[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11882-11909]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 11883]]

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.
  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

[[Page 11884]]

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.
  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 11885]]





[[Page 11886]]



[[Page 11887]]



[[Page 11888]]



[[Page 11889]]



[[Page 11890]]



[[Page 11891]]



[[Page 11892]]



[[Page 11893]]



[[Page 11894]]



[[Page 11895]]



[[Page 11896]]



[[Page 11897]]



[[Page 11898]]



[[Page 11899]]



[[Page 11900]]



[[Page 11901]]



[[Page 11902]]



[[Page 11903]]



[[Page 11904]]



[[Page 11905]]



[[Page 11906]]



[[Page 11907]]

  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

[[Page 11908]]

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.''
  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

[[Page 11909]]

     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 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.

                          ____________________