Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIP
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague.
I rise to support the Lawrence amendment to strike the section prohibiting the new rule on the Federal jurisdiction of the waters of the United States.
A few weeks ago, the Obama administration issued a final rule that clarifies the limits of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. It does this by reducing red tape and providing more certainty for the regulated community.
Instead of confusion in case-by-case determinations about where waters are covered, the rule says physical, measurable boundaries for the first time about where clean water coverage begins and ends.
The rule does not expand the waters covered. In fact, it will actually reduce the scope of waters protected by the Clean Water Act.
Additionally, the rule does not create any new permitting requirements for agriculture. It maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions.
The rule ensures that the waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more precisely defined and predictably measured, making permitting less costly, easier, and faster for business and industry.
Prohibiting the EPA from implementing the rule will only perpetrate confusion in the jurisdiction of the water.
This harmful rider should be struck; therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Lawrence amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Grijalva amendment. As has been pointed out, BLM already has the authority to make vacant grazing allotments available for permittees on a discretionary basis where the permittee is adversely impacted by wildfire or drought, but unlike the discretionary basis on which the BLM currently makes these allotments, this rider would exempt the National Environmental Policy Act, a NEPA review.
On page 127, line 25, it reads ``with respect to'' the National Forest System lands, ``shall''--not may--``shall make vacant,'' and so what the BLM currently can do is they can conduct a NEPA review in areas where they think they have concerns and they can ensure that the land, health standards, and resources are not going to be compromised because the BLM has a role to play in protecting these lands for grazing potential in the future so that they are not harmed or overgrazed.
To me, it makes common sense that the rider should not exempt the BLM from a regulatory requirement to issue a decision and conduct an administrative review, which they currently can choose to do or choose not to do based on the information that they have. Any grazing that is mandated by this rider is likely also to find itself caught up by hearings and delays and appeals and judicial review.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike the unnecessary rider and to leave the discretion in place so it continues to be the National Forest System lands may be made vacant.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
his amendment would reverse section 438 to block the EPA from making critical updates to its ozone standard. The amendment makes an already bad policy rider in this bill even worse.
This amendment, however, would completely prohibit the EPA from updating the standard, short-circuiting both current law and the judicial process, while putting millions of Americans' health at risk.
Ozone is the main component in smog, and it has been scientifically proven to aggravate lung disease, increase frequency and severity of asthma attacks, and reduce lung function.
We hear about those opportunities all the time that we are given now when the ozone is too high in the air to stay inside. Young children shouldn't be out, and people with heart disease and lung disease should stay indoors.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review its ozone standard every 5 years to reflect the most up-to-date science on ozone and its impacts on public health.
The EPA, in fact, is under a court order to issue its final rules by October of this year. The EPA's update to its ozone standard is based on strong scientific evidence, including over 1,000 scientific studies that show the harmful effect of ozone on human health and the need for higher standards.
The EPA estimates the benefit of updated standards of 70 parts per billion will yield the health benefits of $13 billion each year.
On its merits, this amendment is shortsighted and reactionary, and it is a backdoor amendment to completely gut the Clean Air Act.
Prohibiting the EPA's ability to update ozone standards is reckless, and it is out of touch with what Americans want, and that is clear air. The EPA's update is firmly rooted in science and ensures health and protections for the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the EPA's update is firmly rooted in science and ensures the health and protections for the American people. We have a responsibility to protect the millions of Americans affected by ozone pollution.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, this amendment before us would strike the policy rider that prohibits the Bureau of Land Management from implementing a uniform national standard for hydraulic fracking on public lands, on Federal lands.
Such standards are necessary to ensure the operations on public and tribal lands are safe and that they are conducted in an environmentally responsible way. This only affects Federal lands and tribal lands.
Now, of the 32 States with the potential for oil and gas development on federally managed mineral resources, only slightly more than half of them have rules in place that even address hydraulic fracturing, and those that do have rules in place vary greatly in their requirements.
As you can see, there is no consistency in the rules. There is no guarantee that there are good quality rules put in place. And we are talking about making sure that, on Federal leases, on Federal lands, that we have a national standard.
The BLM continues to offer millions of public lands up for renewable energy production, and that is why it is absolutely critical that they have the confidence and the transparency and the safety and environmental protections that are put in place on these Federal lands.
Prior to the issuance of a hydraulic fracturing rule, the BLM rules on oil and gas operation were updated over 30 years ago, 30 years ago. They had not kept pace with the significant technology advancements in hydraulic fracturing techniques and the tremendous increase of its use.
As part of this implementation rule, the BLM office is in the process of meeting with their State counterparts--they are working with them--undertaking a State-by-State comparison of regulatory requirements in order to identify opportunities for variances and to establish memorandums of understanding between the States that will realize efficiencies and allow for successful implementation of the rule. So we should be allowing BLM to coordinate with the States and ensure that hydraulic fracturing activities are being carried out safely and effectively when Federal leases are involved.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by my friend from Alaska would prohibit any Federal funds from being used to implement the administration's revised comprehensive conservation plan to better sustain and manage the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Chairman, attaching this rider to the Interior Appropriations bill would be a mistake. The coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is one of the few remaining places in our Nation that remains pristine and undisturbed. It provides critical protection for thousands of species--caribou, polar bear, and gray wolves, just to name a few--and they desperately need this important habitat. Roughly 20 million acres managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are some of the best and last undisturbed natural areas in this Nation.
I understand that the gentleman from Alaska feels strongly about this issue, and he has been a great advocate for his State for decades; but on this important issue, we deeply disagree.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Interior Department released an updated conservation plan to better manage the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the President took that opportunity to call on Congress to pass legislation designating the coastal plain as a wilderness, an even greater level of protection for this incredible area. The protected area encompasses a wide range of Arctic and subarctic ecosystems. There are unadulterated landforms, and there are native flora and fauna. The refuge has an incredible biological integrity, natural diversity, and environmental health.
