Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I certainly agree with you. We need to improve the condition of our national forests. My home of California, as you know, is going through an exceptional drought. Colorado is just not sending enough water down the Colorado River, so you need to help us out a little bit.
This hazardous fuel issue is a huge issue in my area. As you know, we have the blight issue that is just killing trees because we have too many trees in the forests, and it has weakened the forests.
This is a good amendment, and I certainly urge its adoption.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, this provision shouldn't be controversial. The language has been included in our enacted bills on a bipartisan basis since 2010. The language simply requires that programs and activities dedicated to climate change are reported in a transparent way so the American people know what we are spending their tax dollars on.
With so many climate change programs being initiated, it is important to know what is being done across the government to avoid redundancy, and there is certainly a significant amount of redundancy in some of these climate change studies. It is in the bill so the committee can have the information it needs to provide critical oversight.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, it comes as no surprise that I rise in opposition to this amendment.
In 2006, the Supreme Court determined the EPA and the Corps of Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters under the Clean Water Act.
I am certain the EPA's final rule violates that. From day one, the EPA claimed that they were not expanding the waters under their jurisdiction, but we now know that those permits will be required and that the final rule is worse than proposed.
Twenty-seven States have now filed lawsuits challenging the legality of EPA's rule, so the Agency again finds itself on shaky legal ground, both on process and substance.
The language in the bill protects the authority of the States by preventing the EPA from implementing its regulation and expanding its jurisdiction. The language needs to stay in, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Chair, in 2008, the Office of Surface Mining finalized revisions to the stream zone buffer rule in an open and transparent manner. After taking office, the Obama administration put a hold on the rule and is currently writing a new rule.
The administration's approach under the new rule has been anything but collaborative and inclusive, and many States feel they have been shut out of the process. When Chairman Rogers required advanced analysis on job impacts, his request was ignored.
The American people expect more openness and transparency from their government, and that is why this funding prohibition must remain in the base bill.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and reject this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I have operated a business. Ever since this administration created the National Ocean Policy through executive order,
[Page: H4794] GPO's PDF
the subcommittee has asked the CEQ, the DOI, and the EPA to provide an estimate of the impact of the Policy on their budgets, and we have yet to receive a substantial answer.
The so-called report we were provided last year was fewer than three pages long. Clearly, this failed to outline expenditures supporting the administration's National Ocean Policy.
Our job here is to pay the bills. When we ask how much does the National Ocean Policy cost, we expect to get an answer. We need an answer so that proper congressional oversight can be conducted.
I want to point out that this language was included in the House fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. There are concerns about the costs and all of the unknowns related to this policy in multiple jurisdictions.
The bottom line is, if this administration wants the funds to implement the National Ocean Policy, then tell us how much it is going to cost the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, as the gentleman knows, the bill already provides $87 million for other land acquisition. Our intent was to needle a Federal land acquisition program that has strong support in the East--certainly, in New Hampshire--and lukewarm support in the West, where the government already owns a significant amount of real estate in the Western United States. When the conference begins on this bill with the Senate, Congress will exercise its power of the purse by selecting projects from the President's budget to improve recreational access that have strong local, State, and congressional support.
I certainly agree with you. We need to improve the condition of our national forests. My home of California, as you know, is going through an exceptional drought. Colorado is just not sending enough water down the Colorado River, so you need to help us out a little bit.
This hazardous fuel issue is a huge issue in my area. As you know, we have the blight issue that is just killing trees because we have too many trees in the forests, and it has weakened the forests.
This is a good amendment, and I certainly urge its adoption.
I will work with the gentleman. I know he is a strong advocate of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but this amendment might leave advocates on both sides of the aisle with some difficult and unnecessary choices. Therefore, I ask the gentleman to consider withdrawing his amendment, knowing I will be working with him in the future to see if we can't be of assistance through the conference process.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I know he has been a champion for the Everglades. It is certainly a concern of this committee. I want to get out there and look at those pythons in the Everglades. I understand they are all over the place.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
As in the case with many of the amendments today before us, I cannot support the offset. Let me say this: EPA may be reimbursed for oil spill response activities from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Now, personally, I think EPA should have direct access to that trust fund to avoid the delays, these administrative reimbursement delays, when responding to an oil spill such as what happened in California. However, that is an authorizing issue, not an appropriating issue.
That is the proper place because those dollars will be there eventually to clean that up, and we just need to clean up the bureaucracy to have more immediacy in that process.
