement, environmental justice, geographic programs, programs that support the very account you and I would like to see more money go into. I just urge my colleagues not to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. The rider that we are talking about here gives an unprecedented amount of power to the EPA. It puts the agency above the law, letting it get away with no public comment on its proposals, no economic analysis on the cost and benefit of repeal, no justification for repeal, and not having to defend repeal against court challenges.
As the Congressman pointed out, for some, this rider might serve a purpose this time. But what about in the future? What do we really want to say? That it is okay for the executive branch to circumvent laws we create and that there is no accountability in our courts?
This rider removes the checks and balances that are essential to a functioning democracy, so I support the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from requiring agricultural sources to report air emissions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Liability Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to circumvent a 2017 court decision that invalidated an EPA rule which exempted agricultural sources from such reporting.
Policy riders like this do not belong in the appropriations bills. The EPA should either accept the court's decision or they should appeal the decision. At a minimum, something that is this impactive with court policy does not belong as a rider on an appropriations bill. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that, as a State representative and, even now, as a Member of Congress, I will encounter people--and I was just at our State fair--over the years, people who have built homes in rural areas and are contributing to the schools and maybe have a soybean farm or a community that is built up over the years around farms. All of a sudden, a hog farm comes in and people are sick, they are unable to go to work, their children develop lung issues and all kinds of problems. They come to the State or they come to us as Members of Congress and say: What is going on here? The air is so polluted, it is making me and my family sick. I am losing my home. I am losing my investment.
So I think that there is a role to have these discussions about what do we do, as a community, to make sure about people who live in some of these rural areas who all of a sudden find themselves, after decades of
living in the same area, unable to open up their windows on a summer day.
As I said, that is why I don't think this policy rider belongs in this bill. I think we need to have a thoughtful discussion on it and really hear out both sides on many of these agriculture issues, especially in rural communities.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops the Department of the Interior from entering into cooperative agreements and providing financial assistance for the purpose of protecting natural, cultural, and historic resources in several counties in southeast Colorado.
This amendment restricts the expansion of Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Heritage Corridors, Natural Heritage canalways, national heritage tour routes, and national historic districts and cultural heritage corridors.
All of these preservation partnerships are important tools that enable the Federal Government to work with private partners to preserve and protect our Nation's shared heritage. Unfortunately, this amendment takes those options off the table for the people in southeastern Colorado.
It is my understanding that the sponsor aims to preemptively prevent expansion of a Federal footprint in his district, but I would like, Mr. Chairman, to remind us that the sponsor of the Preserve America Executive Order was issued by President George W. Bush, a Republican, and it emphasizes public-private partnerships that limit, not expand, Federal ownership.
I have worked on some of these corridors. We always make sure that it is a partnership and it is not the Federal Government coming in and taking over land. It is a partnership that the community comes to the
Federal Government and asks for.
So, if there are specific concerns that you have about the Federal management in this region, I believe the sponsor should work with the authorizing committee to make sure that they are addressed and not use
the appropriations process to wall off a section of the country from partnering with the Federal Government to preserve its historical and cultural natural resources.
These discussions that take place at a local level with sometimes the business community, sometimes it is schools, sometimes it is churches, that come together to talk about what can we do to preserve our cultural history or what can we do to preserve something is driven by local control.
I have never attended a meeting, once, where it was driven by Federal control. The Federal Government has asked to come in to be a partner.
I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, once again, I really think that we need to better utilize, in this Congress, in this institution, our policy committees. They should be the first call for help if there are questions, if there are concerns, if there are adjustments that need to be made, not the appropriations committee, where there has been no
hearing on this.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to what the gentleman from Alaska had to say, and the bulk of my objection, Mr. Chairman, is that this is better addressed in the Policy Committee than on the Appropriations Committee as a rider.
BLM does many outreach activities, including public meetings and interactions with individual miners, and is working with industry to incorporate best management practices in new science-based reclamation techniques.
In the course of the reclamation activities, it has been necessary to increase the annual cost to miners to recover these streams and restore ecostream function.
This amendment would prohibit the cost of reclaiming these areas to placer miners who are profiting from mineral extractions on BLM managed land.
I do hear the gentleman talking about not all business is the same shape or size, so I really think that we should work through the Policy Committee. For that reason, I object to this amendment, and I would encourage the gentleman from Alaska to work through the Policy Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this new rule updates outdated regulations and establishes minimum standards for the measurement of oil production from Federal and Indian leases to ensure that productivity is accurately measured and properly accounted for.
The administration has aggressively sought to abolish rules that were developed over many years, and adhere to the process outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes consideration of Tribal
and public comments.
Updating this regulation avoids regulatory uncertainty and reflects the considerable changes in technology and industry practices that have occurred over 25 years since the previous oil and gas order No. 4--25 years since the previous onshore oil and gas order No. 1. Changes in technology. We should be embracing changes in technology and industry practices. We should not be using technology and practices formed 25
years ago.
The new rule also responds to comments made by the GAO, the Department of Interior's IG, and the Royal Policy Committee regarding BLM's production and verification efforts.
The objective of this rule is to ensure that the oil volume reported by the industry is sufficiently accurate to ensure that the royalties due are paid correctly, the royalties due to the U.S. taxpayer. The rulemaking process has been comprehensive and it has been transparent. If there are to be changes to those rules, those changes need to be done in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act. There is a way to do that. So, once again, there would be an opportunity for Tribal and public comment.
This amendment does not provide for an open and transparent process.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to protect the American taxpayer to make sure that the royalties are accurately recorded.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition for two reasons.
One, this, once again, is a substantial piece of policy work being done on an appropriations bills on the floor of the House. We have committees which can take things up, government oversight, and we have the Natural Resources Committee. There are many venues in which the gentleman could ask for a hearing and bring people to testify, if there are things that need to be done. Or just work through the Administrative Procedure Act, which has opportunities before it, if people feel that they are not being treated justly.
But the other reason why I rise against this is, 25 years since the previous update has happened, technology has changed since then and industry practices have changed. Part of our responsibility--and I truly believe this in my heart--is to make sure that when we do leases, when we are to receive royalty payments, we need to be looking out for the U.S. taxpayer to make sure that they are fairly compensated for these leases.
Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source