[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5543-H5553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
General Leave
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2584,
and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). 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 further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2584.
{time} 1915
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 further 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. Dold (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday,
[[Page H5544]]
July 25, 2011, the bill had been read through page 3, line 2.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, $32,500,000 is for the processing of
applications for permit to drill and related use
authorizations, to remain available until expended, to be
reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited to
this appropriation that shall be derived from $6,500 per new
application for permit to drill that the Bureau shall collect
upon submission of each new application, and in addition,
$39,696,000 is for Mining Law Administration program
operations, including the cost of administering the mining
claim fee program; to remain available until expended, to be
reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited to
this appropriation from mining claim maintenance fees and
location fees that are hereby authorized for fiscal year 2012
so as to result in a final appropriation estimated at not
more than $918,227,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available
until expended, from communication site rental fees
established by the Bureau for the cost of administering
communication site activities.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 65, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask that
the reading be suspended.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. CLARKE of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, this amendment would move $10
million from the Bureau of Land Management to the Environmental
Protection Agency's geographic programs under the Environmental
Programs and Management account.
Here's the bottom line, what this $10 million is all about. It's
helping to save jobs connected to the $7 billion Great Lakes fishing
industry. This industry, and the jobs connected to it, are at stake,
are at risk because of the Asian carp. So it's my intention that the
Environmental Protection Agency designate this additional $10 million
to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to stop the Asian carp from
migrating into the Great Lakes.
Unfortunately, just last week, and this is the urgency of this
situation, why I'm offering this amendment. Just last week, the Army
Corps of Engineers found Asian carp DNA in Lake Michigan. This is
deeply disturbing. We have to do everything in our power to stop the
Asian carp from migrating to the Great Lakes basin because of the $7
billion industry that's at stake.
These carp, they come and they eat all the food up in the ecosystem,
and that leaves very little for the native fish. And the native fish is
what people fish for in the Great Lakes.
So, again, I urge this body, for the sake of preserving the Great
Lakes fishing industry, to allow this amendment. And again, it's my
intention that the additional $10 million would go toward the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, which right now is underfunded by $100
million. So it'll be some measurable improvement, and to have that
money focus on preserving our Great Lakes fishing jobs by stopping the
Asian carp.
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
this amendment and strong opposition to this bill. The Interior
appropriations bill that is before us today is a radical assault on
public health, on clean air and clean water, and on our environment.
This bill wouldn't create a single job. Instead of creating jobs and
protecting the public health, this bill gives polluters and other
special interests license to do just about anything that they want.
This might be the single worst bill in this House for our public health
and the environment since the days of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay.
{time} 1920
In this bill, the House Republicans are undermining the Clean Water
Act, creating loopholes in the Clean Air Act, and gutting the
Endangered Species Act.
But that's not all. This legislation makes it harder for our States
and cities to improve their crumbling water and wastewater systems
through the State clean water and drinking water revolving funds.
The legislation blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from
protecting us from mercury, soot, and power plant pollution. Under this
bill, the EPA will hardly be allowed to do anything about dangerous
pollution that threatens our public health.
The legislation blocks the new vehicle standards that will save
consumers at the gas pump and would reduce the amount of oil that we
import as a Nation. If that wasn't bad enough, the bill decides to
prohibit the State of California from setting its own clean vehicle
standards.
The legislation also includes an ``extinction rider,'' one of the
most aggressive threats to the Endangered Species Act in my career here
that would freeze all of the efforts to protect imperiled species
across the country.
One of the most offensive aspects of this bill, out of a very long
list, is the 80 percent cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
For nearly 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has taken oil
and gas drilling fields, a finite resource, to invest them in a
continuing protection of our resources on land, not taxpayer dollars--
these are taken from the oil companies that drill in the offshore--and
they use that money to preserve the national parks, the wildlife
habitat, trails, and working ranches and forests.
With this cut, Republicans are breaking the decades-long promise that
has been a bipartisan consensus across this country, the promise that
we will use these oil and gas royalties to protect important American
places for future generations.
Outside of the Republican Conference in the House of Representatives,
I don't know anyone in this country who wants to end our commitment to
use these fees on Big Oil to protect our parks and recreation areas.
These are our public lands. These are the lands that America's families
use every summer, use at different seasons and different parts of the
country all of the time. These are the public spaces that make us the
envy of the rest of the world. These are the public systems that
countries from all over the world send people to understand how did we
save them, how do we protect them, how do we manage them. We set the
standard for the world. As it was said earlier, one of America's best
ideas. But now all of that is threatened under the cut to these funds
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Mr. Chairman, these are a few of my reasons; but there are many, many
more why I would strongly oppose this legislation and the very bad, bad
ideas that it contains. I would hope that this Congress would reject
this legislation out of hand.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is trying
to do. This amendment would limit the BLM from spending $10 million in
offsetting collections for oil and gas fees and put the funding into
the EPA's geographic programs. I understand what he's trying to do, and
I'm sympathetic with what he's trying to do.
I'm not necessarily opposed to increasing this program, and we
recognize the challenge of the Asian carp in the Great Lakes. We have
many invasive species in Idaho, so I certainly understand where the
gentleman is coming from and the challenges that they face.
With that said, we worked hard to balance funding in this bill. We
already funded invasive species in the Great Lakes at $43 million, and
the total for Great Lakes geographic programs is $250 million. It makes
little sense to
[[Page H5545]]
take funds from offsetting collections for the cost to administer the
oil and gas programs. In other words, these programs are paid for by
the industry, not by the taxpayers.
So while I don't necessarily oppose what the gentleman is trying to
do, it's the offset that the gentleman has created to put the $10
million in there. We've tried to create a balance between these
different programs with limited funding. I think we've done a good job
in the Great Lakes, the best we could in this bill; and I would oppose
the amendment and ask my Members to oppose the amendment.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
I do have a newspaper article that does state that the oil and gas
industry does hold around 7,200 drilling permits that haven't been used
yet, but I do take the gentleman's point into consideration, if there
is a way that we could work out something, because I'm not trying to
undercut the drilling program at all here.