This offset, I cannot support; and so, for that reason, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I don't agree to the offset. The fact that we have an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, that should be accessed.
I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman to work with the authorizers where we can get more immediate response to these kinds of activities that happen from time to time around the country, but I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I understand there is a level of frustration regarding the Office of Surface Mining's continued use of funds to develop the stream buffer rule, and we attempted to address that through the bill language to limit funding.
I certainly support what you are doing for water infrastructure. It is a good amendment that will leverage jobs, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the committee, as the gentleman knows, has included this as a pilot program to test in a few States how community and economic redevelopment can combine in conjunction with reclamation of abandoned mine lands.
These funds will be provided to States with the largest unfunded needs to date. If you expand that to include six States, this pilot then starts to look more like a program, and that is not the committee's intent. The committee believes that the lessons learned from this pilot will inform changes, both pros and cons, under the reauthorization of the underlying law.
I want to work with the gentleman in the future as this pilot moves forward. When we have more information, we can potentially, next year, reexamine this.
I would ask the gentleman if he would withdraw the amendment. I would certainly be happy to work with him in the future. I know the full committee chairman is certainly in the interest of him to address the needs of his constituents. We are certainly sympathetic to that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I know there is no doubt that Indian Country, especially Indian education, is a nonpartisan priority of this entire subcommittee. We are committed to building upon the bipartisan work of former subcommittee chairmen Mike Simpson, Jim Moran, Norm Dicks, and certainly Ranking Member Betty McCollum.
We all agree that there are great needs in Indian Country, especially in education. In fact, we were in Arizona recently at both the Navajo and Hopi reservations and saw firsthand the need for education in this country.
Although I am proud of what we have done for Indian Country in this bill, that said, I understand where the gentleman is coming from. I recognize there is so much more to do on Indian education that can and should be done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I want the gentleman to know that I understand that the territories would benefit greatly from additional funding. We funded the assistance to territories at the FY15-enacted levels. We level-funded that because we know that the money is needed, and we know that we have responsibilities in the territories. However, the offset right now, we have cut back that particular operation considerably, so I would oppose that offset. But I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman as we move this process along, along with the ranking member, to see if we can't get additional funds as we move this process along.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's intent, but we would have to reluctantly oppose this amendment at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentlewoman was able to share this amendment with both the majority and the minority in the committee where we could have reviewed it. But saying that, I still must oppose the amendment because of the offset.
Mr. Chairman, the offset obviously would take money from the Secretary and move it over to the EPA, and at this time we have used the Secretary's Office tremendously as an offset already, and I am afraid that this may start affecting other programs within the Department of the Interior. So I would have to oppose this amendment.
The gentlewoman's amendment won't increase the cleanup of a brownfields site, it will only pay for salaries over at the EPA, and I believe that we don't need to do any more for the EPA than has already been done.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is an important account to beef up. Remember, we are under the sequester caps, and then we are $4 million under the budget request even with this amendment.
Now, the Secretary's Office is the best place to go for an offset. The Secretary's account is $452 million above fiscal year 2015 levels and $389 million above the budget request.
I would put to you that it would be a better investment for our communities back home to allow them this little seed money, this little matching money, to redevelop properties, rather than fund the bureaucracy at the EPA.
I urge approval of the Castor amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment only because of the offset.
The offset that we are talking about is taking money of the inspector general's office, which is our auditors, and we desperately need auditors in the Federal Government. We, as appropriators, are very reluctant to cut the inspector general's office in general.
I want to work with the gentlewoman. I recognize her passion to make sure that the good work that the Smithsonian does gets out to the general community throughout the United States. I am a big supporter of the Smithsonian. We have level-funded the Smithsonian Institution this year. Obviously, we are operating under difficult budget constraints.
We certainly support what the gentlewoman wants to do; we just don't support the offset in which she wants to do it with.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
We will continue to work with the gentlewoman as this process moves forward and with the ranking member, Ms. McCollum.
Who knows, there may be something that happens between A and B, and we may have some additional resources, who knows; but we will certainly work with you to find out if we do.
I know that if we can help the Smithsonian Institution out, it is really at the top of our list.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The committee still has concerns about the costs, technology requirements, and compliance periods in the final rule. It is not clear why EPA divided some categories into subcategories and provided different deadlines for similar products.
