[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 112 (Monday, July 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5403-H5408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2584, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 363 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 363
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2584) making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. Points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived. During consideration of the bill for further
amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill, as amended, back to the House with a
recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendment considered as adopted in the House
and in the Committee of the Whole is as follows: Strike
section 427.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have
5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides an open
rule for the consideration of H.R. 2584. It allows any Member of the
House to offer amendments which are germane and comply to the House
rules. The rule allows priority recognition for the amendments that
have been preprinted in the Congressional Record. I am pleased to
support this resolution, which continues the record of our Rules
Committee in this Congress of providing for as open and fair and
orderly a process as possible.
{time} 1220
I commend our chairman, Mr. Dreier, for continuing the record of
fairness and openness in the formulation of this rule, which is in
contrast to some rules that we have had in past years.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2584 provides $27.5 billion overall for programs
within the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service, and other agencies. But
it is a bill that strikes a fiscally responsible balance between
providing funds for ongoing Federal programs while also saving the
taxpayers 7 percent over last year's enacted levels. It puts us back
roughly to the 2009 levels.
There are some who will claim that there are certain programs that
have been hurt heavily. It is true, for example, that the Environmental
Protection Agency has an 18 percent reduction in funding in this bill.
Please remember, though, that this was made possible simply because of
unprecedentedly high record appropriations for EPA in 2009, of which $3
billion remains unobligated.
In an era when 42 to 44 cents of every dollar that we spend goes for
interest, it makes no sense in continuously overappropriating line
items where money is not needed, not used, and sits there vacant.
This is a bill that oftentimes for those of us who live in the West
has been full of riders year after year after year. It probably makes
no difference here, but I realize that some are going to be very
sensitive to this issue. I know the gentlelady from New York is very
concerned about these potential issues that may be on this bill. And
why should she not be? If you include the military, 0.8 percent of New
York is owned by the Federal Government. I will contrast that with my
State, which has 64 percent owned by the Federal Government. And we're
not the highest.
This is an issue and a bill that is very important to those of us.
And, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill; it is an extremely fair rule. It
can't get any fairer than this one. I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Utah, my colleague, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in these tough times we must make choices that reflect
our values and our belief that we solve our toughest problems through
shared sacrifice and working together. Unfortunately, today we consider
yet another bill that is devoid of these values.
Once again, today's legislation places the burden on the American
people while rewarding the special interests and the lobbyists who walk
these halls.
One of the many riders inserted into the bill will effectively open
up a million acres of national forest and other public land around the
Grand Canyon National Park because people want to mine uranium there.
Democrats have great concerns about maintaining the integrity of the
Grand Canyon and the effect of uranium mining on water quality, not to
mention the spectacle that shows us auctioning off a national treasure
with the proceeds going to mostly foreign-owned entities.
Who is it that wants to drill for uranium and mine for uranium?
Russia, their state atomic energy corporation, and South Korea's state-
owned utility.
[[Page H5404]]
In other words, we will give up the Grand Canyon and potable water,
likely, to benefit the Russians and South Koreans. And any mining that
is included in this bill comes under a bill that was signed by Ulysses
S. Grant in 1872. We have not raised royalties on anything that anybody
takes from us, including foreign entities as they come here to mine our
resources.
At the same time, the majority proposes crippling cuts to the EPA
that will cut programs that protect our air and water. There are few
more important responsibilities in making sure when we go to the
kitchen sink that the water coming out is safe. We know a human being
may live as long as he or she may without food--four days without
water. If our Nation can't protect these most basic of our life
necessities, we have indeed fallen far.
Today's bill would also prohibit the use of government moneys to add
animals to the Endangered Species List but allows the use of government
money to take species off the same list. This policy change threatens
the Endangered Species Act and the environmental protections that come
with it.
The misguided priorities in this bill will directly impact my
district, and my colleague is right about that, and the citizens I am
elected to represent. But not just them.
Twenty percent of the freshwater on this planet resides in the Great
Lakes. Most of us who live around the Great Lakes believe it is our
responsibility to take care of them and to pass it on to future
generations. But in recent years, the Great Lakes have been damaged by
pollution and invasive species carried on to our water by foreign
vessels. We have allowed that.
