Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, which would allow for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.
Plain and simple, coordinated ocean planning makes common sense and is a good economic policy for our coastal communities. It allows for a comprehensive mapping of existing ocean uses that helps to identify and resolve conflicts between stakeholders before they play out in specific permitting processes.
In Virginia, this process has been crucial to preserving public access to the ocean, to sustain economic growth, to address marine debris, to create migration corridors for marine mammals, and to support promising new ocean industries, such as wind power and marine aquaculture.
In fact, I am proud to note that Virginia was recently selected by BOEM to be the first State in the Nation to receive a wind energy research lease in Federal waters. This rider would eliminate language that would undermine regional collaborative efforts to manage existing and future ocean policy challenges.
Let's not roll back the valuable work and resources that many States, industries, and communities have already devoted to implementing this policy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
The amendment strikes a rider that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from updating regulations pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
Presently, the Army Corps of Engineers issues a section 404 permit if the fill material discharged into a water body raises the bottom elevation of that water body or converts the area to dry land.
The current rule allows mining waste to be dumped into the rivers and streams without an appropriate environmental review process.
Given repeated instances of mining activities resulting in lakes and streams devoid of fish or aquatic life, downstream water users are rightly concerned that the section 404 process fails to protect them from the discharge of hazardous substances.
The Clean Water Act section 404 guidelines are not well suited for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous waste, such as mining refuse and similar materials, into a water body or a wetland.
The rider that this amendment strikes would block the EPA from making necessary modifications to these guidelines. This rider is a preemptive strike against protecting our drinking water, and it allows mining companies' interests to trump the protection of the health of our citizens.
We should not short-circuit regular order through the appropriations process. We should not preclude the Corps or the EPA from considering any regulatory changes to the current definition and permit process. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike this language from the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I respect the chairman's objections to this, but I would like to point out that all that this amendment does in striking the section is allow the EPA to consider future changes to the ``fill'' definitions.
Clearly, the work begun in the Clinton administration and finalized in the George W. Bush administration were the best possible actions at the time.
In the meantime, we have discovered that, unfortunately, much mining waste and refuse are ending up in mining streams and rivers, and it has severely affected the health of those people.
We are not attempting to eliminate mining jobs or to even impact earth moving. It is only reasonable to make sure that our Environmental Protection Agency has the latitude and the freedom to evolve future definitions so as to best protect the health of our citizens.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, despite what you may hear from some Members of Congress, gray wolves have not recovered. In a test by the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove them from the Endangered Species Act, protections for wolves have failed time and again.
Why? It is because scientific experts have shown and the courts have confirmed that the best available science does not justify the removal of all ESA protections for gray wolves at this time.
In fact, the only instance in which wolves have been delisted has been through the unprecedented and unfortunate congressional action in 2011 to remove protections from wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
These wolves are now endlessly persecuted by hunters and ranchers despite the positive effects they have on the ecosystem and the minimal toll they take on livestock.
Wolf-related tourism around Yellowstone generates more than $35 million annually for local economies, and recovery in the Pacific Northwest is only beginning.
This amendment would prevent Congress from directing the Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue the delisting of wolves in the western Great Lakes and Wyoming. Now is not the time for Congress to declare open season on one of America's most iconic wild animals. Science, not politics, should guide these delisting decisions.
By the way, wolves are not in Massachusetts, they are not in Virginia, and they never will be as long as we do not continue our efforts to protect wolves and allow them to occupy the old territories they did a few hundred years ago.
This amendment would also allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to move forward with steps to protect the northern long-eared bat. Over the past decade, populations of the bat have declined 98 percent, mostly because of the deadly effects of white-nose syndrome. As a result, Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed the bat as a threatened species. While scientists and wildlife managers work to fight the spread of white-nose syndrome, it is important to ensure that the remaining bat populations are safe from other threats.
The interim rule currently in effect governing taking of the bat is incredibly flexible and was developed in close coordination with industry stakeholders, particularly the timber industry, to ensure that economic activity is not negatively impacted.
The final rule is expected to be similarly flexible. The language in this bill will only serve as a delay tactic, causing additional uncertainty for businesses and property owners, and this amendment would effectively strike these unnecessary sections from the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank the chairman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak in support of Mr. Grijalva's amendment. The U.S. is the world's second largest market for ivory. Only China has a greater demand.
In February of last year, President Obama announced a ban on the commercial trade of elephant ivory. This ban is the best way to ensure that U.S. markets do not contribute to the further decline of African elephants in the wild.
The African elephant population has declined by an estimated 50 percent over the last 40 years, with approximately 35,000 elephants poached every year. That amounts to one elephant poached every 15 minutes.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been undertaking a series of administrative actions, including a proposed rule in order to implement the ban. Section 120 would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing this rule and other policies necessary to crack down on the domestic illegal ivory market.
I cannot understand why we would not do everything possible to stop the illegal slaughter of African elephants.
I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Grijalva's amendment, which would prevent section 120 from being enacted. We must allow the FWS to continue its efforts to prevent the extinction of the African elephant.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The sum of the harmful consequences of global climate change is the existential crisis of our generation and, perhaps, of our century.
Global temperature changes are already causing prolonged droughts, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. Tens of millions of people, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable among us, are at risk unless we act to reverse the disastrous effects of climate change.
Our best scientists and our Pope are warning us that unless carbon emissions are dramatically cut, we will see ever rising sea levels, ever more extreme weather, and ever worsening public health, poor air quality, the spread of tropical diseases, lung and heart and heat stress illnesses, and death.
Several weeks ago, the EPA issued a comprehensive report quantifying the economic costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the American economy. Among the findings, the report found that, by 2100, mitigating greenhouse global gas emissions could avoid 12,000 deaths per year that are associated with extreme temperatures in just 49 U.S. cities compared to a future with no emission reductions.
The estimated damages to coastal property from sea level rise and storm surge in the contiguous U.S. are $5 trillion through the year 2100 in a future without carbon emissions.
The Department of the Interior also recently released a report revealing that over $40 billion of National Park infrastructure and historic and cultural resources could be at risk due to sea level rise caused by climate change.
Taking acts to address climate change is particularly crucial in urban districts that border waterways, like
mine, where we are already seeing environmental effects. Now is the time when the U.S. should be deepening its commitment to reducing climate change pollution.
Federal agency actions, including those of the agencies named in this bill, have major impacts on our contributions and reactions to global warning. It is imperative, then, that these agencies maintain mindfulness of those impacts and that they seek to avoid actions that add significant amounts of carbon pollution to the atmosphere or actions that put people and property in the vulnerable position with respect to climate change.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to ensure that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with the President's 2009 executive order on greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency and the 2013 executive order on climate change adaptation.
These orders require agencies to take global warming into account when making decisions and will save taxpayer dollars while making our communities safer and cleaner.
Our agencies need to be climate smart, because making our Federal investments and actions climate smart reduces our fiscal exposure to the impacts of climate change.
It is the right thing to do to run an efficient and effective government. It is the right thing to do to return the highest value to the American taxpayer.
It is simple: smarter investments up front mean we can reduce future costs. Communities across the Nation are thinking this way. We need to ensure that the same is true for the Federal Government.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to ensure that Federal agencies are operating in the manner that accounts for climate change.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source