Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which prevents any funding from being used to finalize or implement the CEQ's ``National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.''
Earlier this year, the CEQ issued interim guidance for agencies to analyze greenhouse gas and climate change effects of their proposed actions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Madam Chair, for decades, radical environmental groups have weaponized NEPA to attack and block natural resources development. They have done so through a variety of techniques, including by colluding with various Federal agencies in sue-and-settle schemes that have poured massive amounts of money into their coffers while doing very little to actually protect the environment or ensure that we can access and use our Federal lands and projects to produce oil and gas, coal, hydropower, and nuclear energy.
These are just some of the reasons as to why Republicans in Congress have prioritized the passage of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Cost Act, which is intended to streamline, improve, and expedite the NEPA process while also ensuring that we are protecting our environment. We can do both, and in fact, we have been doing so for decades.
I have had multiple constituents reach out to me over the last year seeking assistance in getting various Federal agencies to move important projects along in the process.
In one such case, a constituent described being stuck on his fourth and final solicitors review, a do loop that had been going on for literally years. Although they had completed every single task and done every single thing asked of them multiple times, the agency refused to move forward.
My staff has since met with the Office of Surface Mining only to be told that there is a queue, as though that is an adequate answer. To date, there has been no movement on this review.
This situation represents a failure of the system, and allowing the CEQ to unilaterally impose radical GHG and global warming requirements on these agencies will not make the situation any better.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, we simply have no accountability, no taking of responsibility, and no consequences for these agencies that fail to carry out their responsibilities. What that means in the long term is that there is ultimately no more gas for our cars, oil to heat our homes, or energy to power our First World economy.
What is my point? We do not need to add any more roadblocks under NEPA making it even more uncertain and difficult for these agencies to process applications. We don't need any more steps, reviews, analyses, or guidance documents to make NEPA more burdensome to our producers, small businesses, ranchers, and manufacturers. We don't need to make it any more difficult to properly manage our national forests or to maintain our water infrastructure.
We have reclamation projects that need to be constructed and maintained. We have forests in dire need of management. We need these things now, not 10 years from now.
My amendment defunds the CEQ's and this administration's efforts to use global warming hysteria to further delay such projects that are subject to NEPA.
My amendment is also critically important to block CEQ's illegal attempt to avoid compliance with the APA's rulemaking requirements. CEQ doesn't have the authority to issue guidance documents with the force and effect of law, yet that is exactly how this guidance document will be interpreted--as imposing new requirements on project proponents as part of the NEPA review process.
We must, therefore, stop CEQ from implementing a so-called guidance document that is, in reality, no such thing. CEQ should be forced to go through the public rulemaking process to adopt such wide-ranging changes to NEPA procedural requirements.
The reality is that NEPA was designed to address reasonably foreseeable impacts of a particular project, not to allow agencies to try to guess what temperature it will be a thousand miles away 75 years from now.
I read an article a year ago assessing the global warming hysteria that we are living through. This gentleman who wrote the article made an excellent observation that I believe is worth repeating here: ``The notion that government should impoverish actual human beings as a means of promoting the welfare of humanity is a pagan superstition on par with sacrificing individuals to the sun god.'' I couldn't have said it better.
We must block the CEQ from pursuing an agenda of impoverishment and government imposed wretchedness. We must no longer tolerate their bowing to the sun god, and we must return common sense and rational thinking to our permitting and NEPA processes.
Please join me in supporting my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment which prohibits the implementation and enforcement of the EPA's final rule entitled: Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule.
The U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register its revised Clean Water Act Section 401 certification rule on September 27 of this year. This proposal was made in direct response to the 2021 Biden executive order that directed agencies to tackle the so-called climate crisis.
This rule applies to 401 certifications, which are water quality certifications issued by State or Tribal authorities that verify compliance with water quality requirements. The CWA allows States a great deal of discretion in reviewing and conditioning 401 certifications to ensure compliance with the CWA and State surface water quality standards.
This final rule returns to the broader scope of review that was in place prior to the 2020 rule and requires States and Tribes to evaluate the water-quality-related impacts from an entire activity as a whole, including construction and operation, rather than doing what it should, which is solely focusing on the aspect of the activity directly authorized by a given Federal license or permit.
The final rule also includes a broad definition of the term ``neighboring jurisdiction'' which means that it can include any jurisdiction other than the one in which the discharge originates.
The EPA's proposed rule is too broad, is contrary to the clear intent of section 401 of the Clean Water Act and is outside of the EPA's authority and jurisdiction.
My amendment would prohibit the implementation of this broad, wrongheaded rule.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, we all want clean water. This rule has nothing to do with that. This has to do with the EPA controlling and dictating matters that they have no business being involved with.
This proposal will put many pending projects at risk, including mining projects, and it will force the courts to make the final determinations with regard to such projects by interpreting and applying two extremely vague and ambiguous provisions included in the new rule.
This situation will ultimately result in a significant loss of investment in mining projects throughout the country, and it will cause greater regulatory uncertainty and inefficiency.
My amendment will block the EPA from implementing this wrongheaded rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
Not only does this rule broaden reviews and jurisdiction for permit requirements, but it substantially expands the jurisdiction of States to regulate even those waters that are not considered navigable waters of the United States as required by the Clean Water Act.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality had this to say about the rule:
We are deeply concerned with EPA's blatant claims in the preamble of the rule to use the section 401 certification process as a mechanism to expand Federal jurisdiction in waters that are not waters of the United States.
Wyoming DEQ also highlighted the burdens that would be imposed on entities due to broadening the scope of activities measured under this certification to include conditions unrelated or only speculatively related to water quality.
I will say it again: We all want clean water. This rule has nothing to do with that.
EPA's new interpretation of section 401 and its efforts to broaden States' authority over water bodies and features that are outside of the jurisdiction of Clean Water Act must be stopped.
We are fed up with the EPA using the Clean Water Act as part of its effort to implement this administration's radical environmental agenda and land grab. My amendment is designed to stop this nonsense, to block the EPA's misinterpretation and application of section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to force the EPA to follow the law.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source