I understand that there are differences of opinion how to manage this land and that legislation designated in this area as wilderness may not get very far in this Congress. But I want to commend the President for his leadership on this issue, and I would hope that the legislative process could play out and that we not adopt this rider onto this bill because this issue is just far too important.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not point out one more obvious truth: the President will not sign a bill loaded up with antienvironmental riders just like this one. So we only make the path for the bill harder by including it.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment will ensure that this important executive order is respected in such a way that it has my wholehearted support in protecting the liberty and religious rights of Native American Indians.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, it is a blanket block to the EPA from fully implementing and enforcing air toxic standards for boilers and incinerators.
Among other things, there are boilers that burn natural gas, coal, wood, oil, and other fuel to produce steam, and the steam does produce electricity or provide heat, and incinerators burn waste to dispose of it. These boilers and incinerators have the potential of releasing very toxic pollutants such as mercury, lead, dioxin, and other pollutants that are linked to health effects.
In 2011, after a robust public process, including three public hearings and responding to thousands of public comments, the EPA finalized standards to reduce toxic emissions for existing new boilers and commercial industrial solid waste incinerators and sewage sludge incinerators.
Now, among other things, the rule requires emissions to just meet certain standards. It is a measurement of air pollution based on the degree of which light is blocked by the pollutant from the smokestack.
The rule also allows the EPA to approve alternative opacity limits under certain circumstances, so there is flexibility within the rule.
Now, the local paper mills in the representative State are exceeding or they are expected to exceed the standard in the EPA's final rule, so to better fit their circumstances, they want an alternate opinion. That is the issue that the EPA is looking at right now. The EPA is looking at this right now. They heard the concerns; they are looking at it.
Strangely, this amendment would not really address that issue. Instead, it would block the EPA from ever approving an alternative limit or implementing or enforcing an alternative limit that had already been improved.
I rise because this amendment, unfortunately, just does not make any sense to me that we would not keep the dialogue moving forward. The EPA has the responsibility of making sure that standards of emissions with mercury and lead and other toxic pollutants are not dangerous to public health, especially to children. We know statistically now that up to 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks, and 52 asthma attacks are all worked into reducing the emissions, to lower those numbers.
We need to stand with the EPA air toxic standards and allow them to achieve their intended benefits and to work with industry where it makes sense, and we can have industry move forward but still protect the public health, just not scrap the parts that industry dislikes.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it would keep the EPA from doing what it is doing right now, and that is to work with industry, oddly enough, to create a win-win for industry and a win-win for public health.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would do two things. First, it would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from treating the Sonoran desert tortoise as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Secondly, it would restrict the Service from offering any of the critical protections to preserve the species.
The Sonoran desert tortoise is an iconic species. It has been part of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem for over 150,000 years. In 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service found that the listing for the Sonoran desert tortoise was warranted, but it was precluded because it needed to address other higher priorities.
So last December the Service announced that it was working on a proposed listing determination that is expected to be published within the year.
This amendment, if it were to pass, would stop the Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts and block the Service from meeting a court-ordered deadline to make this listing determination. In other words, they would put the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at odds with what the court has requested them to do. This amendment has no place in the appropriations process, nor does it have any place in this legislative process.
Let's just think about the Endangered Species Act for a minute. It has been one of our most effective and important environmental laws, and it is supported by over 85 percent of Americans.
There has been no law that has been more important in preventing the extinction of wildlife, but some Members of this body seem determined to undermine the law by placing harmful policy riders on this bill.
From my count, as of right now, there are at least 10 species that are at risk of losing the Endangered Species Act protections in this bill.
What type of conservation legacy are we leaving for future generations? That is why I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit any agency from using funds for the United Nations Environment Programme. Funds for the U.N. are primarily provided through the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee. The EPA administers about $500,000 of international grants, not the millions or the billions that were referred to in this particular bill. So I strongly oppose the amendment.
I understand, as I said earlier, there is a small amount of funding administered for the U.N. Environment Programme in this bill. The primary source of funding for the international programs, I want to stress again, is in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs bill, not this bill.
So this amendment seeks to solve a problem that really doesn't exist in this bill, but jurisdictional questions aside, we must be an international partner with respect to the environment. Engagement with the international community allows us to share and learn best practices on how to manage toxic substances; international engagement helps set international standards to help our products compete globally; and, more importantly, pollution knows no boundaries. It does not respect international borders.
In the 1970s and 1980s, acid rain was a problem both in the United States and Canada, and through domestic legislation and international work with Canada, we have reduced the amount of acid rain that falls upon the United States and Canada. Now, right now in my home State of Minnesota, we are under a high pollution warning. The culprit is, sadly, a series of forest fires that are raging to the north border of us in Saskatchewan. Now, if we are going to be committed to clean air and clean water on the Canadian-U.S. border, we must be engaged both here at home and abroad.
So as a proud Minnesotan and a proud Member of the United States Congress, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to work together in partnership.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress again that, in this bill, there is $500,000. And I would also like to stress, when it comes to regulating waters in the Great Lakes, our tributary rivers and basins on the northern border--and I am sure the same thing, I can't speak with as much eloquence as to what is happening on our southern border--we need to have these international interlocutors. I would appreciate the opportunity for my State and for the Great Lakes States to be able to continue the strong partnership with our Canadian partners.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to stop the slaughter of African elephants, we need to stop the illegal trade in ivory.
This rider has nothing to do with the unprecedented poaching crisis, and it ignores the impact of the illegal ivory trade within the United States and the way that it is impacting the African elephants' survival.
