Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like to acknowledge and thank Ranking Member Lowey for her support and her mentorship as I start working on this very first appropriations bill on the House floor.
I would like to thank my subcommittee chairman, Ken Calvert, for the effort he has put into this bill. I appreciate that even as Chairman Calvert grappled with an inadequate funding allocation, he carried out his work in an open and thoughtful manner. The chairman is to be commended for his diligence in holding 14 budget hearings, where we received testimony from nearly 150 witnesses.
Let me also, along with the chairman, express my appreciation to the subcommittee staff on the minority and majority sides for their hard work during another difficult budget year.
Unfortunately, the inadequate 302(b) allocation given to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations sets this bill up for failure. The majority's refusal to adopt a sufficient overall budget allocation for discretionary appropriations has led to a bill that severely underfunds investments and protections that are priorities for the American people.
The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for FY 2016 is $246 million below the current year's enacted level. When added to the cuts of the past 5 years, this bill is more than $2 billion below the FY 2010 enacted level. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, this bill invests less than what was appropriated in 2005.
But it gets worse. The rising emergency costs of combating wildland fires, court-ordered Native American contract support costs, and the majority's decision to abandon mandatory funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, otherwise known as PILT, means the remaining funding available for other critical public programs is far below the FY 2015 enacted.
PILT has been mandatory spending in the past, and almost 2,000 counties use this compensation for lost tax revenue to provide vital services. PILT should not be in this discretionary bill. It should be returned to mandatory spending.
The courts have ruled that Congress must pay full contract support costs to tribal nations. Contract support costs are true mandatory spending, and they should not be in this discretionary bill.
Catastrophic wildland fires are natural disasters and, just as any other natural disaster, they should be treated as such emergency spending. Catastrophic wildland fires should not be subject to discretionary spending caps in this bill.
Together, spending on these three activities consumes $5.4 billion, or 18 percent of the bill's budget allocation. It is time for the authorizing committees to stop ignoring this problem and responsibly address what are truly mandatory costs, because these costs are burning through our budget allocation.
So what does that mean for the rest of the programs funded by H.R. 2822? After years of cuts and flat funding, it means we are going backwards and undermining efforts to preserve America's natural and cultural heritage, failing to meet our commitments to the social and economic well-being of Native Americans, and causing real and lasting harm to the environment.
We received compelling testimony this year on the unmet needs in Indian Country, especially in the areas of education and health. Yet this bill's inadequate allocation means that many Native American programs receive far less funding than what the President requested and what Native Americans indeed deserve.
This is unfortunate because, as the chairman pointed out, he and I share a deep bipartisan commitment to bettering the lives of Native Americans and to uphold our Federal trust and treaty obligations.
Last year, attendance at our national parks was at a record high. With the upcoming centennial of the National Park Service in 2016, visitation is expected to increase. But what will visitors find when they come to the centennial celebration?
Without additional funding, they will find historic hotels in Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks that have serious health, safety, and accessibility issues. They will find closed facilities at Yosemite due to 70-year-old sewer lines that are failing. And under the Republican spending plan, what visitors will not find are the hundreds of seasonal rangers that the Park Service needs to hire to restore staffing capacity to 2010 levels.
Under H.R. 2822, less than 16 percent of the funds requested for the National Park Service's centennial are provided. By underfunding the Centennial Challenge, this bill misses the opportunity to allow the American public to support their parks through matching donations.
The National Park's Civil Rights initiative fares only slightly better, with just 19 percent of the request funded. It is our responsibility to act now to preserve the stories and monuments of the civil rights movement.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is cut by more than 25 percent below the FY 2015-enacted level, continuing the pattern of shortchanging conservation.
Wildlife programs are underfunded as well, with cuts or flat funding to programs that assist in the recovery of species or help to prevent their listing in the first place. Funding decisions such as these set up the Endangered Species Act to fail.
However, the most significant and devastating cuts are again targeted at the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill cuts the EPA by $718 million from the FY 2015-enacted level, a 9 percent cut. This is on top of the nearly 20 percent cut the Agency has received over the past 4 years.
The air every American breathes and the water every American family drinks are all at risk by the funding cuts and policy attacks in this bill. When the majority says it wants to rein in the EPA, what they are really doing is denying the protection of our air and water.
The consequences of abandoning public health and environmental protection will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation. Why? Because this bill cuts the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Funds by more than half a billion dollars. The revolving funds are part of a partnership with our communities to build and repair infrastructure that protects America's drinking water and prevents sewage from contaminating our water. And when we invest in these water systems, we are also creating jobs in communities all across the country.
Earlier this month, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior released their latest summer fire forecast, which showed that fire costs are likely to exceed FY 2015-enacted levels by nearly $300 million.