I did notice in fiscal year 2012 that there was a surplus in terms of
what we funded, which was around $45 million; in terms of the
collections that were received, there was around $27 million. So there
was around an $18 million overfunding there. That's why I did ask for
this offset, because I felt it would be responsible and would not
undercut the drilling permit program here.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman is
trying to do. As I said, we do have some concerns with the offsets, but
I am more than willing once this bill goes to conference in whatever
form, depending on the outcome of this amendment, obviously, to work
with the gentleman to see what we can do with the geographical
programs, not just the Great Lakes programs, but there are both
Republicans and Democrats that care about the geographical programs.
We've tried to do the best we could there, but there are other
geographical programs that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is
concerned about and that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is
also concerned about. We will work with the gentleman in conference in
trying to address the concerns expressed by the gentleman.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I offer this amendment for what's at stake.
The Great Lakes fishing industry is a $7 billion industry, and right
now metro Detroit and the State of Michigan are in very hard-hit
economic times by our industrial base being eviscerated. The one saving
grace in our State and in that region is the fishing industry. That's
the reason why I'm asking for this right now. It's emergency action. We
found Asian carp DNA in Lake Michigan last week. I've got to do
everything in my power as a Representative of not only Michigan but of
that entire region to stop that carp from getting into the Great Lakes
system, which would destroy our fishing industry. I urge your help.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in the underlying bill, the majority has
underfunded the Interior Department agency charged with issuing new
drilling permits and ensuring that offshore drilling is safe. The
underlying bill would underfund the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement--BOEMRE is what it's called--by nearly $35
million. This is the agency that is charged with the responsibility of
ensuring that we drill safely off the coastline of the United States.
At our very recent hearing, the director of that agency, Michael
Bromwich, said that underfunding this agency, as the majority, the
Republicans, have done in this bill, would slow down new offshore
drilling permits and make offshore drilling less safe. That is
unacceptable.
Unfortunately, the rule the majority adopted has protected the
underlying provision limiting the inspection fees paid by the oil and
gas industry from a point of order, and now the Republicans will not
allow the House to work its will on the amendment that I have drafted
with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentlelady from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Our amendment would have fully funded this safety agency by
increasing the inspection fees on the oil and gas industry. The top
five oil and gas companies made $35 billion in profits just in the
first 3 months of this year. This week, they will likely report similar
profits for the second quarter. In fact, earlier today, BP reported
quarterly profits of $5.6 billion. That's just for the last 3 months.
{time} 1930
Yet the industry as a whole pays just $10 million a year in
inspection fees for offshore drilling, and the Republicans are putting
it offshore today from any consideration by the Members of this body.
So our amendment would have, if the Republicans had allowed us,
implemented a key recommendation from the independent BP spill
commission. The BP commission recommended increasing the $10 million
per year that the oil and gas industry currently pays in inspection
fees significantly, and that is what our amendment would have done.
And for my friends on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about
reducing Federal spending, the increased funding for the safety agency
from our amendment would have come from the oil and gas industry and
not from taxpayers, but the majority won't even allow a vote on this
amendment.
The oil and gas industry supports increased funding for BOEMRE. Just
last November, the president and CEO of the American Petroleum
Institute, Jack Gerard, said, ``We fully support Congress providing
additional resources for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement. This agency needs the additional inspectors
and the increased staff and training resources to allow more efficient
review and approval of oil and natural gas permit applications and
processing of environmental reviews.''
But what have the Republicans done in this bill? They have
underfunded this agency. The oil industry agrees that there needs to be
more funding to process permits and conduct inspections. The only
question is whether a portion of that funding is going to come from a
small increase in inspection fees, as the independent BP commission has
recommended, or whether American taxpayers will have to pick up the
entire tab. We are saying that they should pay the fee, the American
Petroleum Institute should pay the fee. The oil industry should have to
pick up the tab. And right now we do not have an ability to debate that
on the House floor.
When people go to get their cars inspected to ensure they are safe
and not a threat to the environment, they pay a small fee. But the oil
and gas industry, which is recording the largest profits in the history
of the world, doesn't have to pay a fee to get some of their rigs
inspected to ensure that we don't have another Deepwater Horizon
disaster.
The American people want these rigs inspected to make sure they are
safe, not allow oil companies to be safe from paying more inspection
fees. But when we are trying to cut the deficit, the Republican
majority is giving another gift to the oil industry, straining our oil
safety agency. More than 1 year after the BP spill, it is still
business as usual.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. CAPPS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering today
undermines the ability of the Federal
[[Page H5546]]
Government to continue protecting our Nation's air, land, and waters.
I intended to offer an amendment, along with my colleague from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt),
to fully fund the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement, fully fund the national agency in charge of regulating
offshore oil and gas drilling. Unfortunately, due to changes by the
Republican leadership to the House budget process, we weren't allowed
to offer this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it's been over a year since the Nation's worst offshore
oil spill. And I think our constituents would be surprised to learn
that rather than taking action to prevent another deadly spill, this
House continues to talk about expanding offshore drilling while
sidestepping environmental laws to do so. They would also be surprised
to learn that the underlying bill blocks the bureau's ability to
collect inspection fees, and, as a result, the agency would see a $35
million cut in their budget.
Mr. Chairman, in his fiscal year 2012 budget request, President Obama
asked for a significant increase for the bureau over his 2010 budget.
He asked for this new money to hire additional inspectors, to enhance
environmental reviews, and to enforce strengthened regulations. If we
recall a year ago and the events following the spill, we will
understand why this is the case.
While this request was a significant increase over prior years, the
administration proposed to offset nearly half of the request by
increasing the inspection fees on offshore rigs. This was a key
recommendation of the President's bipartisan, independent national oil
spill commission.
In their final report, the commissioners recommended the industry
fees should be increased to, and I quote from their report, ``provide
adequate leasing capabilities and regulatory oversight for the
increasingly complex energy-related activities being undertaken on the
OCS.''
Our straightforward amendment adopts this key recommendation to
provide the funding needed for government regulators to do their jobs,
and it will ensure a safer and more environmentally responsible
industry.