The rider also undermines the United States' ability to push other countries with significant ivory markets--like China, Vietnam, and Thailand--to take stronger actions to restrict ivory trade.
In fact, according to a recent Washington Post article, China has signaled that its actions to further restrict ivory trade were contingent on what the United States does to regulate our domestic trade.
It is in the national interest of the United States to combat wildlife trafficking and to ensure that we don't contribute to the growing global demand for elephant ivory, which is also funding terrorism around the world.
We need to come up with a responsible set of regulations that protect elephants, while making accommodations to allow certain activities to continue that do not pose a threat to elephants.
I urge my colleagues to support the Grijalva amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
This amendment clearly is a Republican attempt to cut funding from the Environmental Protection Agency. As an agency that protects the air we all breathe, protects the water we drink, the fish we eat, it means that the EPA works every day to protect the health of every American.
This amendment is clearly an attack against the administration for work that they have been doing to enforce those protections.
It is entirely counterproductive to complain about a lack of timely response from the EPA and then turn around and slash the very funding that allows the EPA Administrator and Agency staff to respond to our concerns.
Crippling cuts to the office of congressional relations will not only make it more difficult for Members of Congress to get our questions answered--and those of our constituents--by slashing the office of intergovernmental agency affairs, this amendment would make it harder for State and local officials to gather the information they need to protect their communities.
I don't really believe we want to tell the EPA that they should cut back on meeting and getting recommendations from local government advisory committees or tell our elected officials at a State level that they are going to have even a harder time getting a hold of someone at the EPA to help them form agreements to address their priority needs.
Our States have a responsibility with the EPA for protecting public health and the environment, and this amendment would undermine those partnerships. This amendment would make it more difficult for the people's representatives at the Federal, State, and local level to reach out and get support and answers from the EPA in order to protect the health of their constituents.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these cuts, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
This amendment, as Chairman Calvert pointed out, is consistent with the recent National Park Service actions to further limit the display of the Confederate flag in units of the National Park system.
Previous National Park Service policy had already provided that the Confederate flag would not be flown alone for many park flagpoles.
On June 25, Park Director Jon Jarvis further requested that the Confederate flag sale items be removed from the National Park bookstores and gift shops. This also follows a decision by several large national retailers, including Walmart, Amazon, and Sears, to stop selling items with Confederate flags on them.
I agree with these decisions and commend those involved for their prompt action.
While in certain and very limited instances it may be appropriate in national parks to display an image of the Confederate flag in its historical context, a general display or sale of Confederate flags is inappropriate and divisive.
I support limiting their use, and I rise in support of the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chair, this amendment I strongly oppose. It institutes a 1 percent across-the-board cut.
A few interesting things about the Interior bill. This bill before us today is $2 billion, $2 billion below 2010-enacted levels. And when you adjust this bill for inflation, it is at 2005 levels.
This amendment indiscriminately cuts programs without any thought to the merit of the program that is contained in this bill.
For instance, this would result in fewer patients being able to be seen at the Indian Health Service; fewer safety inspectors ensuring accidents do not occur; deferred maintenance on our Nation's drinking water and sanitation infrastructure, which is already underfunded in this bill.
More generally, investments in our environmental infrastructure and public lands will just be halted, and associated jobs would be lost with it.
As I said earlier, this bill is already underfunded, underfunded. When adjusted for inflation, it is at 2005 levels. This amendment would not encourage agencies to do more with less. It would simply force agencies and our constituents to do less with less.
So I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, this amendment is an overreaction to a policy proposal in the administration's--in the administration's--2016 budget request.
The President's budget requested to propose to direct funds currently allocated to payments to States and shift them more towards Federal programs that serve the Nation more broadly.
Now, this is a proposal that the President suggested in his budget, and it wasn't included in this bill because the Appropriations Committee just flat out rejected it. This is an appropriations process. That is what it is. It is a process.
The administration submitted a proposal. The committee evaluated it. It had the power to accept it or reject it. The proposal lay with the committee as to what to do. As I said, the committee rejected it.
This amendment would unnecessarily stifle any proposals to amend current formula, which is unnecessary because Congress would need to enact legislation before any changes could be made to the formula.
The Department of the Interior doesn't have the authority to change the formula through rulemaking or other administrative action. Basically, this amendment would prohibit the Department from even suggesting an idea for Congress to consider.
I just wanted to claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chair, just to say I really think this amendment--although it appears that the majority is going to take it and I am not going to ask for a vote or anything on it--is just really, in my opinion, political overreach.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would deny the American public, especially Native Americans, a fair return for the use of their coal resources.
The current coal valuation regulations have been in effect since 1989. A lot has happened in the intervening 26 years since these regulations were last updated. It has now been nearly 3 years since it was first reported that coal companies were skirting Federal royalty payments by selling coal to sister companies in order to value exported coal at low domestic prices rather than the much higher prices these sister companies were selling the exported coal for in overseas markets.
Now, while there has been a boom for Western coal companies, it has meant the Federal Government and Western States--where we share 50-50 of the royalties--have forgone hundreds of millions of dollars that are rightly due the American people.
These coal royalty valuations especially hurt Native Americans who depend on these royalties for their income. The proposed regulations were a response to States such as Wyoming pleading with the Department of the Interior: Do not allow coal producers to create affiliates to reduce the royalties paid.
This amendment offers Members a stark contrast. Do they want to side with the coal industry which has been gaming the existing royalty system? Or do they stand with the American public, especially Native Americans, in seeing that coal is fairly priced and that the royalties due Western States, tribes, and the Federal Government are paid?
I, for one, will stand with the American people and especially my Native American brothers and sisters to make sure that they are treated fairly.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat, it has now been nearly 3 years since it was first reported. Coal companies were skirting Federal royalty payments by selling coal to sister companies in order to value exported coal at low domestic prices rather than the much higher prices these sister companies were selling the exported coal for in overseas markets.