The EPA clearly chose winners and losers. For the losers, the timetables remain unworkable. Manufacturers need time to implement engineering and technology changes and address new risk and safety challenges. Historic experience with the Montreal Protocol indicates that manufacturers need approximately 6-plus years to successfully transition between new materials.
This new rule will particularly be hard on small businesses. The large businesses that the gentleman mentioned have the resources and the technologies available to them to comply quicker. These smaller businesses will find it very difficult to comply with DOE's energy conservation standards.
EPA's proposal is not being driven by a statutory mandate, so the committee believes additional time is warranted. The EPA left critical decisions regarding energy, efficiency, and system performance up to the manufacturers; and they need time to get this right.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, as in the case of a number of offshore-related amendments that we will deal with today, the Interior Appropriations bill is not the appropriate venue, though I do understand it has been used in the past.
I understand this amendment dovetails with the current congressional moratorium, and the Department of the Interior has no intention of acting in a manner that is contrary to congressional intent. The Department is focused on the next 5-year oil and gas leasing plan, which is limited to 2017-2022, so many departmental activities in fiscal year 2016 are already limited in scope through 2022. If my colleagues wish to see the moratorium extended beyond 2022, then they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees.
With that, I would oppose the amendment, and urge a ``no'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, climate change is winning the amendment contest tonight. We have had a number of amendments on that subject.
Earlier we debated whether or not to continue a bipartisan reporting requirement in the bill on climate change expenditures.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted to remove that requirement, which would have reduced transparency. Now my friend wants to ensure that funds are being expended on climate and efficiency executive orders issued by the President.
So I am left to wonder whether my colleagues would prefer to know if the funds are spent on these programs or not.
Regardless, this amendment is certainly unnecessary. The President did not consult Congress on these executive orders. If anything, we should defund these programs until Congress can have an appropriate policy debate. I see no reason to include this language, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to the gentleman's concerns, particularly because my home State of California probably has more than its fair share of endangered species problem.
The Endangered Species Act hinges upon the principle that, if a species is listed, that it will be recovered and management will return to the States. This push by the States is the reality we see playing out. Bats, wolves, greater sage-grouse, delta smelt, the list goes on and on and on.
It should come as no surprise, then, to see the States pushing back through their elected Representatives in the legislative branch in an effort to bring the Endangered Species Act back into balance.
I would support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to work with my good friend from Minnesota as we move this process forward.
As you know, we talked about this in the budget process with the National Park Service earlier in the year. We, obviously, don't want to discourage people from drinking water. We want them to stay hydrated. There are also people who work in the bottled water industry, and I think it is a noble industry. We want to encourage people to drink more water. It is not just about bottled water. It is about jobs and about the people who bottle that water.
I will work together with the gentlewoman from Minnesota, and we will not deny people water in our national parks. I support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this administration has already developed the most restrictive policies for the use of seismic airguns for offshore exploration to date. We do not need to place a moratorium on the use.
Further, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area is more than 125 miles off the Florida coast, and the South Atlantic Planning Area also affects Georgia and South Carolina. So the amendment affects many other States other than his own. Also, the Department of the Interior has already classified the Straits of Florida as a low resource potential or low support for potential new listing. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. This amendment is consistent with policy agreed to last year in the conference on a bipartisan basis. Fishing is a national pastime, to which the national fish hatchery plays an important role.
Therefore, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I just rise in support of the amendment. I know the State of North Carolina opposed the rule and passed the legislation a few months ago to block these EPA regulations. I suspect it is not the only State that may have these concerns. Let's let the market drive manufacturers toward producing lower emission wood heaters.
I support the gentleman's amendment and urge an ``aye'' vote. I hope that everybody who supports this amendment would also vote for the bill for final passage.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I am not going to oppose the amendment. I certainly appreciate what the gentleman is trying to accomplish and generally agree that this administration has placed way too many restrictions on drilling, both onshore and offshore.
These restrictions have delayed the permitting process and slowed economic growth in your State and many other States around the Union. Various groups have used that to their advantage.
I agree that more certainty is needed in the leasing and permitting process. What I am afraid of is this might lead to a precedent for preempting the Department of the Interior's decisionmaking under any President, and may lead to other amendments and kind of opening Pandora's box, and Members doing specific amendments that are off their particular States.
Saying that, as we move this process forward, I am not going to oppose the amendment, but I just have some concerns we can talk about as we move this process along.