Mr. Chairman, knowing what we know now, if we continue to allow
offshore drilling in U.S. waters, the government has a responsibility
to ensure that they are protecting us against a repeat of last year's
disaster. And if oil and gas corporations want the opportunity to
drill, it's only fair for them to help cover the cost of ensuring it's
done properly, that their workers are protected, and the surrounding
ocean is safe. But, ultimately, Congress holds the purse strings, and
we must require these corporations to step up so the bureau can ensure
that the people, communities, economies, and environment in the gulf,
Alaska, and off the southern California coast are sufficiently
protected against a spill.
Whether or not we have an agency capable of properly regulating the
oil and gas industry is dependent upon our decisions. Without these
fees, taxpayers, rather than the industry, would have to shoulder the
costs of these operations.
If we want to ensure safe and responsible energy development, we must
put the lessons learned from the BP oil disaster to use.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill which blocks the bureau's
ability to collect inspection fees. It's what is needed so we do not
have to endure a repeat of the horrific disaster that is still
inflicting pain and damage to the Gulf of Mexico and to those who make
their living from it.
What a terrible legacy of this Congress that we have done so little
following the gulf oil disaster. What a legacy should, God forbid, a
future disaster take place and we would have remembered that on our
watch we could have done something about it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. As you heard, this appropriations bill provides several
hundred million dollars to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement. Sounds like a lot of money, but it is far
less than what is needed for the protection of the environment and of
workers for offshore oil and other activities.
The Director of the bureau recently testified that these funds that
are missing are needed and that their lack will have a direct and
immediate impact on the ability of the agency to hire inspection and
permitting personnel.
It's interesting that so eager is the majority to look after the
interests of the oil industry that they ruled out of order our
amendment which provides one way to make up for these lost funds, this
amendment that I would have offered with Mr. Markey of Massachusetts
and Mrs. Capps of California had the amendment been in order. So eager
are they to look after the interests of the oil industry that they
actually work against the oil industry.
{time} 1940
So eager are they to look after the interests of the oil industry,
that they actually work against the oil industry. The irony is pretty
rich here. At a time when the majority is aggressively pushing their
oil, oil, oil, drill, drill, drill agenda, they are slashing the very
funds that are needed by the bureau to conduct the lease sales and
issue the permits and inspect the offshore drilling facilities so the
industry can move ahead safely and efficiently.
You know, at a time when we are about, according to the majority
here, about to require seniors and the poor to pay more for their
health care, and the majority is considering drastic cuts to the social
safety net and considering trading away critical parts of Medicare and
Medicaid, the majority is prepared to hand out yet another subsidy to
the oil industry. They refuse to make in order the legislation that
would take 0.02 percent, that is two-tenths of 1 percent, of the annual
profits of the top five oil companies to replace the missing $35
million in inspection fees. That amount would fully fund the bureau and
would ensure that the agency could effectively and efficiently issue
the permits and conduct the safety inspections.
This is an industry that is making tens of billions of dollars each
quarter. As we have heard, BP just today announced more than $5 billion
in profit. That is a little bit below expectations, we read, $5 billion
in the last 3 months.
So as a result, because this amendment is not being made in order,
this bill, should it become law, would leave the agency that is
responsible for the management, regulation, and enforcement of offshore
drilling underfunded, understaffed, and it would leave the public and
the workers at risk.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
construction
For construction of buildings, recreation facilities,
roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $3,576,000, to
remain available until expended.
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and
318(d) of Public Law 94-579(43 U.S.C. 1715, 1716, and
1748(d), respectively), including administrative expenses and
acquisition of lands or waters, or interests therein,
$4,880,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bass of New Hampshire
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 10, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
Page 15, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
Page 76, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
Page 78, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
[[Page H5547]]
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Hampshire?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the Chairman for recognizing me
and making it possible for me to offer this amendment at this point in
the bill.
This amendment will restore $20 million to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. It is offset by a $20 million reduction from the
Department of the Interior salaries and expenses. Now, the Department
of the Interior salaries and expenses at present are about $250
million, so this would represent roughly a 10 percent reduction in the
overhead for the agency. But what do you get for that? You get about an
8 percent increase in the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding.
Now, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as has been mentioned by
other speakers, was established 46 years ago in 1965. It was designed
as a forward-looking program to preserve critical assets in America for
all of us to enjoy.
When you travel around the world, you don't find countries like
America that have large parts of our country preserved for public use.
Most of the land in other countries around the world is owned privately
or by the government and it is not accessible to the public. The LWCF,
through its stateside program, its Forest Legacy Fund, has provided
countless acres of protected land for public enjoyment.
Now, the fund has, for the last 25 or so years, received most of its
funding from offshore oil royalties, and those royalties have averaged
anywhere from $7 billion to $18 billion a year. And I have a little
table here for the last few years that shows the total royalties and
how little amount of money that the Land and Water Conservation Fund
takes from these receipts. It is authorized at $900 million. It has
been funded of late between $300 million and $500 million. But, my
friends, this year it is funded at less than $70 million.
We Republicans have set as a goal in our principles to reduce the
growth of government and to reduce programs to their January 1, 2008,
level. What have we done in this appropriations bill? We have reduced
this fund to its 1965 level.
I have here another little table that shows the historical funding
for the Land and Water Conservation program. There is 1965. We will be
lower than that if we don't pass this amendment.
I ask you, my friends, for the sake of the 900,000 Americans who
visit these lands during the year, of the millions of dollars spent
through the outdoor recreation industry, for those opportunities that
we may never see again to make critical purchases and easement
purchases of assets that are so important to the future of our country,
to raise this appropriation from $68 million to $90 million is a small
price to pay for what could be done with those funds.
We need to continue the program of land conservation, local
recreation, and, yes, working forests. And a $68 million appropriation
just plain doesn't do it.
So on behalf of my cosponsors, I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to support
this amendment and make it a part of the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend from New
Hampshire as one of the cosponsors of this amendment, and I urge House
passage.
Let me say at the outset that this is a terrible bill. This is the
first time I have come to the House floor to speak on it. It goes
without saying that the devastation that this underlying legislation
would do to our, frankly, century-long history of environmental
protection is almost indescribable. The League of Conservation Voters
said simply this: that this bill is the biggest assault on the air we
breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife and wild places we hold
dear to ever come before Congress.