New York, of course, being closest to the Atlantic Ocean and the St.
Lawrence Seaway, has enacted stronger laws against dumping ballast, and
this bill punishes us for doing that.
The invasive species are not damaging just an ecosystem but a way of
life for the Great Lakes communities that line the shore, as well as
endangering our freshwater. The EPA has come to the aid of these
communities by dedicating funding to restore the Great Lakes. But
today's bill would bar New York State from receiving any restoration
funding from the EPA and leave the Great Lakes to be overrun by private
polluters and the invasive species they have delivered from overseas.
Any bill that stands up for foreign shipping magnates but won't
provide a cent to help Americans should never see the light of day and
will never receive my vote.
Today's legislation also harms the arts. If today's bill takes
effect, the National Endowment for the Arts will have lost 20 percent
of its funding in 2 years. Now, these cuts target a program that works.
In fiscal year 2010, we invested $167.5 million into the NEA--remember
that number, $167.5--for the purpose of providing funding to non-profit
arts organizations.
The funding created $166.2 billion in total economic activity,
supported 5.7 million jobs, and, for the $167 million, generated back
$12.6 billion in tax revenue to the United States Treasury. And that
does not count what happens to help improvements to States' treasuries
and local treasuries.
Today's legislation targets a program proven to create jobs and
contribute to the economic and the cultural well-being of our Nation.
You would think that people who are elected to the Congress of the
United States would really want a program like that not only to survive
but to grow. But, no, here they are cutting the budget once again.
Our country is blessed with stunning natural beauty and a wealth of
natural resources that are unparalleled anywhere in the world. But in
one final swipe at our national interest, today's bill cuts the budget
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by a whopping 78 percent. The
Land and Water Conservation Fund ensures that our national treasures
will be here for our children and our grandchildren, a mission that
apparently deserves 78 percent less money than it did the year before.
A cut like that says all you need to know about the priorities of the
majority and the special interests that are being served.
If getting our fiscal house in order is truly about shared
sacrifices, this bill does not reflect it. We could have started by
asking oil and gas companies to pay their fair share after profiting so
richly from resources found on American soil. Instead, the majority
rejected an amendment that would have asked oil and gas companies to
pay a little more so the Nation can fund programs to clean up the most
polluted lands in our country. The majority will not even allow this
amendment to receive a vote on the floor.
Today's bill asks nothing of the companies that are making record
profits. Instead, cuts to programs and services and the agencies that
serve the American people and protect our environment for future
generations.
Mr. Speaker, a bill like this does not reflect our values. It is not
up to the standards the American people have come to expect and
deserve. It puts special interests over our general welfare, and it
fails totally to invest in our future. We can and we must do better.
I am pleased to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York,
the ranking Democrat on the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.
{time} 1230
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my friend from New York for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. As
every member of the Rules Committee knows, the Interior and Environment
appropriations bill that we will debate today simply violates the rules
of the House. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has waived all points
of order against the bill, preventing Members from striking provisions
that are clearly in violation of House rules.
In particular, title V of the bill includes the Reducing Regulatory
Burdens Act of 2011, H.R. 872, a bill that amends the Clean Water Act,
which is solely within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member.
Furthermore, the provision amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act, better known as FIFRA, that is under the
jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee.
As we all know, advancing authorizing legislation within an
appropriations vehicle is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Appropriations, and it stands in stark contrast to clause 2(b) of
rule XXI of the House rules, which states, in part, ``A provision
changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation
bill''; and yet that is precisely what title V is: a change in existing
law.
Not only is the inclusion of title V in the underlying bill a
violation of House rules, but it is also legislatively redundant. The
House has already passed H.R. 872 earlier this year under suspension of
the rules. The bill is now being considered in the Senate, where it has
been reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
In my opinion, including H.R. 872 in the Interior appropriations bill
will hamper negotiations between Senators and between the House and the
Senate to get a final bill that everyone can be disappointed with--
frankly, that's what's at stake here--but that can pass both Chambers
and be enacted into law before the court-ordered deadline of October
31, 2011. Let me say that again: There is a court-ordered deadline of
October 31, 2011, to resolve this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I will be offering an amendment to strike title V when
it comes up during debate this week. However, I am deeply disappointed
that the Rules Committee has blatantly ignored the rules of the House
by eliminating the ability of Members to raise a point of order against
provisions of an appropriations bill that changes existing law.