It is our job--it is our job--to see that coal is fairly priced and that the royalties due to Western States, tribes, and the Federal Government are paid.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop the EPA from requiring farms to submit a plan on how they will prevent oil from entering navigable waters.
I come from Minnesota; so, this seems like a pretty commonsense requirement to me. If a facility has large amounts of oil, it should tell the agency responsible for an inland oil spill cleanup how it will prevent an environmental disaster.
Why shouldn't the holder of gallons of oil have a plan even if it is an agriculture business? It should have a plan. And there are criteria to make sure that a facility truly should be subject to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule.
It has to meet three criteria. It must be nontransported. It must have an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons or a completely buried storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons. We are talking about a lot of oil.
The third point is that there must be a reasonable expectation that, if something were to go wrong and if there were a discharge, it would go into navigable waters of the United States or of adjoining shorelines.
In other words, if there is an accident and if there is water nearby, you would need to have a plan in place so that not only would oil not seep in and ruin your land, but that it would not flow into waters past the boundaries of your water and just keep polluting.
The preparation of the SPCC plan is the responsibility of a facility owner or operator or it can be prepared by an engineer or a consultant, but it must be certified by a registered professional engineer.
Let's just think about it. You have 42,000 gallons of oil stored underground, and you have 1,320 gallons of oil above. All this does is say you need to have an emergency plan if, when that accident would occur--and it can occur--there would be the possibility of having that oil go into navigable waters and spread onto other property owners' land or State land or Federal land.
I think these sound like reasonable requirements. It is a small step to help work with the farmer to prevent an environmental disaster that would most likely end up being cleaned up with taxpayers' funds.
I always think you should hope for the best, but you always need to have a plan just in case something goes wrong. This rule requirement makes sure that these facilities that meet these criteria have a plan in place.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations through two different mechanisms.
The first one would prevent the EPA from issuing regulations if supporting research data is withheld under the Freedom of Information Act.
Second, it would withhold regulations if the Agency's Science Advisory Board does not provide the requested advice and information to Congress.
I would just like to take a moment to address each one of these issues fully. Last year, for example, the EPA received 10,500 FOIA requests--Freedom of Information requests--or an average of 40 per workday.
These requests required nearly $11 million--$11 million--in personnel costs to process; yet the EPA receives less than $1 million to collect fees for these requests. They get $11 million in personnel costs to process; yet they get less than $1 million to collect the fees for these requests. You can simply do the math.
There are only nine allowable exemptions under the law that would prevent the EPA from complying with FOIA requests in the first place. These exemptions range from classified national defense, foreign relations information, to confidential business information and matters of personal privacy, things which we discuss in this room all the time.
The amendment is simply another attempt to stop the EPA from issuing regulations, many of which are required by law and are designed to improve human health and the environment.
Now, that was in regards to the first point about EPA issuing regulations on the Freedom of Information Act, lack of funding available to do it, and then they are following the laws with the nine exemptions.
Now, with regard to the Science Advisory Board, let me remind my colleagues that these boards are comprised of nearly four dozen experts from academia. For example, there are academics from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, Texas; the Environmental Systems and Research Institute in Redlands, California; and from the University of Minnesota, my home State.
Now, in my opinion, it is very disingenuous to suggest that this Advisory Board's subject matter of experts would withhold information to Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which simply puts two more roadblocks in the EPA regulations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again reiterate there are only nine allowable exemptions under this law that would prevent the EPA from complying with FOIA requests.
These exemptions range from classified national defense, foreign relations information, confidential business information, and matters of personal privacy.
Once again, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which simply works to put roadblocks in front of the EPA ever being able to issue a regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
This amendment is yet another attack on a vulnerable icon American species, the gray wolf. The gray wolf is a keystone species that plays a vital role in keeping our ecosystems healthy.
It is also an animal that many Native American cultures feel a kinship bond with. I heard from many tribal leaders that the protections afforded under the Endangered Species Act for gray wolves are the only way that they have been able to keep wolf hunts out of their tribal reservation boundaries.
Now, I understand many of my colleagues have very strong views about listings and delistings affecting their States, but the Endangered Species Act exists to offer necessary protections and ensure a species' survival, which the majority of our constituents strongly support. This is the same law that successfully restored another iconic American species, the bald eagle.
This amendment restricts the Department of the Interior's ability to implement the Endangered Species Act. However, it does not alter the protections for the endangered wolves in these States.
Regardless of one's position on species protection, the amendment is very problematic. The restrictions will ultimately hurt farmers, ranchers, landowners and businessowners.
Here is why: under this amendment, the Fish and Wildlife Service would not be able to offer exemptions or permits for incidental killings of wolves to landowners, ranchers, and other parties who might be in need of them; however, the prohibition against accidental kills or takes would still remain and would still be legally enforceable.
Thus, this constitutes that States would either have to stop any activity--any activity--that led to the taking of a wolf, or they would be vulnerable to a lawsuit or heavy penalties. Simply put, this amendment is bad for wolves; it is bad for our ecosystem; it is bad for business, and it is bad for our constituents.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The headlines are, groundbreaking rule in Washington State on this dairy case. And it is, ``Dairy Pollution Threatens Washington Valley's Water.'' This was a big enough story, in fact, that it was even reprinted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It was the first time that the Federal Resources Conservation Recovery Act was used to consider ways in which land and water had to be protected.
So, Mr. Chairman, just because I didn't have an opportunity to really delve into this and find out more about it--and what the amendment does is it just totally stops funds to be issued under this regulation to animal feeding operations--I am going to oppose it because it also includes large concentrated animal feeding operations. And I do come from a farming State, so I do know the difference between a small farm, a small hog farmer, and a lagoon, and large dairy farms and small dairy farms. So with that, I oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I will just read into the Record from January 15, 2015, Spokane, Washington:
A Federal judge has ruled that a large industrial dairy in eastern Washington has polluted drinking water through its application, storage, and management of manure in a case that could set precedents across the Nation.