We both want the same outcome. I just want to make sure that we make sure this works in an orderly fashion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
It is my understanding that the proposed rule is supported broadly by many in the trucking manufacturing industry, so for that reason, I support her amendment.
However, as with any rule, there are some specifics that we need to iron out. I would like to work with my colleague and with EPA to see if we can't resolve those specifics between now and the final rule.
In the meantime, I support including language in the Interior bill, and I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Florida raising this issue. I always learn new facts when we have these debates. I didn't know that St. Augustine was the Nation's oldest city. I always thought it was Santa Fe, New Mexico.
BREAK IN TRANCRIPT
I know; but I have learned something today.
I certainly commend the gentleman's longstanding interest in this. I know you have been working on this for a number of years. The Castillo de San Marcos National Monument in St. Augustine needs a new visitors center.
I certainly look forward to working with you as we move this issue forward, and we certainly have no objection to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, this language simply maintains the status quo regarding the definition of ``fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The existing definition was put in place through a rule-making initiated by the Clinton administration and finalized by the Bush administration. That rule harmonized the definitions on the books of the Corps and the EPA so that both agencies were working with the same definition.
Any attempts to redefine this important definition could significantly negatively impact the ability of all earth-moving industries, road and highway construction, and private and commercial enterprises to obtain vital Clean Water Act section 404 permits.
Changing the definition of ``fill material'' could result in the loss of up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and jeopardize over 1 million jobs that are dependent upon the economic output generated by these operations.
For these reasons, I support the underlying language and oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I have long been concerned with how EPA conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is something that the committee has discussed with EPA on a number of occasions, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to examining costs and their regulation was flawed.
The administration's revised estimates for the social cost of carbon help justify on paper larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions in any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag so that the benefits always exceed the costs, the administration can goldplate requirement regulations from any department or any agency.
Section 437 says that the administration should convene a working group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and to make that information available to the public.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I probably live in the most regulated air quality area in the United States, southern California.
In southern California, our population continues to grow; yet we have been able to make significant air quality improvements within the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The committee set a level at 85 percent of the communities so that the marginal nonattainment communities could have the opportunity to achieve compliance with the 2008 standards before further updates are considered.
This amendment would prevent EPA from lowering the ozone standard below the 2008 levels. This amendment would prevent further updates to the ozone standard for an indefinite and undetermined timeframe, and that is certainly not the committee's intent.
We need to make progress in clean air in areas that folks want to see cleaner air, but at the same time making sure that technology is there in order to do that. This was, I think, compromise language that the underlying bill has that works to move us forward, but at the same time not stopping us from obtaining cleaner air in the future.
I am in opposition to this amendment.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jenkins included the language in the full committee bill that, I think, came to a reasonable compromise. As the gentleman is aware, many communities cannot reach the old standard, the 2008 standard, that is now the law, and so this just gives the communities throughout the country that cannot get to attainment additional time to develop the technologies before we go to a new standard.
I would remind the gentleman that it was just last April that we came to a determination on the 2008 standard, and the administration already is talking about a new standard that most of the Nation cannot reach in the short term. So this gives a brief, little bit of time to allow these communities to improve their technologies and to be able to meet a new standard down the road.
So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment and support the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As mentioned earlier, I live in one of the most, maybe the most, regulated air districts in the United States, and I am a strong advocate for clean air. My district has achieved some of the largest emission reductions in the country.
However, EPA continues to dig the hole deeper as my district continues to try to work its way out of nonattainment. So EPA and the States need to use the resources we provided in the bill to play catch-up on a statutory obligation to help communities implement the 2008 standard.
Remember, just last April, EPA finalized the rule for the 2008 standards. When 85 percent of the communities can achieve the latest standards, then EPA should consider whether or not revisions are necessary.
I will remind my colleagues that the Clean Air Act only directs EPA to review the standards every 5 years. It does not require that EPA revise the standard.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, once again, this is a sincere effort to try to set a benchmark and not have the EPA moving the goalposts that will have such economic devastation, billions of dollars in cost, and I encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts on trying to clean the ozone out of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We have to suffer the ozone that is being blown from L.A./Long Beach over into the Inland Empire. Certainly the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the trains emit a lot of ozone and a lot of pollutants that end up in the Inland Empire, so we want to clean that air up.
As you know, we can't meet the 2008 standards at this time. We Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).are doing everything we can to meet those standards, but until these communities can get the technology to meet the existing standard, we shouldn't impose a new standard that could cause grave economic harm to the communities.