There are approximately 39 policy riders included in the Interior
appropriations bill. And let's be clear: These are policy earmarks, and
these earmarks undermine the jurisdiction of authorizing committees and
undermine the ability of the House and the Senate to work its will. It
is unfortunate that the Rules Committee is protecting these new
earmarks from the rules of the House.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying
bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We find that this particular bill is a great illustration of one of
the problems that we have here in the House of
[[Page H5405]]
Representatives and, indeed, with government. Our land policy in the
United States is one historically that had no purpose or organization
to it. It simply happened. But what happened happened
disproportionately throughout this country, which is why 1 out of every
3 acres in America is now owned by the Federal Government.
I defy anyone on that side to find for any a constitutional provision
that would allow that ownership; but, nonetheless, it is.
The unfortunate thing is it is disproportionate. One out of every 2
acres in the West is owned by the Federal Government. That means 52
percent of the area west of Denver is owned by the Federal Government.
Four percent of the area east of Denver is owned by the Federal
Government, much of that in military installations.
As I said, the State of New York has 0.3 percent of its land owned by
the Federal Government, 0.8 percent if you include military. The State
of Virginia has 8 percent owned by the Federal Government, almost all
military. The gentleman from Massachusetts, who will be here as well,
1.1 percent of his State is owned by the Federal Government.
And so it means different issues for my State, which is 65 percent
owned by the Federal Government; Alaska; Nevada, which is almost 90
percent owned by the Federal Government; Idaho, which is over 60
percent owned by the Federal Government. Things take place differently.
That's why, for example, things like the Land and Water Conservation
Fund is a nice fund if it were used to preserve what we already have.
Unfortunately, that fund is used to buy more territory, with an
administration decision and mindset that no land should ever be given
back or given up; more should be accumulated. That's why it's the
ability of this appropriations bill to try to put that money--not
simply to cut it, but to move it into preservation as opposed to access
to buying more land, which makes sense to us in the West because we
recognize this heavy-handed tyranny that takes place.
Let me just give you one simple example that was brought up here that
deals with uranium mining in Arizona, one of the so-called ``riders''
in this particular appropriations bill. It takes place in what is
called the Arizona Strip, which has led some people to mistakenly think
that we were going to be strip mining around the Grand Canyon.
The Arizona Strip is the size of the State of New Jersey. That is the
area between Utah and the Colorado River. In that area in 1984, Morris
Udall, who was at the time the chairman of the Resources Committee here
in the House, created a wilderness compromise in which a wilderness
area was to be created in the State of Arizona. In that, 56 percent of
the State of Arizona was put off limits to any kind of mining endeavors
whatsoever. In exchange, certain areas were put specifically for those
types of mining areas, including areas in the Arizona Strip, this New
Jersey-sized piece of the State of Arizona. The unfortunate thing is it
was always intended to be used there for mining purposes because there
is a great deal of uranium ore there.
Unlike other kinds of mining, this ore is found in little pipes,
strips within the ground that go up and down. And what you need to do
is simply bore into the pipe, find the ore in the middle, take it out,
and then replace all the stuff back in. So once you are done with that
mine, no one ever sees that it was there in the first place. The ore
that is taken out is not left in Arizona. It's actually going to be
shipped for processing somewhere else. So there will be no tailings.
There will be no wind pollution. There will be no dust issues
whatsoever.
Certain special interest groups said, well, it could change the water
quality that goes through Colorado and then would eventually flow to
Las Vegas and do something strange in Las Vegas, as if that were ever
possible. Unfortunately, as stated by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, their mines and mining groups, there have been
certain interest groups that have inferred, with no substantive
supporting data, that groundwater in this particular area of the
Colorado River may be contaminated by uranium mining. That simply won't
happen, and it won't happen because of where the ore is. The ore is
found 100 feet below the surface. There is only 12 inches of rain a
year there. There is no particular kind of any runoff that will take
place. It is also found 1,000 feet above the aquifer with clay
underneath, so there is no way there can be any kind of leaching that
goes into the aquifer.