U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice of Spokane ruled Wednesday that the pollution posed an ``imminent and substantial endangerment'' to the environment and to people who drink the water.
Rice wrote that he ``could come to no other conclusion than that the dairy's operations are contributing to the high levels of nitrate that are currently contaminating--and will continue to contaminate ..... the underlying groundwater.''
``Any attempt to diminish the dairy's contribution to the nitrate contamination is disingenuous, at best,'' Rice wrote in the 111-page opinion, in which he granted partial summary judgment in favor of environmental groups that sued the dairy.
These environmental groups are people who are looking out for their drinking water. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing threatened species listing of the lesser prairie chicken under the Endangered Species Act and would restrict the Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any critical protections to preserve the species.
This amendment is harmful and misguided and maybe a little scrambled, as in some eggs. Once the species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife is primarily permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities.
Under this amendment, all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. They would still apply, the Endangered Species Act prohibitions, but landowners would have no avenue to comply with them.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions. This means landowners, industry, and other parties who might need to take the lesser prairie chicken incidentally to do their otherwise lawful activities, such as oil and gas development, would be vulnerable to a citizens lawsuit.
Additionally, this amendment would halt an innovative plan to conserve the lesser prairie chicken. In 2014, Fish and Wildlife, in partnership with States and local stakeholders, began the implementation of a lesser prairie chicken rangewide conservation plan. That encouraged participants to gain in proactive and voluntary conservation activities, promoting lesser prairie chicken conservation.
The plan describes a locally controlled and an innovative approach for maintaining the State's authority to conserve the species and allows for economic development to continue in a seamless manner. It sounds like a win-win to me, with Fish and Wildlife partnering with local partners and with the State.
This plan prevents significant regulatory delays in obtaining taking permits, disruption to economic activities vital to the State and national interests, and little incentive for conservation habitat on prairie lands.
Sadly, the gentleman's amendment would undermine this plan that local folks and the State came up with to be more collaborative in a conservation effort. This amendment would create uncertainty for landowners, making them vulnerable, as I said earlier, to lawsuits.
We should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service in its efforts to work with local community leaders and to work with the States, not blocking the agency for doing their job.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I understand that there is a concern with the listings; and I hear that very loud and clear from my colleagues.
The problem with the way that these amendments have been drafted, particularly in line with this amendment, again, all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply.
Landowners would have no avenue to comply with because they wouldn't have a partner in the Fish and Wildlife because Fish and Wildlife would be barred from issuing any permits or any exemptions.
Clearly, it means landowners, industries, and other parties who might need to take a lesser prairie chicken incidentally to their otherwise lawful activities will be vulnerable to a lawsuit. Additionally, this amendment will halt any innovation plan to conserve the lesser prairie chicken.
The gentleman's amendment, by undermining collaborative efforts and, I believe, with an amendment that creates uncertainty for landowners making them vulnerable to lawsuits, should be an amendment that should be opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman on this issue because I think he raises some concerns which do need to be addressed.
I would just kind of like to set the picture about what is currently going on right now. There are 407 units in the National Park system, and only 19 of them--19 of them--have elected to eliminate the sale of water in disposable plastic bottles.
It is important to note that in the National Park system units, including these 19, visitors are still free to bring water in with them and use water in disposable plastic bottles. They are not banned from bringing in their own water.
The use of these disposable water bottles has had a significant environmental impact on the National Park system units. That is why I would like to work with the gentleman and figure out what we need to do about waste reduction in our parks and if this was part of the Park's overall system on it, and the sugary drinks that the gentleman referred to, if those bottles are also a potential problem, or how do we educate and work with families and hikers and vacationers and visitors to our national parks about not leaving this waste out in the open.
Another example, in Grand Canyon Park, disposable bottles compromise nearly 20 percent of the Grand Canyon's waste stream and 30 percent of the park's recyclables.
So before eliminating bottle water sales, the National Park system units were required to undertake an extensive review process considering 14 different factors before seeking approval from the regional director. This extensive review process included rigorous impact analysis, including assessment of the effects on visitors' health and safety.
Once approved, these park units are required to maintain an extensive public education program that provides readily available designed water bottle refilling stations. And in many places that I visited recently, I have seen both the ability to purchase as well as refill, at our national parks, water bottles.
So as a leader in conservation, the National Park Service encourages recycling in the reduction of plastic disposable water bottles. My concern would be we wouldn't want your amendment--and I will speak for myself. I don't want to be part of undercutting any of those efforts to encourage recycling in the reduction of disposable water bottles.
I would also be concerned that the park system eliminated water sales without having a viable alternative, as the gentleman pointed out, but that does not appear to be the case here. As I noted earlier, there is an extensive review process, and these park units are required to offer readily available free water refilling stations. Plus, people are still free to bring in water themselves.
I would very much like to work with the gentleman and the chairman to see if there are any refinements or if there is anything that we need to know more about what the National Park system's policy on plastic water bottles is. But I do not support an outright prohibition on the National Park Service to be able to carry out a policy that encourages the reuse and the reduction of plastic water bottles in our parks and in our Nation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, to the speakers and to the chairman of the subcommittee, I hear the concerns. If there are concerns to be addressed, I want to be a partner in that, but I also don't want to be part in party of walking back--reducing waste in our streams and not in any way, shape or form, adding to the costs of Park Service rangers and volunteers in their having to go out and clean up plastic bottles, plastic water caps, and other such things.