It rolls back new vehicle emission standards. It guts the Clean Water
Act. It defunds the Endangered Species Act. And in the middle of it
all, it adds an 80 percent cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
As my friend, Representative Bass, rightly pointed out, it essentially
reverses 50 years of investment in land conservation by returning this
account back to the 1965 level.
It was a great Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, who first had
the wisdom to understand how integral the open spaces of this country
are to what it means to be an American. There is something unique about
this country. The views and the vistas are just one part of it. Our
identity is wrapped up in the places that we have conserved, the places
that we have conserved through the very rightful acts of investment by
our Federal Government over the last 50 years, indeed, over the last
100 years. And it has been Republican and Democratic Presidents,
Republican and Democratic Congresses that since that moment of
awakening in this Nation have realized this is the right kind of
investment for this Nation. It is the right kind of investment because
not only does it preserve the character of our Nation, but it does so
by leveraging private investment and State investment.
As Representative Bass noted, one of the most important pieces of
LWCF is the Forest Legacy Program. That program has conserved 2 million
acres around the country. In my State of Connecticut, it has helped
conserve 8,000 acres, and it does it by partnering with State
resources, with local resources, and with private resources; in my
State, often through the generosity of land trusts. This is an
incredibly wise investment, as it has been over the years.
And worst of all, this isn't even getting at the larger question of
deficit reduction because this account has never been funded through
deficits or borrowing. It has been funded through the money that comes
from our offshore oil leases.
There are so many horrible cuts in this bill. There are so many
reasons for those of us who believe in the concept of environmental
protection made real by bipartisan support over the course of the last
century to oppose this bill. But this, in my mind, is the worst of it.
This is a sad day where we stand today. This is a small, small increase
beyond what the Republicans have proposed to cut, but I think it is
meaningful in the sense that it is an opportunity for this Congress to
come together and say what dozens upon dozens of Congresses have said
since 1965, that it is an American investment to spend Federal money
toward the project of land conservation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1950
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. It's one of the great environmental success
stories of the past 50 years. The $65.8 million that the bill contains
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is in fact, as has been
stated, the lowest since the program was started back in 1965. This is
a 78 percent cut from the current level of funding. But I have to
oppose the Bass-Murphy amendment because it not only is too small but
the offset used would in fact harm other important programs.
The $20 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that the
Bass-Murphy amendment would restore is less than 10 percent of the $235
million cut from this year's level. But to fund this plus-up, the Bass
amendment actually makes it worse by taking $20 million from the Office
of the Secretary's account. Because what appears to be an increase in
funding in the Secretary's office is actually the transfer of the
revenue collection function from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation, and Enforcement. The Office of the Secretary took that in
so that the Interior Department can do a better job in collecting the
royalties and payments that are due the American people from Outer
Continental Shelf drilling. But if you take this $20 million away, it
jeopardizes those collections.
The problem is that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is in fact
funded with Outer Continental Shelf royalties. But if you take away the
ability to collect those royalties, not
[[Page H5548]]
only are you taking the $20 million from the ability of the Secretary
of the Interior to manage the office, but you could very well be
costing the government much more than $20 million because they won't
have the ability to collect those royalties that in fact pay for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Now, we couldn't agree more that it never should have been cut by 78
percent. It should be restored. We have said that in our statement. We
support amendments to restore it, but certainly not to take it from the
ability of the Secretary of the Interior to collect the very revenues
that the government needs and that the American people are owed.
So that's why, regrettably, I have to oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chair, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
helped ensure the permanent protection and maintenance of critical
lands in our national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and historic
sites. Equally important, it has provided matching funds to support
countless state parks and recreation projects in thousands of
communities in every state in the nation.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund not only helps provide outdoor
recreation access so that parents can teach their children about
active, healthy lifestyles, it also provides an economic boost. In
Washington state alone, the 2.7 million people who enjoy hunting,
fishing, and wildlife watching contribute $3 billion to the local
economy.
I've joined bipartisan efforts to protect this important fund
because, in the Pacific Northwest, we take special pride in our natural
resources. I'm proud to, again, follow in the footsteps of so many who
have worked together to protect the outdoors and our environment. I
urge my colleagues to support the Bass amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $4,880,000)''.
Page 10, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $15,047,000)''.
Page 15, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $18,294,000)''.
Page 78, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $12,500,000)''.
Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,721,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of
and in cooperation with Representative Paul Broun of Georgia, who could
not be here tonight. What this amendment does is it would zero out all
of the land acquisition programs within the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill, thus placing more than $50
million in the Spending Reduction Account in order to reduce our
national debt.
The Federal Government already owns more than 650 million acres of
land, or about 30 percent of the total land area of the United States.
We can't even take good care of the lands that the Federal Government
already owns. An example of this is that the Park Service has a current
backlog of several billions of dollars of repairs and maintenance in
our beautiful national parks. At a time when we are facing an
unprecedented fiscal crisis, the Federal Government needs to focus its
energy on taking better care of the land it already has rather than
purchasing additional acres. Our Federal agencies have enough on their
plate, and if we zero out these land acquisition programs, we can save
a significant amount of money.
Mr. Chair, we cannot spend our way out of the debt dilemma. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment and to send more than $50 million
toward paying down our national debt.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish that our friends who just spoke on an
amendment to add $20 million were still around, because their points
are well taken. We've already cut 78 percent from this program.
The gentleman from Colorado wants to eliminate it entirely. The Land
and Water Conservation Fund is one of the premier environmental
programs in this country. Most Americans have no idea how important it
has been to their quality of life and to the ecology of this great
country. But by wiping out these funds entirely, the amendment would
force land management agencies to cease all work on congressionally
approved projects that are now under way using previous year
appropriations.