The bottom line is there will never, never be any kind of
contamination on this water, which was the excuse used to justify a
political reason for taking this land that had been part of the '84
agreement off the table, and it could not be used again.
Unfortunately, the EPA gets involved in this one again because they
have determined that if the uranium--or whatever they call the
uranium--gets into the water and it's more than 30 parts per billion,
that's unsafe. Unfortunately, there are uranium pipes within the Grand
Canyon itself which already erode into the water, and it creates a
situation where, naturally occurring, there are 4 parts per billion. So
they did some testing at existing mines up in the Kanab Creek area to
find out what would happen if actually some of this uranium were to
leach into the water, and it would increase that 4 number to 6 parts
per billion.
In essence, what they are saying is: You could take all of the
tailings that could come from these potential mines and dump them into
the Colorado River, and you still would not reach the level set by the
EPA for drinking water. In fact, the uranium that naturally occurs in
the Colorado River, even if you had a catastrophe, is still lower than
uranium levels found in freshwater lakes in the desert area.
Now, why isn't all that considered? Because the decision to withdraw
that area from mining was not based on science. If it were based on
science, then the Department of Environmental Quality of Arizona would
not have testified that there was no scientific basis for it. The State
of Arizona would not have passed a piece of legislation decrying the
withdrawal of that particular area. The guy who was actually part of
the National Parks Conservation Association as well as the Audubon
Society and the Save the Redwoods League, who was actually the one that
did the scientific study in '84 when the original design by Mo Udall
was made, simply said there was no legitimate evidence to say there
could be any contamination of that air, which basically means the
withdrawal of this land was done for political purposes, not scientific
purposes.
So to put a provision back into this bill saying that if you're going
to do this kind of stuff, it had darn well better be on a scientific
basis and not a political basis makes sense. It's one of the right
things to do in here.
{time} 1240
I realize we have some other speakers here; so I'm not going to take
all the time yet, but I would desperately like to talk about the clean
water provisions, the navigable water provisions and what EPA does with
those because it has a different impact on those of us in the West,
where almost all of our land is controlled by them, versus those in the
East, where almost no land is controlled by them and they have a great
deal of freedom to develop the resources on their own.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond for a minute
before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
I have, from the Las Vegas Sun of July 22, an article saying that the
previous allowing of uranium mining has caused great damage. This
watershed gives water to 26 million people and provides 90 percent of
the water used in southern Nevada.
Let me quote from the paper:
``As it is, the Colorado River is already endangered by the uranium
mines''--which the gentleman talked about has not hurt anybody at all--
``that sit in the watershed, some perilously close to the water. The
moratorium also doesn't prevent existing mining claims from being
developed. The Interior Department says there are about 3,500 claims in
the area. Adding the potential for more uranium to enter the water
doesn't make sense. Republicans in Congress should quit
[[Page H5406]]
trying to repeal the moratorium and should instead work to protect the
Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put millions
of people's drinking water at risk.''
I will put that in the Record, if I may, and a New York Times
editorial of June 28, ``Mining and the Canyon.'' Absolute harm is being
done.
[From the Las Vegas Sun, June 22, 2011]
Republicans Should Quit Trying to Roll Back Uranium Mining Moratorium
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in June issued a six-month
moratorium on new uranium mining claims on 1 million acres
near the Grand Canyon. The ban provides time for the
government to complete a study of the effects of uranium
mining in the area.
A final report is due this fall, and Salazar said the
department is considering banning new mining claims in the
area for the next 20 years.
The issue is important. Uranium mining threatens not only
the beauty and ecosystem of the Grand Canyon, but it also
poses a threat to the Colorado River, which is a key source
of water for about 26 million people in Arizona, Nevada and
California. The Colorado River, which forms Lake Mead,
provides 90 percent of the water used in Southern Nevada.
Salazar cited a concern for water quality in announcing the
moratorium extension because the 1 million acres are in the
Colorado River watershed. Water officials worry that more
uranium mines could result in radioactive material streaming
into the river.
