Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to preserve our current Clean Water Act protections over our rivers, streams, and wetlands.
Our Nation's river system and wetlands provide values that no other ecosystem can: natural water quality improvement; flood protection; shoreline erosion control; recreation; general aesthetic appreciation; and national products for our use at no cost.
Yet section 107 of this bill seeks to undermine protection of streams and wetlands and the critical balance between protecting these waters and the day-to-day operations of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
Under current law, farmers, ranchers, and foresters can carry out their normal operations in any water body without requiring a Clean Water Act permit. What this means is that farmers can continue to plow their fields--including potential wet areas that have been farmed for decades--plant their seeds, and harvest their crops without ever having to obtain approval under the Clean Water Act.
Any normal farming, ranching, or forestry exemption is going to include minor limitations. For example, a farmer cannot use the current exemption to convert his farmland to a residential development without obtaining a permit; a rancher can't use this exemption to plow under a wetland to expand his grazing lands; and forestry operations can't use this exemption to change the course of a local stream to improve drainage on their growing lands.
In short, the way the Clean Water Act currently operates is to allow normal ranching, farming, and forestry operations to continue without a permit unless the activity either changes or converts the use of a water body to a new purpose or impairs the historic flow or reach of a stream or wetland. If the planned activity triggers either of these limitations, current law obviously would require that activity to obtain a permit.
Section 107 of this bill, in essence, would provide an absolute Clean Water Act exemption for impacts to any streams or wetlands that happen to be on agricultural, ranching, or forestry lands.
Mr. Chairman, this is a fundamental change to the Clean Water Act, and it is one where the impacts have never been explored. This amendment would be a significant departure from almost 40 years of implementation of the Clean Water Act by Democrats and Republicans by eliminating the existing provision requiring that the exemptions apply only to normal--as in established, ongoing--farming practices.
Mr. Chairman, we should not be using an appropriations bill to change Federal policy related to the protection of our Nation's rivers and streams. To the best of my knowledge, no hearings or investigations on the impacts of this provision have ever been held.
If this Congress is interested in overturning almost 40 years of Clean Water Act precedent, regular order would require hearings before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and approval by that committee before consideration on the floor.
This rider is bad policy for the protection of our environment, bad policy for the protection of human health, and bad policy for the protection of public safety.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I find myself confused by the comments of my distinguished friend from California. Nothing has changed in the law in 40 years. This law has been applied under Democratic and Republican Presidents and administrations.
The law is very clear that any normal farming use, forestry, agriculture or ranching is exempt already. It is only a wholesale shift from what the farm's original exemption was intended for that would require a Clean Water Act permit.
So if a farmer is, in fact, going to turn out and develop houses, a subdivision, you need a clean water permit. But there is nothing in there that says you need a clean water permit to plow, to plant, or to use the land as it has always been used.
My fear is that I don't know of any specific instances where there has been an overinterpretation of existing law, but section 107 would basically throw out the entire baby in order to fix an overinterpretation problem by one or two agents of the Department of Agriculture.
Essentially, section 107 says everything is accepted under the Clean Water Act if it is agriculture, forestry, or ranching on that land.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I respect the concern about an overinterpretation of existing law that has been on the books for 40 years. The real challenge with section 107 is it throws out the entire exemption process and makes everything legal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the Beyer-Eshoo-Esty amendment simply restores funding to the Advanced Research Project-Energy, ARPA-E, to the FY18 enacted level that was already approved by this Congress earlier this year.
ARPA-E was created to replicate the successful DARPA model by incentivizing researchers to develop promising research into game- changing technologies that can meet our future energy needs.
Mr. Chairman, despite the huge payoff, the private sector does not often and cannot invest efficiently in kind of high-risk, high-reward energy research. ARPA-E has already demonstrated incredible success in advancing energy technology solutions that neither the public nor the private sector has been willing or able to support in the past.
Since 2009, 136 of these projects have attracted more than $2.6 billion in private sector follow-on funding.
And please note, the amendment does not cut fossil energy research. It simply reduces the plus-up for the account. The Fossil Energy R&D will still receive $30 million more than last year and 50 percent more than President Trump's FY19 request level.
I urge my colleagues to support the Beyer-Eshoo-Esty amendment to make ARPA-E whole. ARPA-E is a smart bet on America's proven ability to turn creative ideas into market-creating, job-growing businesses.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, there is virtually nothing my friend from West Virginia said that I disagree with, except the idea that we are somehow taking money from fossil fuel research that is untoward. Just remember, this is a $30 million step up from last year and 50 percent more than President Trump has even asked for.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I simply add that we are not cutting the fossil fuel research and development, which we do believe in. This is a plus-up from last year of at least $30 million and 50 percent more than President Trump has requested.
All we are simply doing is trying to appropriate to ARPA-E what was enacted by this Congress and, also, to point out that ARPA-E does not exclude fossil fuel research.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source