[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 112 (Monday, July 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5410-H5437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster). Pursuant to House Resolution
363 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2584.
{time} 1348
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Campbell in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor H.R. 2584, the
fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill.
As we begin, I want to personally thank Mr. Moran, Mr. Dicks, and
each of the members of our subcommittee for their active participation
in the bipartisan spirit that has been part of our deliberations this
year. Regardless of our positions on this bill, I do sincerely
appreciate their constructive contributions.
[[Page H5411]]
Mr. Chairman, we're living at a time when the Federal Government
borrows more than 40 cents on each dollar that it spends. We are also
living in a time of record deficits and debt. While reductions in
discretionary spending alone will not totally erase the deficit, we all
know that reducing Federal spending is a necessary first step.
The fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment bill is funded at $27.5
billion, which is $2.1 billion, or 7 percent below the fiscal year
enacted level, and $3.8 billion, or 12 percent below the budget
request.
Overall, funding within this bill is essentially level within fiscal
year 2009 spending. The subcommittee has made some very difficult
choices in preparing this budget proposal. In total, 235 Members of the
House submitted over 1,700 programmatic requests to the subcommittee
for consideration.
While the bill makes significant spending reductions across many
agencies and programs, it also provides ample funding to address the
needs of key accounts supported by a bipartisan cross-section of
Members. For instance, fire suppression at the Department of the
Interior and the Forest Service is fully funded at the 10-year average.
The bill includes a $37 million increase over fiscal year 2011 for
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to hire new inspectors and move
forward with offshore oil and gas permitting and leasing while also
improving safety. And Members will be pleased to know that the
operations of our national parks are sustained at levels only slightly
below last year, which means every park unit in the country will be
operational and fully staffed without the threat of furloughs or
layoffs.
Finally, this bill also makes critical investments in Indian Country.
Building upon efforts initiated by Mr. Dicks and Mr. Moran, this bill
continues to make investments in human health and wellness programs in
Indian Country, affecting health care, education, and self-
determination. Overall, the Department of the Interior is funded at
$9.9 billion, which is a $715 million, or 7 percent, reduction below
last year's enacted level.
As I mentioned, we've done some things that Secretary Salazar will
support. The Secretary and I have had many discussions about these
issues as well as some areas where funding isn't what he would like to
see. One of those areas relates to the funding of the Endangered
Species Act.
Since the ESA was enacted, there have been 2,018 species listed and
only 21 species recovered. By any calculation, that's a pretty poor
track record. Any other program with such a poor rate of success would
have long since been terminated. There isn't one member of this
subcommittee opposed to recovering endangered species; but the ESA has
become so contentious, so political, and so litigious that it has
become a policy failure. The authorization for the ESA appropriation
expired 20 years ago, and the assumption has been that the
Appropriations Committee would continue to fund it year in and year
out, as it has in the past.
In fact, Members might be interested to know that 26 percent of the
funding in this bill is for programs in which the authorizations have
expired. That's not how the process is supposed to work, Mr. Chairman.
And just as we are going back to regular order and passing
appropriation bills, we need to return to regular order when it comes
to working with the authorizers to update and fix laws that no longer
work or have expired.
It's time to fix the ESA. The best way to do that is for the
authorizers and stakeholders in the conservation community to come to
the table to fix what is broken so we can actually begin recovering
species. We are sending that message today.
Climate change is another item of interest to members of this
committee. Most of the Members know that I am not a climate change
naysayer. The fact is that climate change funding has been increasing
over the past few years, and no one has any idea how or whether its
funding is being coordinated between various agencies. The GAO came to
the same conclusion in a report released in May of this year. The GAO
said: ``Without further improvement in how Federal climate change
funding is defined and reported, strategic priorities are set, and
funding is aligned with priorities, it will be difficult for the public
and Congress to fully understand how climate change funds are accounted
for and how they are spent.'' As a result of this ongoing concern,
climate change funding in this bill is reduced by $83 million, or 22
percent.