This mean-spirited amendment will hurt willing sellers--landowners
who are willing to sell--because it's going to prevent agencies from
finishing the commitments that are already in place. Among the willing
sellers who would be unfairly thrown to the curb are owners who are
partway through contracted sales and are counting on Land and Water
Conservation funds to complete those sales, those contracts that they
have already been working on. Many landowners, who range from elderly
widowers and family trusts to ranchers and forest owners, have pressing
financial needs that now depend on the completion of what are ongoing
Land and Water Conservation projects. The amendment would also
frustrate land exchanges that are currently in process. So it's not
just the sale of land, it's exchanges of land that this amendment would
prohibit. Many of them have been years in the making. And so it's very
important for local and private economic development and for public
land management.
Under this amendment, staff would not even be in place to accept and
process donations of important natural historic and other properties.
Donations to the public, you wouldn't even have staff to accept those
donations. Without staff, right-of-way work to provide or maintain
access to key public needs also would be impossible. The public, the
American taxpayer, would be unable to secure critically needed routes
for fuels and wildfire management or for watershed management or for
access for sportsmen and other recreational use. I can't imagine that
the sportsmen in this country could ever want to have this kind of
prohibition in place that might prevent them from even getting access
to important recreational areas for fishing and hunting and so on.
The amendment would exacerbate an already draconian cut--78 percent
cut--to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that is already
paid for using a very small percentage of oil drilling receipts. I
would hope that my colleagues and anybody that might be listening to
this debate would understand that Land and Water Conservation Fund
moneys are not taxpayer dollars. They come from the receipts from oil
and gas drilling--drilling that is on publicly owned land.
{time} 2000
Those royalties come into the government, and that's what we use to
fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but this would eliminate
that program. This amendment represents a complete elimination of a
bipartisan program that has existed for 45 years. This proposal
prevents revenues deposited in the Land and Water Conservation account
from being used for their authorized purposes. These funds were a
promise made to the American people in 1964. This Congress should not
be breaking that longstanding commitment. I, obviously, oppose the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hurt). The gentleman from Idaho is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. First, let me apologize to the gentleman from Virginia
for the last amendment.
We both had some concerns, that he expressed very well, about taking
$20 million out of the Secretary's office and the impact that that
could have. As we discussed during his debate, I think both of us are
concerned about the underfunding of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and would like to see that fund increased. During his debate in
opposition to the amendment, we decided to accept the $20 million in
the amendment from the gentleman from New Hampshire and the
[[Page H5549]]
gentleman from Connecticut's amendment.
So I apologize for the confusion in the middle of all that. The
gentleman's issues that he raised about the Secretary's budget and the
impact that could have are real. We will have to address those in
conference, and I want to work with you to do that.
Let me rise in opposition to this amendment. I have concerns that
this is eliminating all of the funds, especially since we just
increased them by $20 million. When we had this limited allocation, we
had to make some tough decisions. The Secretary wanted it fully funded
at $900 million as did the Obama administration. We simply did not have
that kind of money, and to put more money into it, given our
allocation, we would have had to take the money out of some other
programs that are very important to other people. What we did do is put
enough money in it to keep the programs and the purchases and the deals
that had been made with citizens to acquire land that were already in
progress so that those could be completed. We didn't put additional
money in there.
I happen to be a fan of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think
it has done some great things. I've seen it do things in Idaho and I've
seen it do things in other States, things that are very important.
Westerners, though, have a different view of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and let me tell you where it comes from.
It's that most of the money that's put into the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, at least a large percentage of it, is used to buy
land in States in the West. Those are States that are already highly
leveraged by the Federal Government. In Idaho, 64 percent of the land
is owned by the Federal Government. So a lot of westerners say, Listen,
if you want to put money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, if
you want to buy the whole east coast, we don't care; but what we want
in Idaho and what we want in Western States is some private land to be
able to pay the taxes to support our education system and other
services that are necessary.
I have one county in Idaho that is 96 percent Federal land--96
percent Federal land. It's bigger than the State of Rhode Island. That
means 4 percent of the property is paying property taxes to deliver the
services to these people. Several years ago, a mountain climber, not
from Idaho but from somewhere else, came out and was climbing the
mountains of Mount Borah. He died. It took their entire search and
rescue budget for the year for that county to retrieve that one body
off Mount Borah. That means everybody else who recreated in that county
did not have that backup, did not have that search and rescue
available, because they had no funds, because they had no private land
to pay the taxes to fund those services.
That's the problem that westerners who are in States that are highly
owned by the Federal Government have with the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, but I'll be the first to admit that it does some
wonderful things. If you float down the South Fork of the Snake River,
you will see one of the most beautiful canyons and one of the best
fishing rivers in the country; and if the gentleman from Washington
wants to come out, I'll float him down it. It is an incredibly
beautiful place, and it has been done through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
So I believe in the importance of this program. I apologize to the
gentleman from Virginia as to our previous confusion on that; but I
oppose this amendment, and I would encourage Members to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I was just listening to the debate here, saying: What
are they thinking? What is the rationale? What is the purpose for the
legislation that we have before us, more pointedly, the amendment that
was just offered?
This is an incredible country. This is a country that very recently
took great pride in cleaning its rivers, in protecting its citizens
from toxins and pollutants and chemicals and poisons. This is a country
that took great pride in creating the first-ever in this world national
park and then expanded it over time to create the most awesome National
Park System in the entire world. This is a country that took great
pride in the Snake River and the use of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
An argument was made a moment ago that there is not enough money. Yet
not more than a month ago, an effort to increase the royalties from our
oil that is pumped from our land, the land of the people and of the
United States--and in fact even to get a royalty--was rejected by our
Republican colleagues. So money was available if we simply had gone for
the royalties that should be there under any case. This legislation,
however, goes far beyond that, and over time will destroy the pride
that we have taken in creating our national parks, in setting aside for
future generations the great vistas of America, protecting our air, our
land and our water.
You look at this bill. You look at the details of this bill, and you
go, Oh, my. How could they? How could they put in legislation that
would block the effort of the EPA to eliminate mercury poison in our
air and water? How could they allow a bill that would create more soot
in our atmosphere, put 34,000 lives at risk, and exempt the oil
companies from air pollution standards in offshore drilling, which in
California is a big deal because the air blows, the wind blows onto the
land? How could they threaten the health of millions of Americans by
jeopardizing the EPA's critical air, land and water regulations? Then
our children. They block the EPA from limiting dangerous air pollution.