With that, I would say ``no'' to this amendment and move on.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I understand the BLM needed to update its regulation related to fracking on Federal and Indian lands. BLM regulations are 25, 30 years old.
However, the States have been doing the same thing over the last number of years. Unfortunately, BLM's rule is duplicative of existing State regulation.
It forces companies to drill into a double compliance scheme. It also costs them more time, and it significantly lengthens the time in which it takes time to get to a permit.
None of this is necessary, which is why we adopted this provision during the committee's markup of this bill.
I certainly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this would just make it difficult and impossible for Federal agencies to dispose or willingly or equitably exchange or convey lands to States, local governments, private landowners, and others.
I just may point out the Federal Government currently can't manage its existing land, which is over 640 million acres or approximately 3 out of every 10 acres in the United States.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's thoughtful comments regarding crisis levels of poaching and wildlife trafficking and the need to do something about it. This is a deadly serious matter with national security implications. That is why this bill has increased funding by $15 million since fiscal year 2013 in order to fight wildlife poachers and traffickers.
Without question, Republicans do not want to see elephants go extinct; but when the Fish and Wildlife Service made the unilateral determination to ban the trade and transport of products containing ivory that have been in the United States legally for years, we heard from orchestra musicians, art museums, wildlife conservation organizations, collectors of fine antiques from chess pieces to pool cues to firearms, and nearly everyone in every organization in between.
They are united in support for elephants, but they are also united in their opposition to new Federal restrictions on products that contain ivory legally obtained. The reality is family heirlooms and rare musical instruments didn't cause the problem, and the Fish and Wildlife Service should be acknowledging as much.
This bill keeps the status quo, allowing for continued legal trade and transport so that collectors, musicians, and others can get on with their lives until the Fish and Wildlife Service writes a rule that reflects the legitimate concerns of law-abiding U.S. citizens.
The administration is rumored to be just days away from publishing aMr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum). revised rule to address most of these concerns. If that is the case and if the revised rule solves the problem, then there will be no need for this provision in the final conference report later in the year.
In any case, I remain fully committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a reasonable solution moving forward. In the meantime, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, earlier, we debated whether or not to continue a bipartisan reporting requirement in the bill on climate change expenditures. My colleague on the other side of the aisle wanted to remove the requirements, which would have reduced transparency. Now he wants to ensure that funds are being expended on climate and efficiency executive orders issued by the President. So I am left to wonder whether my colleagues would prefer to know if funds are spent on these programs or not.
Regardless, this amendment is simply unnecessary. The President did not consult Congress on these executive orders, so, if anything, we should defund the programs until Congress can have an appropriate policy debate.
I see no reason to include this language, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars, this is not an approach I can support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).is bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that would never be enacted. This bill makes tough choices within an allocation that adheres to current law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).balances our needs. These trade-offs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible.
We prioritize funding for fire suppression, PILT, and meeting our moral obligations in Indian Country, yet the gentlewoman's amendment proposes an across-the-board cut on every one of those programs.
This amendment makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to invest in energy independence and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals.
And, I may point out, the spending problem is not within these discretionary appropriation bills, which we are debating at the present time. It exists primarily in entitlement spending.
So I hope we can spend as much energy on the entitlement side of the budget as we are on the discretionary side of the budget. If so, we would fix our budget problems.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the last point. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern about the deficit that we have.
When I came here 24 years ago, 40 percent of our expenditures were on the entitlement side of the budget. Today it is over 60 percent, over 60 percent. So we need to attack that side of the budget line.
If we placed as much energy on entitlement spending as we have on discretionary, not only would the budget be balanced, but we would be moving toward paying off our national debt.
With that, I reluctantly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Rogers for his leadership and support. Under his guidance, the Appropriations Committee is again setting the standard for getting things done in the House. This is the seventh of the appropriation bills that have come to the floor that we, hopefully, will be able to pass tomorrow.
I also want to thank my good friend and Ranking Member McCollum for
her partnership and work on this bill. Finally, I want to thank each of our committee members for their efforts and their collegiality. It continues to be the hallmark of our subcommittee's deliberations.
Even though we may have differences of opinion within this bill, I greatly appreciate the members' constructive contributions, and I mean that sincerely. The committee has made some very difficult choices in preparing this bill.