The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River need to be
protected. The moratorium on new claims was put in place
because of an incredible spike in mining interest in the area
under the George W. Bush administration. The Grand Canyon
doesn't need to see any more mining around it.
Environmental groups and Colorado River water users cheered
Salazar's decision, but in Congress, Salazar's announcement
was targeted by some Republicans who claimed it was a bad
policy.
In a news release issued this month, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-
Ariz., boasted about inserting a provision to block the
administration from enforcing the moratorium in the spending
bill that covers the Interior Department. The bill passed the
House Appropriations Committee this month. Flake claimed that
mining ``can create jobs and stimulate the economy in
Northern Arizona.''
But Flake's argument is shameless. He is using the nation's
poor economy as an excuse to force a dangerous policy on the
country.
Flake's argument is part of the larger Republican attempt
to roll back any sort of regulation. In passing the interior
spending bill from his committee, Appropriations Chairman Hal
Rogers complained about what he called the administration's
``widespread regulatory overreach'' and pledged to cut it.
But when it comes to clean water, Congress shouldn't be
cutting back. People need to be confident their water supply
is protected, and if the Republican plan moves forward, there
will be serious doubt.
As it is, the Colorado River is already endangered by
uranium mines and tailing piles that sit in the watershed,
some perilously close to the water. The moratorium also
doesn't prevent existing mining claims from being developed.
The Interior Department says there are about 3,500 hard-rock
mining claims in the area. Adding the potential for more
uranium to enter the water doesn't make sense.
Republicans in Congress should quit trying to repeal the
moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand
Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put
millions of people's drinking water at risk.
____
[From the New York Times, June 28, 2011]
Mining and the Canyon
The Obama administration has extended for six months a 2009
moratorium on new uranium mining claims on one million acres
around the Grand Canyon. This is good news; even better is
the promise from Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, that he
will soon recommend a 20-year ban on new claims in the
region. That is the maximum allowed under the 1872 mining
law.
With uranium prices rising, the number of mining claims
have jumped sharply over the last few years. There have been
about 3,500 claims in the Grand Canyon-area alone. If
developed, they would generate toxic wastes that would
threaten the Colorado River--the source of drinking water for
roughly 27 million people--the aquifer and the Grand Canyon
ecosystem in general.
Mr. Salazar said he could not cancel valid existing claims,
but there is likely to be little actual mining. The decision
to ``withdraw'' the land from future claims creates new
regulatory hurdles for existing claimants, who must
demonstrate, among other things, that they had discovered
actual mineral deposits before the 2009 moratorium. Only a
handful have been able to do so.
There have been the usual complaints from mining lobbyists
and their Congressional allies. Representative Jeff Flake, a
Republican from Arizona, has threatened to use the interior
appropriations bill to block Mr. Salazar's plan. The
moratorium will have little effect on the country's uranium
supply, most of which comes from Wyoming and New Mexico.
It will protect a treasured national park and the drinking
water for millions of people.
I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the ranking member, the gentlelady from
New York, for yielding me the time.
I rise today to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have two children, ages 13 and 10, and one of our
favorite things to do as a family is to go hiking. We have hiked all
over this great country. We have a love and a respect for our open
spaces and for our environment. Unfortunately, the Republicans' fiscal
year 2012 Interior appropriations bill throws that into grave danger.
This Interior appropriations bill represents an unprecedented
departure from our Nation's decades-long bipartisan commitment to
protecting our shared environment, magnificent natural resources and
our cherished cultural treasures. It's a shame that my Republican
colleagues prioritize tax breaks and incentives for highly profitable
oil companies over the Grand Canyon, the Cape Cod National Seashore,
State parks, and even public health.
Mr. Speaker, I could be here all day talking about the harmful cuts
and misplaced priorities that are included in this bill: from the more
than 25 policy riders that do not belong in an appropriations bill,
that do everything from gutting the Endangered Species Act to allowing
uranium drilling by foreign companies alongside the Grand Canyon, to
the harsh cuts in EPA funding that will result in millions of Americans
being exposed to dirtier air and dirtier water.