Wildland fires burn up 12 percent, or $3.9 billion, of the bill's allocation. And without some relief, these numbers will only continue to grow.
In just the past 3 years, we have had to make up a total of a billion-dollar shortfall that forced agencies to borrow funds from other accounts to pay for fire costs. We know the answer to this problem. Many of us are cosponsors of Mr. Simpson's bill, H.R. 167, to treat a portion of these wildfire costs as they are--disasters.
Yet as problematic as the funding decisions in this bill are, what is even more troubling are the more than two dozen problem legislative riders and funding
limitations contained in the bill, with seven of these being new this year.
These provisions do not belong in the bill. These are proposals that should be moved through the authorizing committee, where open, transparent, and thoughtful debate can take place.
The riders the majority have hung on this bill undermine our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, endanger public health and safety, and deny the impact that climate change is having on our planet.
Several of these riders would require that Agency scientists and procedures be ignored, saying that they ``can't be trusted.'' Yet other provisions would overturn Federal court decisions and limit judicial review.
As lawmakers, we create the legislation that guides our Nation, but my colleagues in the majority seem to need a reminder that we are only one of three branches of government. Clearly, we are the most important branch. But the other two branches have jobs to do as well.
For a majority that complains about the Federal rulemaking process, it is surprising to see that the bill contains directives that certain Federal rules be issued. It would appear that the majority is okay with Federal rulemaking, but only as long as the rules are the ones they want.
With the inadequate funding and special interest provisions, I share the administration's concerns about this bill. I will submit the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2822, which is eight pages and includes a veto threat.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our constituents to be good stewards of the environment, to be protectors of public health, and to be defenders of the public good. We can do better than what this bill offers. H.R. 2822 falls short of our responsibilities to present and future generations. As such, I cannot support the bill in its current form.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would cut $12 million from the Environmental Protection Agency program and shift $5 million to the Bureau of Land Management and $5 million to the Forest Service.
Now, I know cutting the EPA is an easy target for many of my colleagues across here on the other side of the aisle, but I want to assure my colleagues and understand if this amendment were to be adopted, this account funds program is important to both sides of the aisle. For example, it includes permitting for construction projects across the country; toxic risk prevention, part of the successful brownfields program; pesticide licensing; indoor air quality; radiation.
Quite frankly, the EPA's work goes beyond the political talking point of various regulations, and it is necessary to keep this valuable Agency able to do the functions it needs to do to protect public health.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would cut $25 million from the Bureau of Land Management program and put the savings into the so-called spending reduction account.
The gentleman pointed out that he plans on reducing that amount on law enforcement in the Bureau of Land Management. The employees who are out doing this work are already overstretched and find themselves sometimes in very dangerous positions.
The BLM is the caretaker of our Nation's public lands. They protect one-eighth of the country. I think that we should make sure that BLM law enforcement is able to do their job, do their job safely, come home to their families, and protect America's resources.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this bill already is $246 million below the FY 2015-enacted level. This amendment only causes further damage.
Let's look at what has been happening over the past decade. As the funding has decreased, we know from committee hearings that the demands on the BLM have increased. There are more oil and gas leases to manage to make sure that they are properly protected.
These issues that we deal with in the Bureau of Land Management, also with law enforcement, is working directly with the public sometimes who are out recreating and accessing these lands.
I would just like, once again, to reiterate my strong opposition to cutting law enforcement for BLM.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the generosity of yielding to me.
I also support the Sewell amendment to increase funding for the President's civil rights initiative. I remain a strong supporter of the President's initial request for $50 million for the civil rights initiative. While the gentlewoman's amendment would increase funding by $7 million, we still have a long way to go to get the adequate funding for these very important sacred places, I might add, in our Nation's history, to protect them.
I appreciate the majority's willingness to accept this amendment, and I thank the sponsor for offering it.
I thank the gentleman, once again, for his kindness in yielding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the chairman is looking towards working more for putting dollars into Indian education, as Mr. Gosar's amendment did, and the bipartisan way in which this bill has been proceeding forward, and I yield to the chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The gentleman's amendment would cut $2 million from the Office of Policy and Program and put the savings into the so-called spending reduction account. If enacted, this would cut an already barebones bill that is plagued by policy riders and further erode our environment.
I am concerned that this cut could have great influence on what the policy division does in its relationship in working with States and divisions within States, community assistance, and its research division.
I would also point out to my colleagues that the spending reduction account has never been enacted into law in the 4 years it has been proposed, so there really isn't an account I know of that has been authorized where this fund could go.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to keep the Office of Policy able to do its work that impacts on our States and local community.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source