As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the fiscal year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill is funded at $30.17 billion, which is $246 million below the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and $3 billion below the budget request. We have made a sincere effort to prioritize the needs within our 302(b) allocation.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
I would like to point out some of the highlights of the bill. Again, this year, the committee has provided robust wildland fire funding, fire suppression accounts. The Department of the Interior and Forest Service are fully funded at the 10-year average level. The hazardous fuel program was increased by $75 million to $526 million in fiscal year 2015 enacted, and that increase has been maintained in this bill.
The bill also continues critical investments in Indian Country, a nonpartisan priority of this committee. Building upon the bipartisan work, former subcommittee chairman Mike Simpson, Jim Moran, Norm Dicks, and, certainly, my friend Ms. McCollum, the bill continues to make investments in education, public safety, and health programs in Indian Country.
Overall funding for the Indian Health Service has increased by $145 million or 3 percent, while funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education is increased by $165 million or 6 percent from fiscal year 2015 levels, the largest percentage increase in this bill.
The bill provides full funding for fiscal year 2016 for payments in lieu of taxes, or the PILT program. PILT payments are made to 49 of the 50 States, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The bill provides $2.7 billion for the National Park Service, included more than $60 million in new funding relating to the centennial of the National Park Service.
We have also addressed a number of priorities within the Fish and Wildlife Service accounts. The bill funds popular cost-shared grant programs above fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. It also provides for additional funds to combat international wildlife trafficking, protects fish hatcheries from cuts and closures, continues funding to fight invasive species, and reduces the backlog of species that are recovered but not yet delisted.
The bill provides $248 million for the land and water conservation fund, programs that enjoy broad bipartisan support. Some Members would prefer more funding; others would prefer less funding for LWCF. We have attempted to forge a middle ground that begins to return an emphasis of the LWCF to its original intent of recreation in the States and local acquisitions.
Overall, funding for EPA was reduced by $718 million or 9 percent from fiscal year 2015 enacted levels.
Members of the Great Lakes region will be pleased to know that the Great Lakes restoration initiative is maintained at fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $300 million. Rural water technical assistance grants and many categorical grants, including radon grants, are level funded at the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
Again, this year, there is a great deal of concern over a number of regulatory actions being pursued by EPA, which we have discussed over the last day and the absence of legislation without clear congressional direction.
For this reason, the bill includes a number of provisions to stop unnecessary and damaging regulatory overreach by the agency.
I would like to address the Endangered Species Act. We have had a number of amendments over the last day about this subject. Certainly, this committee has no interest in interfering with science or in letting any species go extinct, but we are concerned about Federal regulatory actions lacking in basic fairness and common sense. The provisions in this bill address problems created by the ESA--not by science but by court orders--that drain limited agency resources and force departments to cut cMr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).orners to meet arbitrary deadlines.
Nowhere is this more evident than with the sage-grouse. States are rightfully concerned that a listing or unnecessary restricted Federal land use plans will jeopardize existing conservation partnerships with States and private landowners. These partnerships are necessary to save both sagebrush ecosystems and local economies. So long as sage-grouse are not under imminent threat of extinction, cooperative conservation must be given a chance to work.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, so long as sage-grouse are not under imminent threat of extinction, cooperative conservation must be given a chance to work. That is why this bill maintains a 1-year delay in any decision to list the sage-grouse along with full funding to implement conservation efforts.
House consideration of this bill is the next step in a long legislative process. I hope, over the coming months, we will come together, as we do each year, to find common ground. In that spirit, I look forward to continuing to work with Ms. McCollum and Members of the House on both sides of the aisle. As this bill moves forward, hopefully, the Senate will act on a bill soon, and we will be able to get back to regular order, which is, I think, the hope for both sides.
In closing, I want to thank the staffs on both sides for their hard work on this bill. On the minority side, I would like to thank Rick Healy, Rita Culp, Joe Carlile, as well as Rebecca Taylor. They played an integral role in the process, and their efforts are very much appreciated. On the majority side, I would like to thank subcommittee staff Kristin Richmond, Jackie Kilroy, Betsy Bina, Jason Gray, Darren Benjamin, and Dave LesStrang. On my personal staff, I would also like to thank Ian Foley, Rebecca Keightley, Alexandra Berenter, and Tricia Evans for their great work.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I have enjoyed the debate over the last couple of days.