The bill also makes significant reductions in funding for land
acquisition. Land acquisition was funded at $301 million in the current
fiscal year. The President had requested $900 million for next year. We
funded it at $66 million in this bill to complete land acquisitions
currently under consideration. I would personally like to see more
funding in the LWCF. The problem is, we just don't have the money.
It's also worth noting that while we increase funding for oil and gas
rig inspections, we don't pay for them by including the President's
proposed $38 million increase for additional onshore gas and oil fees
or the $55 million increase for additional offshore oil and gas fees.
These issues are best left to the authorizing committees of
jurisdiction. And I hope that by next year, the authorizing committees
will address this issue.
There are a few other items that may be of interest to Members that
I'll mention briefly: The U.S. Geological Survey is funded at $1.1
billion, which is $30 million, or 3 percent, below the FY11-enacted
level. The next-generation LandSat satellite imaging program, which has
been a cooperative venture with NASA, was proposed to be transferred
entirely to USGS without any corresponding funding from NASA. Because
projected costs are estimated to increase tenfold over the next 2 years
and because LandSat is a widely used governmental and private sector
resource, this bill sends the proposal back to the administration with
instructions to start over.
Within the EPA, the bill includes $15 million for a new competitive
grant program to fund rural water technical assistance, which is widely
supported on both sides of the aisle. The NEA and the NEH are both
funded at $135 million, which is a level too low for some Members and
too high for others. It's worth noting that both sides worked together
in a effort to maintain several longstanding proven programs that the
administration had slated for termination.
The bill provides funding for the Smithsonian at levels just below
the FY11-enacted level and includes $50 million to begin construction
of the National Museum of African American History and Culture and $75
million for revitalization of existing Smithsonian buildings. The bill
also provides a $30 million down payment to begin construction next
year of a memorial to honor the memory of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
I suspect that most of the headlines from House consideration of this
bill will focus on the committee's attention to the EPA. We need to
continue funding the EPA in order for business to obtain the necessary
permits to operate in accord with the environmental laws.
Through EPA funding, we also continue to address our Nation's
critical water and wastewater infrastructure needs. However, one of the
major underlying themes to this year's work is the sheer volume of
regulatory actions being pursued by agencies in the absence of
legislation and without clear congressional direction.
My intense opposition to the EPA's efforts to control nearly every
industry in this country is no secret. The EPA's unrestrained effort to
regulate greenhouse gases and the pursuit of an overly aggressive
regulatory agenda are signs of an agency that has lost its bearings.
Wherever I go, the biggest complaint I hear about the Federal
Government is about how the EPA is creating economic uncertainty and
killing jobs. This isn't a partisan issue. Members of both parties have
said that the EPA's regulatory actions vastly exceed its authority and
congressional intent. The responsibility to determine whether or not to
expand that authority rests solely with Congress, not with the EPA. We
have included a number of provisions in the base bill to address some
of these issues and more were added in full committee. We saw during
consideration of H.R. 1 earlier this year and we will see again on the
House floor even more efforts to rein in the EPA.
[[Page H5412]]
I know some of my Democrat friends will be especially critical of the
spending reductions in EPA accounts. While we all recognize the
importance of the clean drinking water and safe drinking water State
revolving funds, we also know funding them, as we have in the past, is
not possible. We need to find a better long-term funding source for
water infrastructure projects, something that a number of Members have
been working on.
It's also worth pointing out that these accounts received $6 billion
in Recovery Act funds in 2009 and still have nearly $3 billion in
previously appropriated funding that they have yet to spend. In
calendar year 2009, the EPA received over $25 billion in combined
stimulus funding and regular appropriation. So it should come as no
surprise that the funding for the EPA was reduced by $1.5 billion, or
18 percent, from current levels.
