Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MORAN. I agree with the chairman of the committee again that this amendment should be opposed. But I would also mention that I don't know how fast the administration could issue drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico that would be fast enough. It's as though Deepwater Horizon never happened. When it did happen, people died. The ecology of the gulf area was severely and adversely affected. The economy was devastated. And we did a complete investigation and found that it was largely because the Minerals Management Service was not doing its job, that they were issuing permits too quickly without adequate review. Sometimes they were just letting permit forms be filled out by the oil companies themselves. Sometimes they had already made arrangements to go to work for the oil companies. But for whatever reason, the fact is that they weren't doing their job. They were letting down the American public. They were letting down the workers on the drilling rigs. And they certainly contributed to a despoiling of the environment, the ecology of the gulf. So this Congress, both sides having been severely critical of the Minerals Management Service, reorganized it and instructed it to be very careful, at least much more careful than they had been in the past in terms of issuing drilling permits. That's what they're doing. Now, there have been any number of drilling permits issued. They're being issued so fast, we don't have an exact number right now; but we know a lot have been issued. Again, I doubt that whatever the number was that it would be enough for Members that represent areas in the gulf to benefit from more drilling activity. But the American public-- this is a democracy, the majority of the American public, whatever State they're in--wants the Secretary of the Interior to have a process that reflects integrity, that reflects caution, that puts the safety of workers and the protection of the environment first. So the Secretary is doing his job. We support the job he's doing. We know he's issuing a lot of permits, and we agree with the chairman that this amendment should be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

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. 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. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the distinguished gentleman from Missouri. Mr. Cleaver's amendment would add a modest $3 million to the Environmental Protection Agency for the Urban Waters Initiative, which the subcommittee refused to fund. EPA and the Department of the Interior announced the first pilot demonstrations of this program last month. They included Baltimore's Patapsco watershed, the Anacostia watershed in the District of Columbia and Maryland, the Bronx and Harlem River watersheds in New York, the South Platte River in Denver, the Los Angeles River watershed, the Lake Pontchartrain area in New Orleans, and the northwest Indiana area, all areas in drastic need of attention. The subcommittee report chides EPA for reprioritizing funds to begin the program in fiscal year 2011 without the express approval of the committee. But my friends on the other side should know that when you fund the government under a continuing resolution, the agency has more flexibility. If we don't want EPA or any other agency to decide how to prioritize funding, then we should pass real bills. And, frankly, they did exactly the right thing in moving forward with this Urban Waters Initiative--that's where the need is. Furthermore, denying funds to urban watersheds--where a majority of our population lives--because of a dislike for all things EPA does is simply unfair to these urban communities. On a bipartisan basis, we have worked together to provide needed funding for rural water programs. We agree that should be a priority, but we should also show the same level of commitment for the Urban Waters Initiative. This program will also capitalize on work being done through EPA's broader geographic programs, such as Chesapeake Bay and Lake Pontchartrain. These are two very critical water bodies that are endangered. I don't think I need to get into the extent of the endangerment for Chesapeake Bay and certainly not Lake Pontchartrain. Imagine, just think back to what happened in New Orleans just a few years ago. This offset is from the management account of the Bureau of Land Management, which is adequately funded in the bill. So I really do support this amendment, and I would urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MORAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington State.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MORAN. I very much thank the distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the reality is that this is a bad bill. There may be some good people who have been involved in putting it together. I like the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, but the fact is that this would severely restrict our government's ability to improve the quality of our air and water. It would substantially cut programs that, I think, many of the American people take for granted. Our environment will be despoiled by this bill if it becomes enacted, so I would strongly urge that this body vote against it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as I noted previously, there are a lot of winners and losers in H.R. 2584. Two of the winners are the oil and gas companies and the cattle grazers who use our publicly owned land. One of the losers is Indians who need Sanitation Facilities. My amendment would do two things. First, it decreases funding from the increase in the bill for the BLM's oil and gas and grazing management programs. Second, the amendment would restore the Indian Sanitation Facilities Program by what it was cut below the current spending level. I find it ironic that the majority refused to allow the administration to