How could they put together a bill that potentially could contaminate
117 million Americans' water?
How could you do that? Have you no pride in this country? Do you not
care about the basic things that we have done to create a country that
cares about clean water? You talk about jobs. Yet, in this bill, you
eliminate the funding for the Clean Water Act, which is really building
sanitation facilities in our community.
I remember in the 1960s the great pride that the 500 people in my
community of Mokelumne Hill took when they got that money from the
Federal Government and actually built the first sanitation system in
that small town. How could you deny Americans the opportunity for
that--and the drinking water and the jobs that go with it?
That's what this bill does. Take pride in what you're doing,
gentlemen, because at the end of the day, the American public will not
take pride in what you're doing to this piece of legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to
the Chair.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tipton
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask
unanimous consent to waive the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 78, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. My amendment is going to apply funds directed towards
much needed conservation programs which are used to be able to provide
access for the American people to our public lands and to help support
jobs in the recreational and sportsmen industry.
Our public lands are a treasured resource for all Americans to be
able to use and enjoy responsibly. I support a balanced approach to
public lands use, respecting the environment that we all deeply value
while making the best use of our natural resources on public lands.
Recreation, preservation, access,
[[Page H5550]]
and job creation are all important aspects of the multiple-use
management for which these lands are truly intended.
This funding would be used for projects that clearly and specifically
improve access for hunting, fishing and other forms of outdoor
recreation on these Federal public lands. Of the directed funds, $5
million would be redirected to make public lands public and provide
much needed support for recreational access.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2010
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows.
oregon and california grant lands
For expenses necessary for management, protection, and
development of resources and for construction, operation, and
maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other
improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad
grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and
California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent
rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein,
including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such
grant lands; $112,043,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all
receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested
Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a
charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and
shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in
accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of
title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).
range improvements
For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands
and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands
pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751), notwithstanding any
other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received
during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the
Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount
designated for range improvements from grazing fees and
mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands
transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to
law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses.
service charges, deposits, and forfeitures
For administrative expenses and other costs related to
processing application documents and other authorizations for
use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of
providing copies of official public land documents, for
monitoring construction, operation, and termination of
facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for
rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be
collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law
93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That,
notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section
305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys
that have been or will be received pursuant to that
subsection, whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or
settlement, if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section
305(c) of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available
and may be expended under the authority of this Act by the
Secretary to improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public
lands administered through the Bureau of Land Management
which have been damaged by the action of a resource
developer, purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person,
without regard to whether all moneys collected from each such
action are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the
action: Provided further, That any such moneys that are in
excess of amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land
for which funds were collected may be used to repair other
damaged public lands.
miscellaneous trust funds
In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under
existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as
may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October
21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737), and such amounts as may be
advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and
costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section
211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.
administrative provisions
The Bureau of Land Management may carry out the operations
funded under this Act by direct expenditure, contracts,
grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable agreements
with public and private entities, including with States.
Appropriations for the Bureau shall be available for
purchase, erection, and dismantlement of temporary
structures, and alteration and maintenance of necessary
buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the United
States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the
discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence
concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau;
miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement
activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be
accounted for solely on the Secretary's certificate, not to
exceed $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding Public Law 90-
620 (44 U.S.C. 501), the Bureau may, under cooperative cost-
sharing and partnership arrangements authorized by law,
procure printing services from cooperators in connection with
jointly produced publications for which the cooperators share
the cost of printing either in cash or in services, and the
Bureau determines the cooperator is capable of meeting
accepted quality standards: Provided further, That projects
to be funded pursuant to a written commitment by a State
government to provide an identified amount of money in
support of the project may be carried out by the Bureau on a
reimbursable basis. Appropriations herein made shall not be
available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild
horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its
contractors or for the sale of wild horses and burros that
results in their destruction for processing into commercial
products.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
resource management
For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, as authorized by law, and for scientific
and economic studies, general administration, and the
performance of other authorized functions related to such
resources, $1,099,055,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2013 except as otherwise provided herein:
Provided, That none of the funds shall be used for
implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4
of the Endangered Species Act, (except for processing
petitions, developing and issuing proposed and final
regulations, and taking any other steps to implement actions
described in subsection (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or
(c)(2)(B)(ii) of such section): Provided further, That of the
amount available for law enforcement, up to $400,000, to
remain available until expended, may at the discretion of the
Secretary of the Interior be used for payment for
information, rewards, or evidence concerning violations of
laws administered by the Service, and miscellaneous and
emergency expenses of enforcement activity, authorized or
approved by the Secretary and to be accounted for solely on
the Secretary's certificate: Provided further, That of the
amount provided for environmental contaminants, up to
$1,000,000 may remain available until expended for
contaminant sample analyses.
amendment offered by mr. dicks
Mr. DICKS. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Under the heading ``UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT'', strike the first proviso (Page
8, line 19, to page 9, line 1), relating to implementation of
subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. I rise to offer an amendment that would strip a dangerous
rider from this bill, a rider that would seriously compromise the
effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. This is a bipartisan
amendment, I might add.
I'm offering it with the support of Congressman Thompson and
Congressman Fitzpatrick and Congresswoman Hanabusa.
The fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment bill passed by the full
committee a few weeks ago contains a direct attack on the ESA. I
offered an amendment at that time to strike the provision, but the full
committee rejected it.
The provision would block the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing
candidate species as either threatened or endangered as well as the
designation of the critical habitat necessary for species recovery.
These listing activities are preliminary steps that the Fish and
Wildlife Service must take in order to begin the recovery process.
After those steps are taken, then the hard work begins. Without these
important preliminary steps of listing and critical habitat
designation, it would be impossible to develop a scientifically valid
and legally defensible recovery plan for declining species.
This funding limitation aimed at the heart of the ESA is simply
postponing the day of reckoning. It is important to note that the bill
does provide funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service to downgrade the
protections offered to species under the ESA. After all, the goal of
the ESA is to eventually delist recovered species. Delisting is the
reward after all the hard work recovering these species. But we can't
get to the
[[Page H5551]]
point of delisting species without listing them first.