I am sincere in my efforts in saying I would like very much to work with my colleagues on this issue, but I did not hear anybody saying that they wanted to work back. So, at this point, I will oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from treating the northern long-eared bat as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Fish and Wildlife Service listed the northern long-eared bat as threatened--threatened--with an interim rule in April of this year. Since the bat was listed as threatened and not endangered, this amendment would have no effect on the Service's implementation of the rule.
Even though the amendment has no practical effect, I strongly oppose its intent, which runs counter to the fundamental principle that science should govern our determinations under our environmental laws.
Bats are critically important to the ecosystem, and a study published in Science magazine found the value of pest control services provided by insect-eating bats in the United States ranges from the low of $3.7 billion to the high of $53 billion a year.
Additionally, researchers warn that notable economic losses to North American agriculture could occur in the next 4 to 5 years as a result of emerging threats to bat populations. Bats play an important role in our economy when it comes to eliminating pests.
The primary factor threatening the northern long-eared bat is a functional disease called white-nose syndrome, as has been mentioned. However, because this disease has reduced populations of the bat, human activities that might not have been significant in the past are now having a greater effect.
It is appropriate that Fish and Wildlife Service is taking steps to protect the species, but we should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service in its efforts. We should be supporting them, not blocking the agency from doing its job.
So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I read from the amendment:
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by Fish and Wildlife or any other service or agency in the Department of the Interior to treat the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species.
Well, first off, I reiterate again, it is listed as threatened, not as endangered. And this amendment doesn't even address the role the Forest Service would still have. So this is a poorly constructed amendment.
We need to be very, very careful and very thoughtful when we write these amendments and make sure that we not only give Fish and Wildlife the tools that they need, that when something is threatened and not endangered, whether it is the Forest Service, Interior, or whether it is U.S. Fish and Wildlife, we need to let them do their job based on the science.
Mr. Chairman, I do not support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Fish and Wildlife Service from treating the Preble's meadow jumping mouse as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and would restrict, again, the Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any of the critical protections to preserve the species.
This amendment is in addition to a growing list of anti-Endangered Species Act provisions, and it makes one wonder if--for the number of people here who are opposing the work that Fish and Wildlife is doing under the Endangered Species Act--if the intent isn't just to do away with the entire act.
Last year, Fish and Wildlife reviewed two petitions to delist the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and determined that protections under the Endangered Species were still necessary.
Voting for this amendment might undo a lot of work that was done that is well on its way to having this mouse removed from the endangered species list because this amendment ignores the determination and short-circuits the statutory process informed by science.
I would certainly think that a rider on this bill is not the place to have a robust debate about how close we are maybe with Fish and Wildlife being able to delist this mouse and, by putting this language in the bill, that it undoes a lot of potentially good work.
It throws out, with this amendment, the carefully science-based work, as I said, that the Fish and Wildlife Service has worked towards and chips away at the very foundation of the Endangered Species Act, which makes me wonder, as I said earlier, if the intent of many of the amendments being offered is not only to chip away but to do away with the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, all I will say in response is that this is a subspecies--actually, it is not even a species or subspecies. It should have never been listed in the first place.
The science shows that it is actually part of the Bear Lodge jumping mouse population. For that reason, it shouldn't even be on the list in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman's remarks, this is not the place--as a rider on the environmental appropriations bill--to be having these thoughtful discussions. If that is what needs to take place, this is not the bill to be doing it on. I mean, we have an authorizing committee. They can hear things on it; and you can have a robust, full, transparent discussion and bring all the scientists in.
Let me close with this: I would be really remiss if I did not remind my colleagues that the Endangered Species Act, in fact, did rescue the bald eagle. The bald eagle's recovery is an American success story because we were united in the belief that this was the symbol of our Nation and was worth protecting for the continuing benefit of future generations.
It feels like we have lost sight of being able to do that today, especially with the lack of transparency and full debate that takes place with all these riders being offered on an authorization bill.
Congress needs to give serious consideration of what kind of conservation legacy we are leaving for our children, and our children will want us to do a better job than just to put riders onto an appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, again, would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the Endangered Species Act listing for any species that has not undergone a review. This amendment joins a growing list of anti-Endangered Species Act provisions.
The amendment would block the listing of any species that does not receive status review by Fish and Wildlife Service every 5 years. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to do a 5-year review every 5 years after a species is listed. However, with over 1,500 domestic listed species, that would amount to over 300 status reviews every year.
Why hasn't Fish and Wildlife done it? Well, it is because we--Congress--do not provide Fish and Wildlife Service with enough resources to complete such a large task.
Follow the law? They would love to. In fact, this bill that we are considering right now includes a 50 percent--a 50 percent--cut in the listing program. Now, how can they follow the law when Congress doesn't put any tools in the toolbox allowing them to do their job?
I really have to wonder if this House is prepared to appropriate the millions of dollars that would be needed to meet the requirement of this amendment.
Fish and Wildlife Service already follows a transparent, science-based listing process. This amendment only seeks to undermine the Endangered Species Act because there is not enough money in here that Congress provides Fish and Wildlife to do the job in the fashion that Congress has asked it to do.
In order to list a species under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service follows a strict legal process known as a rulemaking procedure. The first step in assessing the
[Page: H4848]
status of the species is the Fish and Wildlife Service publishes a notice of reviews that identify the species that is believed to meet the definition of threatened or endangered. The species are candidates.
Now, these notices of review then, the Fish and Wildlife Service goes out and seeks biological information to complete the status of the reviews for the candidate species; then the Fish and Wildlife Service publishes those notices in the Federal Register so the process is transparent to the public.
As you can see, the Fish and Wildlife Service follows an open, transparent policy that adequately reviews the species prior to listing. This amendment would exploit a 5-year review backlog that has been caused in part by this Congress' unwillingness to provide adequate funding in order to attack the endangered species list. Let's be transparent about that.