Much will be said today about the subcommittee's allocation of the
policy provisions in this bill; but just remember, at the end of the
day, what this committee is attempting to do is all about reducing
spending, creating more certainty in the marketplace, and promoting an
economic environment conducive to job growth. If there's one thing that
we should have learned in the last couple of years, it's that we can't
spend our way to an economic recovery. That didn't work. All it did was
make the hole we're in much deeper.
I know Mr. Moran and Mr. Dicks may not agree, but the legislative
provisions in this bill and those that will be added today and on the
House floor, they are not special interests. They're about jobs.
They're about protecting businesses and hardworking Americans from
frivolous lawsuits. They're about creating certainty in the
marketplace, and they're about assuring businesses that employ people
that it's safe to begin hiring people again without the threat of the
EPA, under the guise of protecting our environment, imposing millions
of dollars of penalties through regulations that are unreasonable or
simply defy common sense.
Is this a perfect bill? No. But I've never seen a perfect bill. This
is a bill that makes some very tough choices on spending. It's a bill
that attempts to rein in the excesses of the EPA, and it's a bill that
sends a clear message to stakeholders in Congress that it's time to get
busy on renewing expiring authorizations. I wish we had more money to
spend on a variety of programs that I, and other Members, believe are
important. I also wish we didn't have a $1.6 trillion deficit. I wish
we weren't $14.5 trillion in debt. I wish the economy was booming and
that unemployment was something we only read about in history books.
Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so. These are the economic and
political realities that we have to face.
{time} 1400
In closing, I'd like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle
for their hard work in producing this bill. Most Members don't realize
how much time and effort staff members put into this. On the minority
side, I'd like to thank Rick Healy and Shalanda Young, as well as Tim
Aiken and Pete Modaff. They have played an integral role in the
process, and their efforts are very much appreciated.
On the majority side, I'd like to thank the subcommittee staff: Colin
Vickery, Grace Stephens, who, by the way, just had a baby last week--
she held off until she was sure we had this bill through the full
committee--Erica Rhoad, Jason Gray, Darren Benjamin, and Dave
LesStrang. I'd also like to thank Missy Small, Kaylyn Bessey and
Lindsay Slater on my personal staff for their great work.
[[Page H5413]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.001
[[Page H5414]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.002
[[Page H5415]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.003
[[Page H5416]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.004
[[Page H5417]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.005
[[Page H5418]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.006
[[Page H5419]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.007
[[Page H5420]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.008
[[Page H5421]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.009
[[Page H5422]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.010
[[Page H5423]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.011
[[Page H5424]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.012
[[Page H5425]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.013
[[Page H5426]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.014
[[Page H5427]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.015
[[Page H5428]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.016
[[Page H5429]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.017
[[Page H5430]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.018
[[Page H5431]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.019
[[Page H5432]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.020
[[Page H5433]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.021
[[Page H5434]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY11.022
[[Page H5435]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day, a sad day for the environment and
for America's great natural and cultural heritage. H.R. 2584, with its
deep cuts in important environmental and natural resource programs and
shocking array of special interest riders and funding limitations,
falls far short of meeting our responsibilities to protect and wisely
use our Nation's natural resources.
The bill before the House today is more than $2 billion below the
current spending level, and it's almost $4 billion below the
President's request. It's even $324 million below the CR level of H.R.
1 that was passed by the House just in February.
Given the subcommittee's punishingly low 302(b) allocation, I do
recognize the difficulties that Chairman Simpson of the subcommittee
and Chairman Rogers of the full committee faced in crafting the bill. I
do appreciate their efforts, Mr. Simpson's efforts particularly and Mr.
Cole's, to protect funding for American Indian programs. I only wish
that that protection could have extended to other important portions of
this bill.
But as bad as the funding cuts are in this bill, what is most
important is the extent to which the majority has filled this bill with
extremist legislative riders and funding limitations. The bill is short
on needed funds and long on antienvironmental riders.
H.R. 2584 is not so much a spending bill as the fulfillment of a wish
list for special interests. Oil companies, cattle grazers, industrial
agribusiness, miners, and those who wish to pollute our air and water
for greater profit all have their special provisions tucked away into
this bill. It is a dump truck of provisions for special interests.