collect an inspection fee from the oil and gas industry but had no problem in providing more taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry gets about $4 billion in subsidies per year. Likewise cattle ranchers get about $400 million in subsidies per year by paying their ridiculously low fee of $1.35 per month per cow while States charge so much more. Texas, for example, charges $65 to $150 per cow per month to graze on State-owned lands, but the Federal Government charges only $1.35. Well, in this bill, they would see an increase in taxpayer resources devoted to grazing management from $75 million to $90 million, a 20 percent increase. Why not ask them to at least pay the cost of administering their grazing subsidy? If our national budget is truly about shared sacrifice, how about starting with the oil and gas companies that have profited so handsomely from the resources owned by the American public and from ranchers whose use of the public lands is heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer. The second part of my amendment provides an additional $18.6 million for the Indian Sanitation Facilities Program. It would simply restore funding to last year's level. At the end of fiscal year 2010, there were about 230,000 Native American homes in need of sanitation facilities including 34,000 homes without running water. According to the Indian Health Service, Native Americans in these homes are at extremely high risk for gastrointestinal disease and respiratory disease at rates similar to Third World countries. Additionally, the Indian Health Service has noted that many of these homes without services are very remote with limited access to health care, which increases the importance of improving environmental conditions in these homes. The least we can do is to provide the same level of funding that was provided this current year to the Indian Sanitation Facilities Program, which is an integral component of the Indian Health Services disease prevention activities. I urge support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, again, the chairman suggested that there were no special interests. Well, this disproves that. There are special interests. Oil and gas companies already getting subsidies from the American taxpayer of about $4 billion a year, they get increases in this bill. We're simply asking them to pay a little more towards the Federal Government's cost of managing the fees that they should be paying. Just a little bit more, we're asking them to pay. And we're also asking the ranchers who, again, get special interest subsidies of about $400 million in this bill, more money for the ranchers, more subsidy, more subsidy for the oil and gas companies; and yet at the same time, we cut the money that would provide sanitation facilities for 230,000 Native American homes in need, and 34,000 of those homes are without even potable water. They are the losers. Oil and gas companies and the grazers are the winners in this bill. That's why I would urge support for the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an extraordinary champion of the environment.

Mr. MORAN. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. MORAN. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. MORAN. Good. So we would like a copy of the colloquy that just transpired. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the Financial Services Appropriations Committee.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts every environmental, conservation, and cultural program across the bill, totaling $3 billion in cuts, and then puts those funds in the spending reduction account. The funding in the bill is already grossly inadequate, and this amendment would cut the bill by more than 10 percent. The amendment zeroes out U.S. Fish and Wildlife construction by cutting $12 million. It zeroes out U.S. Fish and Wildlife land acquisition by cutting $15 million. It zeroes out Forest Service land acquisition. It zeroes out the National Endowment for the Arts. It zeroes out the National Endowment for the Humanities. It cuts State and local water infrastructure by $770 million, 30 percent, even though the infrastructure needs across this country, as Mr. Dicks has stated, is $688 billion. This amendment goes on to cut the National Park Service, the Office of the Secretary, Wildland Fire Management, EPA Science and Technology, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Chairman, we should all oppose these draconian cuts. They don't make sense. I don't think the gentleman proposing them necessarily knows what the full impact would be. I suspect, though, that if his constituents, let alone the American people, knew what was being attempted, they would agree with me that this amendment should be soundly defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the very distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the minority would respectfully request of the majority that such colloquies, including the one that just transpired, as well as future ones, be shared with the minority. They are meant to be a clarification of language and funding in the bill. And they may very well prompt actions on our part to strike language if we don't fully understand what the intent was, and that may very well apply to the delisting of wolves. So we would appreciate, when the majority engages in colloquies, sharing that language with the minority. Would the gentleman like to respond? I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. MORAN