The Endangered Species Act exists to offer necessary protections to ensure species survival. Quite frankly, the majority of our constituents support that. Let's make sure that science and species management practices continue to dictate species listings, not Congress; and let's figure out a way to come together, as the gentleman said, to give Fish and Wildlife the tools that they need in order that they can follow the laws that Congress has requested them to follow and not do a smoke and mirror show about how Fish and Wildlife is refusing to follow the law.
They can only do what they are able to do with the dollars that Congress appropriates to them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to be really clear. This bill now includes a 50 percent cut to the listing program. The listing program is money that Congress puts in it to do the reviews. Congress cut it by 50 percent.
They can't just transfer money around. We have handcuffed and tied up the Fish and Wildlife Service by the amount of funding that Congress gives them to do their job.
They don't wake up in the morning and say: We don't want to follow the law.
They wake up in the morning, and they see how much Congress has appropriated them.
Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. I just want to point out that what you are talking about would be in the future. I am talking about the current status of them not following the law by doing the reviews.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, they do not have the funding.
Congress has not given them the funding in the listing program to do their job. Congress needs to be held accountable for the 300 listings not being able to be done every year because Congress has failed to give them the money to do the laws that Congress passed.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the discussion that the subcommittee chair and the author of the amendment might prove something better than what this amendment is currently in front of us, but what I have to work on is what is currently in front of me.
Just over 2 weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration issued proposed fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks required by the Energy Independence and Security Act.
This amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, and administering or enforcing this proposed rule or any future rules--so this is where I am concerned about the way this amendment is moving forward--with respect to glider vehicles.
These new standards were designed to improve fuel efficiency, cut carbon pollution, and reduce the impacts of climate change. To be specific, these standards are expected to lower CO
2 emissions by roughly 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel costs by $170 million, and reduce oil consumption up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime if a vehicle is sold under this program.
Heavy trucks account for 5 percent of the vehicles on the road; yet they create 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions created by all transportation sectors.
We know from my colleagues that this amendment does not actually suspend all aspects of the new rule. As it was pointed out, it simply carves out an exemption for one particular industry, an industry that produces what has been called, today, glider vehicles.
As has been pointed out, glider vehicles are heavy-duty vehicles that replace older remanufactured engines on new truck chassis. These engines date back to 2001 or older, and they have emissions that are 20 to 40 times higher than today's clean diesel engines.
In essence, this amendment would allow an entire segment of the truck manufacturing industry to simply avoid compliance with the new criteria pollutant standards that are in the rule. These are engines that will continue to emit greenhouse gases, slow down our progress, and reduce the impacts of climate change.
In short, this amendment creates a loophole that you could drive a truck through by allowing dirty engines to continue to pollute our environment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I want to once again reiterate that this is a very narrow amendment. It does not apply to new trucks, as the EPA rule indicates.
I also want to reiterate one more time that they have not studied the emissions impact of these remanufactured engines and the gliders compared to new vehicles, so we would like to have that information as well.
I also want to add that the military also uses glider kits, and this rule would not apply to them. Once again, we are putting into place something where we say this is what the government can do, but this is what the private sector can do.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the EPA is one of several government agencies that uses a special authority to hire Federal employees with specific scientific research credentials. In fact, when the Republicans were the majority party in 2006, they started this program. The EPA didn't start this program on its own. Congress started it in 2006 under a Republican majority. The National Institutes of Health uses title 42 money and authority to attract top-tier scientists in their fields to do important research.
We have been listening to many hours this evening of many of my Republican colleagues criticizing the EPA's scientific conclusions. So now it amazes me that the gentleman wants to reduce the Agency's ability to hire the top scientists. Further, the National Academy of Sciences has favorably reported to the committee that the EPA is effectively utilizing its title 42 authority. If a scientist retires or moves on, the Agency would no longer be able to attract a suitable replacement if this amendment were to pass.
For those who think the EPA doesn't have adequate scientific basis for its regulations, they should be with me, and they should clearly vote against this amendment. We should be doing more to ensure that our environmental policies are being set by the best and the brightest. This amendment would ensure that the EPA can't recruit new scientists using its limited title 42 authority, which was given to them, to the EPA, in 2006 by a Republican Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the Equal Access to Justice Act is the law of the land. Within limits, it does allow for the Federal payment of legal fees to individuals and small businesses and nonprofits that are the prevailing parties in actions against Federal agencies unless the agency is able to show that the action was substantially justified or a special circumstance existed to make the award unjust. This law helps to deter government misconduct, and it encourages all parties, not just those with resources, to hire legal counsel to assert their rights.
I know that my colleagues, including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, will agree with me that the ability to challenge Federal actions is the most important tool for ensuring government accountability. The Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Endangered Species Act are also the law of the land, and these laws have contributed greatly to the protection and improvement of public health in this country. A study by a nonpartisan environmental law institute found that the Equal Access to
Justice Act has been cost-effective and only applies to meritorious litigation, and existing legal safeguards and the independent discretion of Federal judges will continue to ensure its prudent application. There are safeguards in place so that this can't be misused.
Moreover, the claim that large environmental groups are getting rich on attorneys' fees is not supported by available evidence. The 2011 GAO study, which was just referenced and was at the request of the House Republicans, brought cases against the EPA. They found that most of those suits were brought by trade associations and private companies and that attorneys' fees were only awarded about 8 percent of the time; and among the environmental plaintiffs, the majority of those cases were brought by local groups rather than by national groups.