My amendment would remove these restrictions on listing and up-
listing and the designation of critical habitat.
Many critics of the ESA argue the law simply does not work. I would
argue that the recovery leading to the delisting of the bald eagle and
the American alligator under the ESA is a strong success. In the last
few months, the gray wolf in the northern Rockies has been delisted in
two States and the Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced the
intention to delist the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes.
Other animals that are still listed under the ESA but have made
tremendous recoveries include the whooping crane, the black footed
ferret, and the California condor. In the Pacific Northwest, I'm glad
to report that we are seeing signs of healthy recovery for the ESA-
listed salmon, although it will be awhile before delisting could occur.
Clearly these examples show us the success of the ESA, a law, by the
way, that the American people overwhelmingly support.
As for species listed under the ESA, they still are struggling. It is
naive to think that a quick turnaround is easy when it took decades, if
not centuries, for a species to decline. Also, it takes more time to
recover long-lived species.
Here is a situation that the Fish and Wildlife Service faces in the
administration of the ESA.
Currently, there are about 260 species that have been identified as
potential candidates for ESA protection. Of that total, there are just
under 30 species that are poised for listing in the near future. The
spending provisions in this bill would block further activity to
protect these declining species. And remember, if you delay listing too
long, a species will go extinct, thus making a recovery impossible. And
that is why some people call this the ``extinction rider.''
The Endangered Species Act is one of the most effective environmental
laws ever written. Recovering species is hard, often long, work; but it
is a responsibility that cannot be dismissed like this Interior
appropriation bill attempts to do.
I know that many of my colleagues would like to drastically reform
the ESA, but it would be a sounder path to do such a reform through the
authorization process rather than accomplishing the goal with a few
lines in the appropriation bill. And I see that the distinguished
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee is here, and he has pledged
to get to work on this important endeavor.
In closing, I will point out that this amendment is supported by
former directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service who served under
Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, the first President Bush, and Bill
Clinton. It is also supported by several hook-and-bullet groups
including the Izaak Walton League and Trout Unlimited.
I urge support for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment by my good friend
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
I respect where my friend is trying to go; but not only does this
amendment not get us there, it's downright dangerous. Let me explain
why.
Since the Clinton administration and response to lawsuits and court
orders that were crippling the agency's budget, there has been a
statutory cap on how much the agency is permitted to spend on ESA
listings. There's been a statutory cap in place since the Clinton
administration. A cap on critical habitat spending was added in 2002.
The Obama administration requested new caps for petitions and foreign
species listed in 2012.
In short, support for ESA funding caps has had bipartisan support in
Congress and in the White House and was in place when the gentleman
from Washington wrote the Interior bill and when the gentleman from
Virginia wrote the Interior bill. Those spending caps were in place.
This amendment proposes to do away with funding caps altogether and
gives the green light to those who have made a living suing the Fish
and Wildlife Service. As a result, the litigants will act, the courts
will all act, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's entire operating
budget will be at risk of being raided in order to fund court-ordered
mandates to list species and designate critical habitat.
{time} 2020
This service will have no choice but to raid other funds from its
resource management account, which is already decreased by $146
million, or 12 percent, in this budget. Having said that, the heart of
the issue isn't about funding. It's about the fact that the Endangered
Species Act is broken and is badly in need of review, revision, and
reauthorization by the Natural Resources Committee. As I have said
before, there's been about 2,000 species listed and 21 recovered.
Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act has become not so much
about saving species as it has been about controlling land and water.
I'll give you an example. We all talk about the fuzzy and warm animals
that we all like and all want to save. Nobody talks about the slickspot
peppergrass, endangered. Nobody really cares about the slickspot
peppergrass, except that it's listed. And you know what it does? It
prevents cattle grazing on public lands and is used to prevent cattle
grazing on public lands and move cattle producers off of public lands.
That's the only reason that the slickspot peppergrass is really listed.
That's unfortunate.
When you start using what was an act that was bipartisan and almost
had unanimous agreement in the House and Senate, was a good Act--the
intent of the Endangered Species Act is right, and we need to do it. We
need to protect species that are endangered. Unfortunately, that's not
what it's being used for today, and you can't get the stakeholders to
the table to do a reauthorization bill because there are groups that
like it the way it is. They want to control land and water by using the
Endangered Species Act. How do we get the message out to them that we
need to do a reauthorization? The only way I can think of is to say,
You know what? This has been unauthorized for 20 years.
Now, you talk about policy riders in this bill that you don't like.
This is a policy rider that you're attempting to add. It's an
unauthorized program. Just because we have continued to fund it for 20
years, that's not the answer; that's the problem. And we need
stakeholders to come to the table, sit down with the Natural Resources
Committee and write a reauthorization. That's what this is all about.
It is a shot across the bow.
I believe there are 56 or 58 programs in this bill that the
authorization has expired. Somehow we need to send a message that we
have a process around here. It's authorization, then appropriation. Not
authorization, expired appropriation, and appropriation and
appropriation and appropriation. It's the only way those things keep
going on. We are trying to send a message.
You will find that I am supportive of reauthorization of the
Endangered Species Act, and I am supportive of the Endangered Species
Act as it was originally intended. But I would urge my colleagues to
vote against this dangerous amendment which would undermine the Fish
and Wildlife Service's budget because it would lift the caps that have
been in place since the Clinton administration, and Fish and Wildlife
Service would have no other alternative but to raid their accounts in
order to fund court orders, suits, and other things that would come
along.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. I was going to wait until other speakers spoke, but I felt
it appropriate to engage in a discussion here with the chairman and to
remind him that this bill includes funding for a multitude of expired
authorizations.
The Bureau of Land Management isn't authorized. But you are funding
the Bureau of Land Management because you like the Bureau of Land
Management. The grazing program isn't authorized. Oil and gas isn't
authorized.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
[[Page H5552]]
Mr. SIMPSON. The gentleman brings up the point I tried to make. This
is a shot across the bow. All of these programs need to be
reauthorized. We had to start somewhere.
