Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, in listening to the previous debate, I would certainly agree we have made great strides in America in accessing oil and gas, so much so that we have now become almost energy independent, all for the good. All of that has happened in the last 7 to 8 years, and we are thankful for that.
However, this appropriation has more money than needed. The administration has asked for about $32 million less.
I would like my colleagues to take a look at where we really do need to spend some money. This amendment that I am proposing deals with this. This is California's water situation today. The great Central Valley of California is rapidly depleting its aquifers. The water resources that agriculture and communities depend upon are rapidly depleting.
This amendment would move about $11,611,000 to the USGS, to Geological Survey, for the purposes of studying the aquifers of California. Now, keep in mind that the State of California voters approved a $7 billion bond act of which a good portion of that money is for underground aquifer storage.
We have to have the science; we have to have the engineering to go with it, and this amendment would provide the additional money that the USGS needs in order to do the surveys and the engineering and understanding the geology of those areas where we might be able to have the aquifers replenished. That is what it is all about.
This leaves plenty of money behind for the purposes that the committee has identified in the approval and the permitting of mineral and gas and oil resources.
I see my colleague from California, who is well aware of these issues, including aquifers in the San Fernando and the Santa Anna aquifer area, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
Certainly, the chairman understands the issues of water in California, as well as anyone does, and also understands that, in order for us to meet the current and certainly any future drought, we are going to have to use the aquifers, which will require the services and the knowledge and capability of the U.S. Geological Survey to fully comprehend the potential that the various aquifers have throughout the State, those in southern California, as well as the Central Valley and coastal areas.
I would be delighted working with the chairman as the process moves along and see if we might be able to find sufficient money and address the specific needs of aquifer surveys by the USGS. I look forward to working with the gentleman on that.
Rather than taking a ``no'' vote on this and going to a vote, I heard the gentleman suggest that we can work together and quite possibly solve this problem.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GARAMENDI
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $4,010,000)''.
Page 8, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $3,902,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this bill deals with the very real problem for delivering water to southern California.
Those people who are familiar with the way in which the California water system works, water flows down the Sacramento River--I will just put this up here--water comes down the Sacramento River from the north and up the San Joaquin from the south.
It all gets to the delta where the massive pumps at Tracy pick the water up, put it in the canals, and send it to the San Joaquin Valley and then on to southern California, Los Angeles, Orange County, and other cities in that massive urban area.
There is a problem in the delta, a lot of problems. One of the problems is aquatic plants. The delta is being totally overrun by water hyacinths. Other parts of the United States and the West are also finding these invasive water aquatic plants plugging their pumps, reducing water supply, eliminating opportunities for boating, recreation, fishing, and the like.
What this amendment does is address that problem by adding $3,902,000 to the aquatic habitat and species conservation fund, thereby allowing the Federal agencies to work with the State and local agencies to attack the aquatic plants.
Specifically in the delta, those who want to have more water flowing south to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California's great metropolitan areas, including Orange County, ought to be in favor of unplugging the pumps and getting the water hyacinths reduced in the delta.
That is what we would do. It is a very real problem; it is a problem that exists today, and it is also money that comes from some 32 million more dollars in this Bureau of Land Management oil and gas permitting account than the President thought necessary. Surely, there is a little bit of room to move around so that southern California can have the water that it needs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the chairman is quite correct. We do have a problem. We do have quagga mussels. We have this particular one, the water hyacinths, and there are other aquatic invasive species that are causing havoc throughout the United States--certainly, the quagga mussel in the East, along the Great Lakes, Chicago and the rest--and certainly in California. The energy systems at Hoover Dam, on the Colorado River, are impeded by quagga mussels, and there is the delta with water hyacinths, and there are other lakes and streams throughout the West.
If we let this problem continue to grow, we are going to continue to have less water and less power available to us. This is just under $4 million coming out of an account that was plussed up by some $32 million over and above what the administration thought necessary. I would remind all of us that the administration has done a rather good job on permitting, so much so that we now have the greatest production of oil and gas ever in the United States, so much so that we are on the verge of becoming energy sufficient.
Do we need another $32 million to do what is already being done, or would that $4 million of that $32 million be better spent in dealing with the very real problem of trying to get water to the pumps so it can go south to Orange County and to Los Angeles and to San Joaquin County?
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, but I am going to ask for a vote on this one.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, $39,696,000 is for Mining Law Administration program operations, including the cost of administering the mining claim fee program, to remain available until expended, to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited to this appropriation from mining claim maintenance fees and location fees that are hereby authorized for fiscal year 2016, so as to result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than $1,015,046,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until expended, from communication site rental fees established by the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site activities.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, to everyone here, this is one of those amendments that really becomes a talking point amendment, but this is something we need to talk about. Our colleague, a moment ago, raised the question of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition to the words that he spoke, we need to be aware that, later this next month--in about 100 days, actually. I guess that is more than a month--the Land and Water Conservation Fund is going to disappear. It needs to be reauthorized, and I see on the floor here today the men and women who are in a position to make that happen.
We really cannot lose this program. For example, there are projects in the Sequoia National Forest, which is in the majority leader's district, that were funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There is a Galloway Park playground expansion in Clark County, Ohio. I think we know in whose district that is--the Speaker's district. The chairman of the subcommittee here is from San Bernardino. There is the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, and there is a Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway. I am sure the chairman is familiar with that parkway. These are all Land and Water Conservation projects that, over the years, have been in place. We have 100 days, and we have got some work to do here.
Is the money available? Yes. There is $18 billion in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, should it continue to exist, that has not been spent. It is sitting there. Well, I guess there is an IOU there. Actually, the cash isn't there. There is an IOU because, over the years, we have diverted money from the original purpose and law to transfer that money over to all kinds of projects. Perhaps some of it even went to debt reduction. Nonetheless, it has not been used for its intended purpose and legal purpose, which is for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Every year, over $900 million of royalties comes in from the oil and gas and energy companies for the public resources that they mine or pump out of the earth. Only a small fraction of that money has ever gone to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
I want all of us to pay attention to this extraordinarily important program--a program that I was able to work with when I was Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior, overseeing the projects in all of our districts--parks, local parks, some of the big national parks, including national forests, such as the one in Mr. McCarthy's district.
Why are we not moving aggressively to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund? Why is it that, every year, we deny the public, whether it is a playground or a swimming pool or a park expansion playground in Ohio, the opportunity for better lives in their own communities?
I do not understand, and I don't think that if any of us were to think about this for any amount of time that we would not say, yes, let's reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Let's not let it expire. Let's make sure that the money that was intended for it--the royalties from the resources of this great Nation--be spent on providing for the projects that all of America can enjoy. That is what it is all about.
I don't know if I will go to a vote on this one, but I have, in my view here, leaders in the House who really have the power and, I think, the obligation to make sure the LWCF, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is reauthorized and that we adequately fund it. I achieved, at least, my own goal of talking about something that I believe to be important.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source