I give my Republican colleagues credit. They have left no stone
unturned in their environmental assault. Unfortunately, though, that
stone will be covered in toxic algae, coal ash, and polluted water if
they have their way.
One of the most egregious cuts in this bill is to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been one of
the greatest conservation success stories over the past 50 years,
protecting thousands and thousands of acres of land at the Federal and
State levels. States rely on this funding and demonstrate their
commitment to its value by providing matching funding for State park
and recreational purposes. Not only that, but the Land and Water
Conservation Fund has a dedicated source of funding derived from oil
and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf and is authorized to
accumulate $900 million annually from its dedicated sources.
Nonetheless, my Republican friends forget all of this and still slash
the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding by 78 percent from the
current fiscal year. This represents the lowest level of funding in the
45-year history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. What's most
troubling is that, in the committee report, my Republican colleagues
acknowledge the enormous value of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
but then go right ahead and decimate its budget.
The bill also cuts clean water and safe drinking water grant programs
by nearly 40 percent, threatening Americans' ability to access clean
water and adding to the already significant backlog of safe drinking
water infrastructure projects.
Look, I know it's politically popular to demonize the EPA right now,
and at times I've had my own strong disagreements with the EPA on
certain issues, but this Interior appropriations bill is not the way to
meaningfully address any of those disagreements. This bill puts the
priorities of special interests and scoring cheap political points over
public health and our natural resources. It's as simple as that.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that these are tough budgetary times, but what
troubles me about the Republicans' approach to this appropriations
process is that so many of their cuts are aimed at programs that will
lower the standard of living and lessen the quality of life for a
majority of Americans. This appropriations process should be about
lifting people up, not putting people down, and it should be about a
decent respect for our environment, and certainly a respect for our
environment over corporate special interests.
[[Page H5407]]
When we talk about protecting our environment, we're talking about
quality of life issues that impact every single person in this country.
This bill undermines our historic bipartisan commitment to our
environment.
I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject the
underlying bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am once again appreciative that data from
newspaper articles were put into the Record, because the newspapers
have a tendency of quoting one another and also quoting environmental
groups. Unfortunately, the data still says the same thing from those
who know, the scientific community, that actually knows what they're
talking about, who said:
``A few environmental groups claim, without providing any scientific
supporting data, that the groundwater in the Colorado would be
contaminated with uranium mining. We conclude that even the most
implausible accident would increase the amount of uranium in the
Colorado River by an amount that is undetectable over those that occur
there normally.''
Another said: ``I continue to view such activities as posing no
credible threat of environmental harm to either the Grand Canyon
National Park or the Colorado River that flows through it. I can see no
credible justification for a 1.1 million-acre withdrawal from mineral
entry of lands to the north and south of the park.''
Another said: ``It is important to note that the research conducted
by the United States Geological Survey and the preliminary findings by
the University of Arizona confirm uranium exploration and mining pose
no threat to the Grand Canyon watershed or the park.''
This is the study. This is the scientific data. It would be nice if,
for once, we used this data instead of quoting one another and quoting
things that have no basis in science.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Benishek), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and final passage
of the bill. In a time when government is borrowing over 40 cents for
every dollar it spends, this bill makes needed cuts and puts forward a
responsible and sensible framework for managing our Nation's natural
resources.
I represent a vast district in northern Michigan that includes
Federal forests, national parks, and three Great Lakes. I am
particularly pleased that the committee included language to boost and
streamline timber harvests in Federal forests, similar to legislation
that I introduced earlier this year.
Right now on the Federal forests, for them to plan a timber harvest
takes nearly 8 years to complete a harvest, from the beginning of the
attempt to sell a parcel of land for timber and the actual harvesting;
whereas, certified sustainable State forests take less than 2 years and
certified sustainable county forests take a year.
Basically it comes down to jobs in my district. We have a lot of
Federal land in northern Michigan, and people in my district depend on
the timber industry for jobs. Every little town has a mill, a flooring
mill. Jobs, high-paying jobs, and the frustration that comes from
having a forest full of timber and being unable to harvest it because
of onerous regulations and rules result in a less healthy forest and
less jobs for northern Michigan.