In addition, this bill picks up where H.R. 1 left off and includes
dozens of deep cuts in conservation and environmental protection
programs, while the extractive or consumptive uses of our public lands
are shielded from cuts and given a pass from complying with our
Nation's landmark environmental laws. We continually hear from the
majority that the pain of budget cuts has to be shared by all, but in
this bill they have chosen winners and losers--the extractors and the
exploiters and the despoilers of the forests are the winners and the
animals and the people who depend upon clean air and water are the
losers. The animals, the environment, the forests, the waterways, and
humans who depend on clean air and water all lose.
This bill continues the majority's assault on the Environmental
Protection Agency with deep cuts. After the EPA budget was cut by 16
percent in the current fiscal year, the majority is now proposing a
further reduction of 18 percent for next year. In other words, a 34
percent cut in environmental protection. Cuts of nearly 40 percent are
made to the clean water and safe drinking water grant programs, just at
the time when the States and localities have run out of money to try to
provide for clean water and to deal with storm water overflow and all
of the plumbing infrastructure that is necessary throughout our
country. When the majority says it wants to rein in the EPA, what
they're really reining in is the ability to protect clean air and clean
water. It also cuts more than 600 positions in EPA's regulatory
workforce.
I am extremely disappointed at the majority's decision to prohibit
funds for the Endangered Species Act listings and critical habitat
designations. These are the vital first steps needed to begin the
recovery process for 260 species currently at risk of extinction. Under
the guise of sending a signal to the authorizing committee, this bill
attacks the very heart of the Endangered Species Act. There are a great
many unauthorized programs in this bill.
Wildlife programs overall are hard hit by this bill. State and tribal
wildlife grants are cut by two-thirds, multinational species
conservation by a fifth, and cooperative endangered species
conservation by 95 percent. Even funding for the National Wildlife
Refuge System will be cut by 7\1/2\ percent.
Our national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas,
and other conservation units deserve better than what this bill
provides. As stewards of these magnificent resources that were passed
down to us, we have a responsibility to defend and preserve them for
future generations. Spending reductions like the 78 percent cut to the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, a nearly 80 percent cut to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund to the lowest level it has ever been, and a
33 percent cut to the National Landscape Conservation System will place
at risk some of our most precious resources.
I would also like to note that this bill is about more than our
natural resources and the environment, and while the cultural
activities and institutions are a small portion of the bill, they are a
vital part of our communities and they do enhance our economy and our
way of life. Yet these programs and activities would receive
substantial cuts under this bill as well.
I am also struck by the contradictions contained in H.R. 2584. Here
are just two examples:
On the one hand, the bill allocates millions of dollars to restore
the Everglades in Florida, yet the majority includes a funding
limitation that will permit the pollution of the Everglades. The bill
also includes funding to deal with the continuing fallout from uranium
mining on the Navajo Indian Reservation, yet it includes language that
will expose Grand Canyon National Park and the millions of Americans
who depend upon the Colorado River for their drinking water to the
well-known dangers of uranium mining, and they give away the publicly
owned uranium to a foreign-owned Asian mining company. Imagine, giving
away publicly owned uranium to a foreign firm.
The list of legislative riders and funding limitations in the bill is
long: National Environmental Policy Act waivers, limitations on
judicial review, and the blocking of air and water pollution controls.
Whole legislative texts have been dumped into this bill. These riders
and limitations have nothing to do with deficit reduction and
everything to do with carrying out an extreme ideological agenda.
Repealing environmental regulations doesn't save money; it costs
money. Keeping toxins out of our air and water is a great deal cheaper
than cleaning up the damage or dealing with the adverse health effects.
Preventing the Deepwater Horizon disaster would have been far cheaper
than having to clean it up after the fact.
Each rider or funding limitation seems designed to benefit one
industry or another. These provisions have become the new earmarks,
with 39 such provisions already in the bill, and more are going to be
proposed to be added.