It is completely unfair to target these important environmental safeguards for removal from the protection of the Equal Access to Justice Act. More importantly, this amendment would have serious consequences for public health. In order for our Nation's environmental safeguards to work properly and ensure the protection of public health, citizens, including those with limited means, must have the ability to challenge Federal actions. This amendment is clearly designed to make it more difficult for regular citizens to ensure the accountability of the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the Equal Access to Justice Act is the law of the land. It allows for the Federal payment of legal fees, within limits, to individuals and small businesses and nonprofits which are the prevailing parties in actions against the Federal Government.
Again, we should be mindful of the 2011 GAO study that said, in cases brought against the EPA, it found that most suits were brought by trade associations and private companies and that attorneys' fees were only awarded in about 8 percent of the cases.
Citizens need to be able to hold their government accountable. They need to be able to petition their government, and that means a citizen with limited means. If that citizen wins and if the judge decides that it is just to award the costs, then that is the law of the land, which I support. Private citizens, regular citizens--citizens without means--can ensure that there is full accountability of the Federal Government to them. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would, once again, prevent Fish and Wildlife Service from enforcing the Endangered Species Act with respect to six different species of mussel and would restrict the Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any of the critical protections to preserve these species.
This amendment is harmful and, in my opinion, misguided. Once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is a role of Fish and Wildlife Service--is primarily permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities, the TAL that the gentleman referred to.
Under this amendment, all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply, but developers and landowners would have no avenue to comply with them. There could be no TAL. The Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions.
This means landowners and industry and other parties who might need to take any of these six species of mussels would be vulnerable to a citizens suit. Additionally, this amendment would halt Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, which has no effect on other Federal agencies that are funded outside of this bill.
The Endangered Species Act mandates that all Federal departments and agencies conserve listed species and use their authorities in furthering the purpose of this act.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act stipulates that any Federal agency that carries out, permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes activities that may affect all listed species must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species.
This amendment would stop--stop--section 7 consultation requirements for Federal agencies; rather, it would prohibit Fish and Wildlife from completing these consultations. That means a bridge or a highway project permitted or funded through the Federal Highway Administration or power projects permitted by the Department of Energy would be vulnerable to delays and stoppages and other potential lawsuits.
This amendment, in my opinion, is an all-out assault on the Endangered Species Act. In one fell swoop, it would block protections for six different species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered; but, regardless of one's position on the Endangered Species Act, it is just a bad amendment.
The gentleman's amendment will create uncertainty for developers, landowners, leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits. I don't think that was the gentleman's original intention, but that is the effect it will have because it will block section 7 consultations, gumming up permitting processing across the Federal Government, delaying projects, and adversely impacting the economy.
The amendment is bad for the environment. It is bad for the economy. It is bad for business. It is bad for the highways and energy projects. It is just bad for this bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would prohibit funds in the act from being used to pay attorney fees in excess of $125 per hour for the Endangered Species Act civil suits.
Now, perhaps the gentleman is not aware that the Equal Access to Justice Act caps attorney fees at $125 per hour unless the court--the court--determines that an increase in the cost of living or special factors, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies the higher fee.
So it would be the court that would determine that. But the fee is capped at $125 an hour. This is unnecessary and it is a redundant amendment. Attorney fees for the Endangered Species Act cases, as I said, are already capped at $125 per hour, unless special criteria are stipulated by the Equal Access Justice Court.
This amendment would effectively change that implementation of the Equal Access Justice Act for one specific policy area: the Endangered Species Act.
Again, higher attorney fees are only permitted in cases where specific criteria under the Endangered Species Act are met. At best, this amendment is redundant; at worst, it is a backdoor attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act protections and make access to justice a lot less equal.
In closing, Mr. Chair, we don't need any extraneous, redundant provisions to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey have been using unmanned aircraft to complement conventional satellite-based remote sensing. Using remote sensing via unmanned aircraft did make sense. It allows for the rapid collection of data and allows for the Department to get a closer look at natural disasters as they develop.
The Department and the USGS are using unmanned aircraft to monitor the spread of wildfires, monitor riverbank erosion, detect and locate coal steam fires, conduct waterfall surveys, and inspect abandoned mines.
It is clearly evident to everyone that this technology offers a real public safety benefit. So it makes no sense to hamstring the Department when the technology can save lives and the survey can monitor dangerous natural events.
Now, the way that the amendment is written--and I am all for the private sector being able to do things, and that is in your new amendment, that the private sector is not affected by this amendment--if the private sector currently isn't operating in this space looking at abandoned mines or looking at wildfires and we need to do something right away, your amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from using equipment it would have and be able to launch up and look at something in real time.
I don't think that was the total intention of your amendment. But because even though you worked in the redraft to make sure that you protected contractors--and I am glad you did that--I don't know where that leaves us in times of emergency when there isn't a contractor available, because you haven't allowed prohibition.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I thank the gentleman.
I think that this is a great discussion we are having, but I don't think the discussion necessarily belongs on the appropriations bill. It belongs in the policy committee so that all the questions that I have and the concerns that you have can be addressed and thoughtfully written into a piece of legislation.
There are just some places in rural parts of the United States--and I come from a State that is both urban, suburban, and very rural, up on the north shore--where private contractors just don't go or the ability of getting a hold of one isn't there, and sometimes you have to have some Federal redundancy in the system to get out there and do that.
You also have used a couple of terms and descriptions that I don't have any statutory language in front of me. So where I think the gentleman might have a very good idea, bills that we are working on in the appropriations process, when we start getting into writing technical policy or trying to figure out the new wave of what new legislation should look like--and you have a great proponent; I hear him all the time in the Defense subcommittee--the chairman of the subcommittee says the Federal Government shouldn't be doing what the private sector can do. We should not be doing this legislation for the reasons I mentioned, that we just don't have all the facts in front of it, and it is not the role of the Interior Appropriations bill to do policy.
So I am going to continue to object to the amendment at this time, but I look forward to, in a policy situation, working with the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source