One thing I also want to talk about under my 5 minutes is on the wildfire and hazardous fuel management program. It was mentioned earlier in the debate that we are attempting to work out an agreement on both sides so that we can move Mr. Simpson's language forward in his hazardous wildfire bill, H.R. 167. We are looking for cosponsors of the bill, and we hope to get more support for that bill as we move this process forward.
As I mentioned earlier, we did fund the bill to the 10-year average, but this is still not going to be sufficient if we have the significant wildfire year that we expect. A catastrophic fire can literally burn through any amounts of money that we may have set aside, and it causes disruptions within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Forestry in how they manage those accounts, which we also discussed, which is not good management on our part. So I would hope we can move ahead with Mr. Simpson's bill as quickly as possible.
We also discussed the Endangered Species Act, and we continue to talk about the States and the difficulties that they are having in working with the Fish and Wildlife Service and with other agencies in trying to work out their State plans that deal with these significant issues. As we look at our sage-grouse strategy, we have 11 States involved in this program. We are doing everything we can to have a cooperative program with private landowners, the State land, and the Federal land to make sure that we continue to have sage-grouse. We want to make sure that the sage-grouse persists, and that is why we funded both the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service to the requested amounts in order to make sure that we have the resources available to do that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, next week, we will be having other bills in front of us. We are looking forward to having the Financial Services bill on the floor next week, and I believe we will have other app
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).ills brought to the floor and debated. The chairman has done a great job of moving this committee back to its historic importance in this institution, and we appreciate your continued support in that process.
As I mentioned on the Forest Service funding allocations, we are continuing to work to make sure that moneys are available to fund Forest Service research and development and to make sure that the analysis and inventory program continues to be funded. The forests, we recognize, are a renewable resource. Domestically produced timber supports local communities and the U.S. industry, especially in the West. It also helps reduce fuel loads in our national forests. This is greatly needed, especially now, because these fires are burning hotter, fire seasons are growing longer, and more communities are at risk.
Our forests need to be managed, Mr. Chairman. The Forest Service estimates that up to 2 million acres of land need to be actively managed. In the Rocky Mountains alone, 45 million acres have been affected by the bark beetle. We have seen results of the bark beetle back in my area of southern California where thousands of acres have been devastated by this beetle that attacks weakened trees, which certainly exposes a problem to wildfire conditions. Once those wildfires start, then those fires quickly become catastrophic as we have seen just recently in a fire in the San Bernardino National Forest.
We were fortunate that the 2014 fire season was well below the normal with just 87 percent of the 10-year average. We are praying that that is going to occur in the 2015 fire season, but we can't be sure. Most people believe that that is not going to occur and that, because of the drought, especially in the West, we could have catastrophic conditions and that we could have wildfires that can certainly grow out of control.
Mr. Chairman, 2 percent of the wildfires cost more money than the other 98 percent, so that is why we need to continue to invest resources wisely and to make sure that we get rid of hazardous materials, that we manage our forests properly in order for us not to have these catastrophic fires. These figures are combined with the fact that California, my home State, suffers through this exceptional drought. Other parts of the country, including Minnesota, have the potential for above normal wildfire activity in the next few months, and that is extremely, extremely worrisome.
I would like to talk a little bit about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I know we would have liked to have appropriated more money for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but we are acting under these allocations, and we were just restricted on what we could do. Yet what we wanted to do was to focus back to the original intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was recreation and State and local acquisitions. In this bill, the administration is directed to prioritize limited Federal acquisitions in which opportunities for recreation and local and State congressional support are the strongest.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, we extend the authority of recreation fee programs; we prohibit the Interior from administratively creating new wilderness areas; we provide the full funding of $452 million for payments in lieu of taxes, which is extremely important to almost every State in the Union; and we increase the forest products account by $16 million so that the Forest Service can increase timber harvests.
We lost a lot of the timber operations in the West after the issue with the spotted owl. After that 20-year experiment that most people realize was a failure, we now have forests that have become overgrown, especially in the West, and we have poorly managed some of those forests. We need to go back and thin those forests out. There are two ways to thin a forest, Mr. Chairman. Either God does it, or we allow for good timbering operations that are done in a new scientific manner that help clear out that forest in a healthy way, that bring back animals that sometimes have abandoned the regionMr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum). because of overgrowth--operations that make for a healthier forest in the long run.
These are good goals. We want to work with the Department of Forestry to make sure that they continue to make progress on this, and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The amendment doesn't recognize the suspension and debarment process that is already in place for Federal contractors. It does not provide exceptions for critical, urgent, or compelling needs or allow for the consideration of mitigating factors.