We have a long way to go to responsibly harvest timber in northern
Michigan and elsewhere in this country, but I believe this is a good
start, and I am certainly looking forward to working with this
committee in the future to continue to promote jobs in northern
Michigan.
{time} 1250
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding
to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
We're always being told what's junk science in here, but I will tell
you right now, I really think that the science is very strong, and
thank goodness there's a moratorium on this mining around the Grand
Canyon.
I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who will make it very clear.
Mr. MARKEY. This spending bill represents one of the most egregious
assaults on our Nation's environment in the history of our country. If
this bill were to pass, our air will be smoggier. Our climate will be
hotter. Our water will be more polluted. Our public lands will become
more despoiled.
Simply put, this legislation is so toxic, H.R. 2584 is so toxic, that
you'd better handle it wearing a hazmat suit because there are so many
future environmental crimes committed against the environment in our
country that you have to handle this bill with extreme care.
The actual title of this bill is Interior Environment and Related
Agencies Appropriations for 2012. But it could be called the Have the
Republicans Been Outside Act.
It's hot, ladies and gentlemen. It is hot. The world is warming. All
of the evidence has been pointing in this direction for decades, and
people are living it on a daily basis.
It's appropriate that this bill starts with the word ``interior,''
because only the House Republicans who have been cooped up inside for
weeks debating whether to crater our economy could possibly ignore
what's going on outside in our natural environment.
The weather forecasters said we were trapped under a heat dome last
week. Well, the Republican majority, under this Capitol dome, would
commit us to even more dangerous heat if this bill passes.
And believe it or not, this bill bans the Environmental Protection
Agency from increasing the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which
we drive in our country, which will basically put the brakes on the
all-electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid revolution.
Now, I know that's what the auto industry wants. I know that's what
the oil industry wants. They don't want to see cars become more and
more efficient so we don't have to consume all that oil so that we can
tell OPEC we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand.
But in this bill, they actually ban the EPA from improving the fuel
economy standards of the vehicles that we drive, and they ban all 50
States from improving the efficiency of the vehicles that we drive.
And how else could you explain that this bill would increase smog and
dirty air days if you didn't have the House Republicans living in their
own world?
When families are planning their summer trips to explore our national
parks, how else could you explain a bill that allows for mining of
nuclear fuel uranium near Grand Canyon National Park?
Under this bill, when families go to enjoy the sunset across the
canyon, it won't just be the sun that's causing the glow, but the
radiation as well from the uranium mining.
And when Americans are canceling vacations because they can't pay for
gas, how else can you explain a bill that would tell auto companies to
stop making more fuel-efficient cars and trucks?
If you live in an air conditioned mansion with an indoor pool and you
have your bottled water delivered, then this bill makes perfect sense
to you, especially if you also work for the oil, coal mining, or
chemical industries. For those industries, this bill represents their
summer vacation from regulation. For the rest of us, it is a one-way
ticket to a dirtier environment for the United States of America.
House Republicans have a tough time raising the debt ceiling, but
with this bill they are proving to have no reservations when it comes
to raising the death ceiling with more pollution in our air, in our
water, making us less healthy, making us more likely to be able to
contract diseases that we would not otherwise.
It is bad enough that the House Republicans want to take Medicare
away from grandma, but now they want to make the air she and her
grandkids breathe and the water they drink more polluted. This bill
would cause more premature deaths, more asthma, more harm to children
from toxins like mercury.
Yes, they don't want to lift the debt ceiling, but they will be
lifting the death ceiling because of the exposure to all of these
chemicals, all of these pollutants.
Vote ``no'' on the Republican appropriations bill.
[[Page H5408]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I know that what we do here on the
floor is often riveting drama for those who are watching on television.
Let me, in some respects, not try to add to that drama and go back to
facts, something we don't necessarily like around here.
We've already talked about this so-called uranium issue showing
facts. The chart that we just saw from the gentleman from Massachusetts
was an interesting chart. The area of the United States that was
colored on that chart is the area that there are those in this
administration, indeed, on this floor, want to be owned by the Federal
Government here.