Mr. DICKS. Can you start with another bow?
Mr. MORAN. Well, that's it.
Reclaiming my time, the shot across the bow goes right into the heart
of the Endangered Species Act. So you are picking winners and losers.
You could have picked any number of programs, but you like those. In
fact, some of them you've increased--funding for grazing subsidies,
funding for oil and gas subsidies. But the Endangered Species Act, the
poor species who are in danger of extinction who can't speak up for
themselves, they get targeted. They're the ones you are going to make
an example of.
You know, not allowing listings of the designation of even the
critical habitat that will protect endangered species doesn't change
the fact that so many plant and animal species are at risk of
extinction. There are 260 species that are in danger of extinction, but
we're not going to protect them.
The lack of critical habitat designations not only hurts those
species at risk, but it leaves in limbo landowners and businesses that
need decisions made in order to make plans. We hear so much about
uncertainty and how bad uncertainty is. This creates uncertainty.
The twist of irony: The bill allows funding to be used to delist
species or reclassify them from endangered to threatened, to delist
them or down-list them, but no funds can be used for listings or to
reclassify them from threatened to endangered. Even if they become
endangered, we can't classify them as endangered. We can only down-list
them. It's a one-way street, a one-way street to less protection.
I too would like to see the Endangered Species Act authorized. Maybe
we'll hear from the chairman of the authorizing committee why it's not
being reauthorized. But this is not the way to deauthorize it. The fact
is that this is legislating on an appropriations bill, basically. I
thought we were not supposed to be doing that. But we make these poor
endangered species that are at risk of extinction bear the cost of
Congress' failure to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act.
Of course I support the Dicks amendment. Not only do we have 260
species at risk of extinction, but we don't even know the entire scope
of the species whose very existence is at risk, and we don't know
either the role they play in the ecology of our planet. There are so
many species that we're only now learning--for example, there are many
that catch insects or mosquitoes or whatever--that maintain the
population of other species.
I do believe that every species has some role to play in the
sustainability and the ecology of this planet. We don't know
necessarily what that role is, but I do think we have some idea that
they're there for a purpose. And while they're there for a purpose, it
seems to me we have a purpose, a responsibility for enabling that
species to be sustained on this fragile planet. And to say that we
can't outperform our responsibility, we can't act responsibly toward
these species, is irresponsible. It really is an embarrassment to this
Congress.
So I very strongly support the Dicks amendment. I would hope that we
would give species a break. Get this language out of this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let me make one point: This
debate is not about the Endangered Species Act; it is not about the
Endangered Species Act.
I have to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good
friend from Washington State. I think that Chairman Simpson has brought
to the House floor a bill that prioritizes funding to ensure that the
core responsibilities and environmental protections are met in a
broader sense.
When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, this bill focuses on
funding the actual recovery of species. It does this by, one,
continuing funds for recovery activities and doing that despite the
fact that this bill, the ESA, has not been reauthorized for 23 years--
not 20 years; 23 years--and, two, by limiting funds for lawsuit-driven
new listings and habitat designations.
This bill sends a clear message, as the gentleman from Idaho said,
that the Endangered Species Act needs to be updated and improved. It
needs to be reauthorized. As I mentioned, it's been 23 years since this
bill was reauthorized by Congress. A person can be born and graduate
from college in the amount of time that has passed since Congress last
acted to make serious responsible improvements to this law.
{time} 2030
Now, the gentleman from Washington acknowledged me on the floor
earlier, and I will tell him, as the chairman of the Natural Resources
Committee, which has jurisdiction on the Endangered Species Act, I can
inform the House that this committee will be conducting robust
oversight of the need to update this law in the coming months. The
current law is failing to truly recover species while it frequently
hamstrings jobs and economic prosperity, like the gentleman from Idaho
mentioned. And we will also examine legislative priorities.
In my view--and this is important about this debate--in my view, the
real obstacle to improving ESA is the fact that a number of groups are
heavily invested in litigation mindset, a litigation mindset that
prefers lawsuits against the government over improving the act and
improving the recovery of species. These groups have filed lawsuits by
the one hundreds against Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine
Fisheries.
This bill, under Chairman Simpson's leadership, effectively halts
these lawsuits. By limiting any spending on new listings or habit
designations, this bill will allow the biologists to get back to work
recovering species, rather than responding to court cases. Both funding
and personnel will be able to focus on the real work of bringing
species back from the brink.
By striking this provision, the Dicks amendment would reopen the
litigation process. The same activist groups, Mr. Chairman, that filed
these lawsuits endorse this amendment. As we speak, they are waging an
expensive paid advertising campaign on behalf of this amendment.
Because they profit from these lawsuits, to me, it appears they are
more concerned about the ability to go to court, get a settlement and
get paid than they are about recovering species.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. This bill strikes
the right balance by directing funding to actual recovery of species.
And it strikes the right balance by bringing a halt to litigation over
new listings and habitat designations.
This bill will create an opportunity where Congress can do its job to
update and modernize the ESA. It's time that we take a thoughtful
analysis of the inadequacies of this current law, inadequacies that
allow the ESA to be abused through lawsuits, rather than serving as a
true conduit for species recovery.
Let me go on to say that, as the chairman, I think, said very well in
his remarks, there is no incentive for the stakeholders to come and try
to work out the differences or update this law if Congress keeps
kicking the can ahead. That's what the issue is all about.
I can't imagine, for example, that people really believe that this
bill should be in place, yet, when there is a major construction
project here in the Washington, DC, area, like the Woodrow Wilson
bridge, they waive the act. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't
make sense.
And we don't get an opportunity, those of us that are impacted by
this act, get a chance to waive it. So it just seems to me that there
has to be an update of this. The act has not been updated for 23 years.
It's time to do it. And as the chairman of the committee that has
jurisdiction on that, I'm glad to work with the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee on this. In fact, I'll work with anybody on
this because I too believe that the species are very important, as the
gentleman from Virginia said. But let's do it in a way that protects
species and does not harm those people that make a living from the land
and/or the water.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
[[Page H5553]]
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Fitzpatrick) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hurt, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________