While this bill rewards businesses and industries that seek to delay
or undermine environmental protections, it penalizes others who try to
do the right thing. As just one example, American Electric Power
recently announced it's going to stop work on a low-carbon, coal-fired
power plant, carbon sequestration, showing it can work, but they're
going to stop work on it in light of the pullback in regulating
emissions related to climate change. They see what the Congress is
doing, they see what their competitors are doing, so they've decided
not to do the right thing because we're making it too expensive to do
the right thing.
With the funding cuts and special interest provisions, it's no wonder
that the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2584 runs five
pages with its veto threat. I concur with the administration's views on
the bill and under general leave will submit the administration's
statement.
We owe it to our constituents and our communities to protect the air
we breathe and the water we drink, to protect public health from the
dangers of mercury and arsenic and lead. Imagine, we have more than 500
coal-fired power plants in this country and they emit more than 78,000
pounds of mercury, and yet one drop of mercury will poison an entire
lake.
{time} 1410
That's what we should be looking to, and not tying EPA's hands. We
ought to be good stewards of the abundant natural and cultural heritage
passed down to us. President Johnson noted in 1964, and I'm going to
quote, ``If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather
than contempt, we must leave them something more than the miracles of
technology. We should be leaving them a glimpse of the world as it was
in the beginning, not just after we got through with it.''
[[Page H5436]]
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2584 falls far short of our responsibility to
present and future generations. And so I obviously oppose the bill.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 2584--Department of the Interior, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2012
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
2584, making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2012. The Administration is
committed to ensuring the Nation lives within its means and
reducing the deficit so that the Nation can compete in the
global economy and win the future. That is why the President
put forth a comprehensive fiscal framework that reduces the
deficit by $4 trillion, supports economic growth and long-
term job creation, protects critical investments, meets the
commitments made to provide dignity and security to Americans
no matter their circumstances, and provides for our national
security.
The Administration strongly opposes a number of provisions
in this bill, including ideological and political provisions
that are beyond the scope of funding legislation. If the
President is presented with a bill that undermines ongoing
conservation, public health, and environmental protection
efforts through funding limits or restrictions, his senior
advisors would recommend he veto the bill.
While overall funding limits and subsequent allocations
remain unclear pending the outcome of ongoing bipartisan,
bicameral discussions between the Administration and
congressional leadership on the Nation's long-term fiscal
picture, the Administration has concerns regarding the level
of resources the bill would provide for a number of programs
in a way that undermines core government functions,
investments key to economic growth and job creation, as well
as protection of public health and the environment and
preservation of our Nation's natural resource heritage,
including, but not limited to:
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Conservation Grants. The
level of funding provided to the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act and State and Tribal Wildlife grants, as
well as the termination of Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act grants, would threaten the ability of States
and private organizations to conserve and provide access to
habitat, undermining the conservation of game and non-game
species.
Safety Inspection Fees. The bill does not include user fees
to cover inspections of oil and gas production facilities
offshore and onshore. Without these fees, taxpayers, rather
than industry, would have to shoulder the cost of these
operations, which are critical to ensuring safe and
responsible energy development.
FWS Operations. The funding provided for operations would
seriously degrade the ability of FWS to maintain the network
of National Wildlife Refuges and fulfill other statutory
responsibilities. This would result in delays in
environmental compliance reviews, which could impede major
infrastructure projects, including road construction, water
delivery, and other federally funded projects that directly
benefit State and local governments.
Landsat. The bill does not provide funding to begin the
acquisition of the next Landsat satellite, ending a 40-year
stream of data that is used by Federal, State, local and
Tribal governments and the private sector to make informed
land and resource management decisions and to assess the
impacts of those decisions over time.
DOI and Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The funding in the
bill for LWCF programs would deny willing sellers the
opportunity to sell land holdings, and severely impair the
ability of Federal, State, and local officials, as well as
private landowners, to preserve and manage areas important to
wildlife, recreationalists, and sportsmen and women.