Let me talk to you just a moment--and I'll even grant some time to
the gentlelady from New York if she could actually answer this one--and
talk about what some of these issues do to those of us who live under
what Nelson Rockefeller called the ``deadening hand of bureaucracy''
because, once again, in the East you don't have to deal with these
situations; in the West we do.
Let me talk about simply the Environmental Protection Agency and some
of the brilliant things they do in the name of trying to clean up our
water and our air and make life more livable for us. One of the suburbs
of my community--and I call it a suburb simply because my community
only has, what, 18,000 people in it; so I like calling it a suburb--has
no rivers, no creeks, no streams, no anything. It does have irrigation
ditches. Starting at the top of the mountain, the irrigation water
flows down so it covers all the fields, as normally you would want to
do.
We passed legislation for the Clean Water Act allowing the Federal
Government, especially the EPA, to come in and monitor water that is
navigable water systems on interstate commerce. The Great Salt Lake in
Utah is all confined in the State of Utah. There are no outlets. That's
why it's salty. There is nothing more intra-navigable than the Great
Salt Lake.
But because in the 1880s some of the pioneers used to ship sheep over
there for summer grazing on the islands in the Great Salt Lake, it is
now part of the interstate commerce system and part of the navigable
water system of the United States, therefore controllable by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Now, let's see what they did in my particular community. In this
community where there were irrigation ditches, the overflow from the
irrigation ditches ran down, and the Environmental Protection Agency
said the runoff from those irrigation ditches would eventually go into
the Great Salt Lake; therefore, that runoff from a ditch was part of
the navigable water systems of the United States and controllable as
wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency, even though that
irrigation runoff to get to the Great Salt Lake would actually have to
run down the mountain, through a culvert for the city road, through one
for the train tracks, through one that was the side road of the
freeway, through the northbound freeway, through the barrel pit,
through the southbound freeway, through another one of the adjacent
roads to the southbound freeway, up a 3 percent grade to an area that
had been previously determined to be not wetlands area, and eventually
into the Bear River system which was stopped from going to the Great
Salt Lake by the Bear River Bird Refuge.
{time} 1300
They claim that could happen. And because of that, the water from the
irrigation system was navigable waters of the United States and the
Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over it, which
meant that the citizens of that community could not expand their sewer
system. Instead, they had to take money out of their pockets to ship
their sewage either to Brigham City or Willard because the
Environmental Protection Agency now controlled the navigable waters
because we gave them the power to do that under the Clean Water Act.
One of the things I am talking about here and one of the frustrations
we have illustrated by this bill is, unfortunately, time after time
these agencies funded in this bill do not consider what they do to real
people. Real people in my community are being harmed time after time by
decisions made from bureaucrats sitting here in Washington, and then we
wonder why we rail against these environmental groups, why we rail
against these agencies, and why we don't want to have some kind of
control over this process. And the only vehicle we seem to have is the
appropriation bill.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is used to buy more land to get
more control; if it were not, we would not complain about it. The EPA
is used to get more control over people's lives, and they hurt people
in the process. If it were not so, we would not complain about it. The
withdrawing of uranium mining on the Arizona strip was done, despite
all the scientific testimony, for political reasons. Were it not done
so, we would not complain about it.
This is a decent bill, which moves us a step forward to try to
control our spending habit, dealing with what is really the core issue
and core responsibility of our agencies and trying not to harm people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May
I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. May I inquire how much time actually remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 11 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To the gentlelady from New York, I have a
brilliant 11-minute speech welling within my bosom; but if you are
willing to close, I will be willing to close as well.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank you for that, and I am willing to close.
Mr. Speaker, let me just close with this: I think we have
demonstrated that this bill contains an astonishing array of
devastating cuts and special interest riders that jeopardize the water
we drink, the air we breathe, and our country's national heritage.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I think we've also proven in this
bill that we are moving in the right direction to try to control the
excesses that continuously take place here and still maintain the core
responsibilities that have to be there, and we have done it in a rule
that is adamantly fair. It is an open rule that will allow anyone to
bring anything down here to the floor until we do a UC agreement that
stops it. It is a good rule, and I urge adoption of that particular
rule.
In closing, I will once again reiterate the fairness of this open
rule. I urge its adoption, and I urge the adoption of the underlying
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________