I am concerned that this amendment would impose strict legal triggers and take away the ability for Federal agencies to investigate and determine appropriate remedies. I am also concerned that it would deny the due process that the current suspension and debarment system provides. And finally, this is an issue that should be thoroughly vetted through the authorization process, not through the appropriation process.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
As someone who has always had the utmost respect for our fellow countrymen from the territories, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from American Samoa, and I want to thank her for her efforts to inform the committee on the issues of the insular areas.
I am well aware of just how dedicated to our country the people of American Samoa are, as displayed by their extremely high rate of enlistment in our Nation's Armed Forces.
Your membership in this body is highly valued, and the appointment as vice chairman of the Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee as a first-term member is a testament to the perspective and leadership you bring to Congress.
Through your leadership, your people are well respected and have found themselves a champion for their cause.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the mirror opposite, as the gentleman knows, of the Hudson amendment that is currently pending via a rollcall vote.
The Hudson amendment would allow lease 260 to move forward under the Department of the Interior's next 5-year offshore leasing plan for 2017 through 2022.
The Sanford amendment would prevent lease 260 from moving forward under the next 5-year plan. And given the competing amendments, I must oppose this amendment, since we accepted the other amendment last night.
So I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I know a lot about the DERA program, obviously, from southern California, probably the most controlled air quality area in the United States, and there are a lot of things in EPA that don't work. There are a lot of things that EPA does to regulate, to create paperwork, and to create headaches for small- and large-business people. We have included a great number of policy provisions to address this EPA regulatory overreach in this bill. We have cut the EPA budget dramatically, as the gentlewoman just referred to. However, I believe this specific amendment targets a program that actually yields great benefits.
Many counties across the Nation are currently in nonattainment with EPA's existing standards for the particulate matter and ozone. We are not talking about the standards that are being talked about. We are talking about the standards that were put in place in 2008.
In many instances, these counties have been in nonattainment for years, and those communities need help to improve their air quality. The Diesel Emission Reduction Program, or DERA, is a proven, cost-effective program that provides grants to States to retrofit old diesel engines. So it is a program that supports manufacturing jobs while reducing pollution.
Another benefit is that these grants are highly leveraged, producing $13 of economic benefit for every Federal grant dollar. Today's newer engines produce 90 percent--let me say that again--90 percent less toxic emissions than the older diesel engines. Remember, I have experience with trucks, and these independent truck drivers, those who have those trucks, get a lot of miles out of those trucks, sometimes well over a million miles off a truck. However, only 30 percent of the trucks and heavy-duty vehicles have transitioned to cleaner technologies, typically because especially these small truck companies just can't afford to get this new technology. We need to follow the science and accelerate the replacement of older engines with these new, clean engines, which, by the way, get better mileage and, at the same time, clean up the air considerably.
This is a program that is actually working. We have seen significant--I know the Obama administration doesn't like this program. They don't like programs that actually work. They want to get rid of the programs that work and have money be put into these esoteric climate change studies and so forth and so on, and I can tell
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a program that has worked, continues to work, and has had significant improvement in my area in California and, I know, throughout the United States, where we have a program that actually does work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my ranking member, who has a couple of comments.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have one point because asthma has been brought up.
When I was chairman of the Environment Committee a number of years ago, we had done significant studies on the increase in asthma. The gentleman is correct on income levels.
The lower income folks are suffering from asthma at greater numbers primarily because of indoor pollution. One of the reasons, if we can get into the specifics of why that has occurred, is because we have carpets now and drapes and we don't use linoleum and so forth that we used to have, and so we have the growth of indoor air pollution, and kids don't get outside as much as they used to.
So I think we sometimes blame other factors for asthma, and sometimes the other factors are more to blame. But this program, DERA, is a program that works, continues to work; and I know it has in my area, and I know it has in other areas throughout the United States.
So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have taken a lot of shots at the EPA for their overreach, and I am one of them; however, this amendment reaches just a little too far. We may not always agree on where it is appropriate to draw the line on environmental laws and regulations. Some think standards are too stringent; others will say they are not tough enough. That is a fair policy debate, and we have it.
Back in 1968 when the Environmental Protection Agency was created, we had rivers that would light on fire. We had air that was so thick, back when I played football, you couldn't see the other goalposts on the other end of the football field. So we have made a lot of gains.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source