Wildland Fire Suppression. The bill's funding for
suppression is substantially below the 10-year average, which
is the accepted method for calculating suppression
requirements. While the bill directs DOI and the Forest
Service to use emergency fire suppression balances to make up
the shortfall, this strategy carries high risk given the high
fire activity to date and the cancellation of balances in FY
2011 appropriations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA Operating Budget. At the funding level provided, EPA
will be unable to implement its core mission of protecting
human health and the environment. Research necessary to
support this mission will be curtailed, and restoration of
key ecosystems such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay
will be delayed.
State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The level of funding provided
in the bill would result in approximately 400 fewer
wastewater and drinking water projects, and impede EPA's
ability to reach the long-term goal of providing
approximately 5 percent of total water infrastructure funding
annually.
State Categorical Grants. The funding provided in the bill
for grants to States would impede States' ability to carry
out critical public health and environmental activities such
as air quality monitoring and water quality permitting. This
would greatly reduce core high-priority State environmental
programs at a time of declining State budgets.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Programs. The reductions in funding
for GHG programs and regulations severely limit actions the
Administration could take under current law to permit,
control, and monitor greenhouse gases and would block EPA's
efforts to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles and large
stationary sources.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). The level of
resources for the GLRI would reduce the ability of Federal
agencies and their partners to clean up contaminated
sediments, fight invasive species, restore habitat, and
improve water quality in this critical ecosystem.
High Priority Ecosystems Funding. The level of funding
provided for the Chesapeake Bay would jeopardize the
successful clean-up of the Nation's largest estuary.
Responsible Energy Development and Oil Spill Response. The
level of resources in the bill would eliminate efforts to
increase the frequency of environmental compliance
inspections at oil facilities. In addition, the bill does not
include emergency transfer authority necessary to improve the
Government's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills.
Smart Growth. The bill terminates funding for EPA's Smart
Growth program, which contributes to efforts to assist
communities in coordinating infrastructure investments and
minimizing environmental impact of development.
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
The funding in the bill for the NEA, which is the largest
national funder of the arts in the United States, would cut
support for arts organizations across the country during a
time when private and State arts funding is also highly
constrained.
Council on Environmental Quality.
The Administration's ability to guide the Executive
Branch's environmental policies and programs will be
substantially reduced at the funding level in the bill.
The Administration strongly opposes problematic policy and
language issues that are beyond the scope of funding
legislation, including, but not limited to, the following
provisions in this bill:
Restrictions on Implementing the Endangered Species Act.
Preventing FWS from implementing key provisions of the
Endangered Species Act will only result in increased costs
and delays in the future.
Mountain Top Mining Reform. Preventing the Office of
Surface Mining from developing or implementing the stream
buffer zone rule could increase the risk of litigation and
potentially delay sustainable coal mining.
Mineral Withdrawal Prohibition. Prohibiting DOI from
restricting new mining claims on approximately 1 million
acres of Federal lands near the Grand Canyon will reverse a
temporary moratorium on new uranium and other mining claims.
The Secretary of the Interior is currently assessing the
impact to water quality in Grand Canyon National Park to
ensure that any future uranium or other mining activity in
the area does not lead to the human health and environmental
impacts seen from previous mining-caused contamination of
ground water and drinking water supplies.
Gray Wolves. The Endangered Species Act expressly gives the
public the right to challenge listing decisions. Restricting
judicial review of any published final rule to delist gray
wolves in Wyoming or the Great Lakes region from the
Endangered Species Act would deny the public an opportunity
to make sure that a future listing decision on gray wolves is
based on science.
Protecting Wilderness Characteristics Secretarial Order.
Prohibiting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from
implementing Secretarial Order 3310, which directs BLM to use
the public resource management planning process to designate
certain lands with wilderness characteristics as ``Wild
Lands'' is unnecessary given the Department's policy that
includes collaboration with stakeholders to identify public
lands that may be appropriate candidates for congressional
designation under the Wilderness Act.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Stationary Sources.