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. That's what we should be looking to, and not tying EPA's hands. We ought to be good stewards of the abundant natural and cultural heritage passed down to us. President Johnson noted in 1964, and I'm going to quote, ``If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them something more than the miracles of technology. We should be leaving them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it.'' Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2584 falls far short of our responsibility to present and future generations. And so I obviously oppose the bill. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2584--Department of the Interior, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (Rep. Rogers, R-KY) The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2584, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012. The Administration is committed to ensuring the Nation lives within its means and reducing the deficit so that the Nation can compete in the global economy and win the future. That is why the President put forth a comprehensive fiscal framework that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, supports economic growth and long- term job creation, protects critical investments, meets the commitments made to provide dignity and security to Americans no matter their circumstances, and provides for our national security. The Administration strongly opposes a number of provisions in this bill, including ideological and political provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation. If the President is presented with a bill that undermines ongoing conservation, public health, and environmental protection efforts through funding limits or restrictions, his senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill. While overall funding limits and subsequent allocations remain unclear pending the outcome of ongoing bipartisan, bicameral discussions between the Administration and congressional leadership on the Nation's long-term fiscal picture, the Administration has concerns regarding the level of resources the bill would provide for a number of programs in a way that undermines core government functions, investments key to economic growth and job creation, as well as protection of public health and the environment and preservation of our Nation's natural resource heritage, including, but not limited to: Department of the Interior (DOI) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Conservation Grants. The level of funding provided to the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and State and Tribal Wildlife grants, as well as the termination of Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act grants, would threaten the ability of States and private organizations to conserve and provide access to habitat, undermining the conservation of game and non-game species. Safety Inspection Fees. The bill does not include user fees to cover inspections of oil and gas production facilities offshore and onshore. Without these fees, taxpayers, rather than industry, would have to shoulder the cost of these operations, which are critical to ensuring safe and responsible energy development. FWS Operations. The funding provided for operations would seriously degrade the ability of FWS to maintain the network of National Wildlife Refuges and fulfill other statutory responsibilities. This would result in delays in environmental compliance reviews, which could impede major infrastructure projects, including road construction, water delivery, and other federally funded projects that directly benefit State and local governments. Landsat. The bill does not provide funding to begin the acquisition of the next Landsat satellite, ending a 40-year stream of data that is used by Federal, State, local and Tribal governments and the private sector to make informed land and resource management decisions and to assess the impacts of those decisions over time. DOI and Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The funding in the bill for LWCF programs would deny willing sellers the opportunity to sell land holdings, and severely impair the ability of Federal, State, and local officials, as well as private landowners, to preserve and manage areas important to wildlife, recreationalists, and sportsmen and women. Wildland Fire Suppression. The bill's funding for suppression is substantially below the 10-year average, which is the accepted method for calculating suppression requirements. While the bill directs DOI and the Forest Service to use emergency fire suppression balances to make up the shortfall, this strategy carries high risk given the high fire activity to date and the cancellation of balances in FY 2011 appropriations. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA Operating Budget. At the funding level provided, EPA will be unable to implement its core mission of protecting human health and the environment. Research necessary to support this mission will be curtailed, and restoration of key ecosystems such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay will be delayed. State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The level of funding provided in the bill would result in approximately 400 fewer wastewater and drinking water projects, and impede EPA's ability to reach the long-term goal of providing approximately 5 percent of total water infrastructure funding annually. State Categorical Grants. The funding provided in the bill for grants to States would impede States' ability to carry out critical public health and environmental activities such as air quality monitoring and water quality permitting. This would greatly reduce core high-priority State environmental programs at a time of declining State budgets. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Programs. The reductions in funding for GHG programs and regulations severely limit actions the Administration could take under current law to permit, control, and monitor greenhouse gases and would block EPA's efforts to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles and large stationary sources. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). The level of resources for the GLRI would reduce the ability of Federal agencies and their partners to clean up contaminated sediments, fight invasive species, restore habitat, and improve water quality in this critical ecosystem. High Priority Ecosystems Funding. The level of funding provided for the Chesapeake Bay would jeopardize the successful clean-up of the Nation's largest estuary. Responsible Energy Development and Oil Spill Response. The level of resources in the bill would eliminate efforts to increase the frequency of environmental compliance inspections at oil facilities. In addition, the bill does not include emergency transfer authority necessary to improve the Government's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills. Smart Growth. The bill terminates funding for EPA's Smart Growth program, which contributes to efforts to assist communities in coordinating infrastructure investments and minimizing environmental impact of development. National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The funding in the bill for the NEA, which is the largest national funder of the arts in the United States, would cut support for arts organizations across the country during a time when private and State arts funding is also highly constrained. Council on Environmental Quality. The Administration's ability to guide the Executive Branch's environmental policies and programs will be substantially reduced at the funding level in the bill. The Administration strongly opposes problematic policy and language issues that are beyond the scope of funding legislation, including, but not limited to, the following provisions in this bill: Restrictions on Implementing the Endangered Species Act. Preventing FWS from implementing key provisions of the Endangered Species Act will only result in increased costs and delays in the future. Mountain Top Mining Reform. Preventing the Office of Surface Mining from developing or implementing the stream buffer zone rule could increase the risk of litigation and potentially delay sustainable coal mining. Mineral Withdrawal Prohibition. Prohibiting DOI from restricting new mining claims on approximately 1 million acres of Federal lands near the Grand Canyon will reverse a temporary moratorium on new uranium and other mining claims. The Secretary of the Interior is currently assessing the impact to water quality in Grand Canyon National Park to ensure that any future uranium or other mining activity in the area does not lead to the human health and environmental impacts seen from previous mining-caused contamination of ground water and drinking water supplies. Gray Wolves. The Endangered Species Act expressly gives the public the right to challenge listing decisions. Restricting judicial review of any published final rule to delist gray wolves in Wyoming or the Great Lakes region from the Endangered Species Act would deny the public an opportunity to make sure that a future listing decision on gray wolves is based on science. Protecting Wilderness Characteristics Secretarial Order. Prohibiting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from implementing Secretarial Order 3310, which directs BLM to use the public resource management planning process to designate certain lands with wilderness characteristics as ``Wild Lands'' is unnecessary given the Department's policy that includes collaboration with stakeholders to identify public lands that may be appropriate candidates for congressional designation under the Wilderness Act. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Stationary Sources. Preventing EPA from regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources would prevent the Agency from proposing or finalizing new regulations to control GHG emissions from power plants and petroleum refineries, increasing the risk of long-term environmental consequences from GHG emissions. EPA is under two settlement agreements to complete these rules in 2012. Clean Air Act Permitting. Section 431(a)(2-4) of the bill effectively overrides Federal and State- issued permits for emissions from industrial facilities that are very large emitters of greenhouse gases by stating that the Clean Air Act's requirement to obtain a permit has no legal effect and that no lawsuits may be brought against a facility due to uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions. Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Standards. Section 453 of the bill undermines Executive Branch efforts to set standards that will save consumers money at the pump and reduce GHG emissions through increased vehicle fuel efficiency on Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles. Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)/ Transport Rule. Section 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.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, with regard to the argument that the gentlemen makes, first of all it seems to me that we should set ourselves on record, and the appropriations bill is the ultimate source of funding for the Capitol complex. But the argument that this will save money it seems to me is deficient when we are talking about human health. I mean, we could choose not to spend money on purifying our water. We'd save a lot of money. Just let people drink out of the tap or get their water wherever. But we feel that the health of our employees and our constituents who visit us is important enough that we should spend that extra money. Science is telling us that, in fact, toxics leak from this material into the food and the drink that our employees and our constituents are using. We may not be as fully aware of that, but we know that polystyrene is a toxic material. It seems to me we should err on the side of caution, particularly when the health of our employees and our constituents is concerned. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, first of all, the letter that was sent did not request polystyrene products by any means. It was referring to another product that was corn based. Certainly Mr. Brady was not recommending dangerous Styrofoam material.