Preventing EPA from regulating GHG emissions from stationary
sources would prevent the Agency from proposing or finalizing
new regulations to control GHG emissions from power plants
and petroleum refineries, increasing the risk of long-term
environmental consequences from GHG emissions. EPA is under
two settlement agreements to complete these rules in 2012.
Clean Air Act Permitting. Section 431(a)(2-4) of the bill
effectively overrides Federal and State- issued permits for
emissions from industrial facilities that are very large
emitters of greenhouse gases by stating that the Clean Air
Act's requirement to obtain a permit has no legal effect and
that no lawsuits may be brought against a facility due to
uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.
Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Standards. Section 453 of the
bill undermines Executive Branch efforts to set standards
that will save consumers money at the pump and reduce GHG
emissions through increased vehicle fuel efficiency on Model
Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles.
Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)/
Transport Rule. Section
[[Page H5437]]
462 of the bill blocks EPA from implementing its utility MACT
rule to control air toxics emissions, as well as the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule controlling interstate transport of
nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions from power
plants. This provision interferes with the long-delayed
implementation of major air pollution rules covering
pollution from power plants.
Mountaintop Mining Coordination and Guidance. Section 433
of the bill prohibits implementing or enforcing an EPA/Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps)/Office of Surface Mining
coordination Memorandum of Understanding and EPA guidance on
the Clean Water Act/National Environmental Policy Act and
mountaintop mining. This issue is currently undergoing
judicial review and should be allowed to conclude without
congressional intervention.
Clean Water Act. Section 435 of the bill would stop an
important Administration effort to provide clarity around
which water bodies are covered by the Clean Water Act. The
Administration's work in this area will help to protect the
public health and economic benefits provided to the American
public by clean water, while also bringing greater certainty
to business planning and investment and reducing an ongoing
loss of wetlands and other sensitive aquatic resources. The
existing regulations were the subject of two recent Supreme
Court cases, in which the Court itself indicated the need for
greater regulatory clarity regarding the appropriate scope of
the Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
Outer Continental Shelf Drilling. Section 443 of the bill
limits EPA's Clean Air Act permitting authority for Outer
Continental Shelf drilling and would eliminate the Agency's
discretion in considering human health and environmental
protections when issuing these permits.
Integrated Risk Information System. Section 444 of the bill
withholds funding for EPA to take administrative action
following its assessment of risk for certain chemicals. This
provision would delay scientific assessment of environmental
contaminants and could delay regulatory or other Agency
actions designed to protect public health.
Limiting Compliance of the Endangered Species Act. Section
447 of the bill would prevent EPA from implementing a
biological opinion related to pesticides if the opinion
identifies modifying, canceling, or suspending registration
of a pesticide registered under FIFRA. This could undermine
efforts to protect species from being put into jeopardy from
a Federal project and could stop development and delay
issuance of permits.
Lead Renovation and Repair Rule. Section 450 of the bill
prohibits funding for EPA to implement the 2008 Lead
Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule, as amended, until
after industry develops and EPA approves different lead paint
test kits. This would undermine efforts to protect sensitive
populations from exposure to lead, a known toxin to children
and developing fetuses, during home renovation projects. The
currently available test kits allow renovators to comply with
the 2008 rule.
Reducing Emissions from Cement Facilities. The language
would prevent common sense deployment of technology that has
been around for decades that will improve public health by
reducing emissions of pollutants, including known carcinogens
such as dioxin, from cement facilities.
Fighting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. Sections 449 and 451 of
the bill fall short of their intended purposes of protecting
the interest of the Nation's taxpayers. The Administration
looks forward to working with the Congress to achieve the
common goal of fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal
contracts, grants, and other Federal assistance.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress as the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process moves
forward to ensure the Administration can support enactment of
the legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The Committee will rise
informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) assumed the
chair.
____________________