Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment stops funding for--and I will quote--the Environmental Appeals Board to consider review, reject, remand, or otherwise invalidate any permit issued for Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore of the States along the Arctic coast.

Now, the gentleman has shared with us a specific situation, but his amendment goes considerably beyond that. The appeals board is the final decisionmaker on administrative appeals under all major environmental statutes that the Environmental Protection Agency administers. It's an impartial body, independent of all agency components outside the immediate office of the administrator. To support this amendment is to take away people's right to petition their government. This is an impartial board that looks out for the regular citizen. In fact, they just took great care and ruled on the side of Alaskans and courageously ruled against EPA's issuance of a permit to Shell Oil.

I thought the gentleman and his side of the aisle would take sincere joy in any decision ruling against EPA. But that's not the case, apparently. I guess EPA is okay as long as it doesn't use any Federal funds and rules exactly the way that you want them to. And, in fact, EPA did rule the way that the gentleman wants, it's just that we have an appeals board. That appeals board is there for good reason, has been for some time.

I don't have to tell the gentleman, but I think the other Members of this body should know that the Environmental Appeals Board found that EPA's analysis of the effect on Alaskan Native communities of nitrogen dioxide emissions from the drilling ships was too limited, ordered the agency to redo the work. It doesn't mean that they can't drill. The analysis is incomplete. We should let that legal process work and stop interfering in long-standing regulatory and administrative processes. The amendment will be seen as an assault on the environment and an affront to the Alaskans who engaged in this case.

I'm disappointed that the gentleman's position would appear to favor Big Oil over the small Alaskan villages that are being protected in this reconsideration. It doesn't mean that there won't be drilling; it simply means that the analysis to enable that drilling needs to be full and complete.

I urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would underscore some points previously made.

Number one, we are not taking a position on the merits of this case. It may very well be, I would not be surprised, in fact, personally, that ultimately the drilling off the Arctic coast would be approved. But this is like taking a case to the district court. The district court agrees with you, and then the plaintiff appeals, goes to the appeals court. The appeals court disagrees or says that there needs to be more information. That's exactly what this appeals board did. Now, presumably, that information is being gathered. It will be presented. And when it is, I don't know why the appeals board would not agree with the EPA decision.

The problem with this amendment is we're setting a precedent to say, if we don't like the appeals board, we like the district court decision, which is in this case EPA's decision, then we accept EPA's decision, ignore that appeals process. That's what we're opposed to. It seems to me we ought not be legislating that kind of judicial decision that affects many people's lives and incomes, clearly, and the environment without a full hearing.

What's going to happen if this legislation were passed is that the decisionmaking process that allows this drilling will be suspect and a permit will not be able to be fully issued without reservation. So for that reason, I would suggest that the right thing to do is to defeat this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this entire bill, this CR, is replete with amendment after amendment targeting the public's health and the environment. This is one of the worst, at least in its intent. As a practical matter, it's not clear why this amendment is being offered, really, as it appears to duplicate section 1746 of the underlying bill. But both section 1746 and this amendment are truly radical attempts to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job of protecting the health and welfare of every American.

This particular amendment would bar EPA from addressing carbon pollution, period--pollution which seriously endangers public health and the environment. It not only guts the Clean Air Act, but it also imposes a job-destroying construction ban in many States. According to the National Academy of Sciences and the premier scientific organizations of all the world major economies, man-made carbon pollution is changing the climate and is endangering the public's health and the environment.

The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and thousands of doctors, nurses, and other public health professionals support EPA's action on this public health threat; but this amendment bars EPA from acting, from carrying out its legal responsibility. Under the Clean Air Act, companies building large new facilities like power plants and refineries need to make sure that they have taken reasonable steps to reduce their carbon pollution because it's easier to control pollution from the beginning, the point where a facility is being built, rather than waiting and trying to retrofit it after it has been constructed.

All EPA is asking is that these large new facilities be energy efficient. They can meet the standard if they simply meet energy efficiency standards. The Poe amendment, though, would prevent EPA from implementing this commonsense requirement to protect the public health from the largest and most dangerous sources of carbon pollution.

EPA has also indicated it plans to set minimum Federal standards for the two largest sources of carbon pollution, which are power plants and oil refineries. This amendment would prevent EPA from even proposing these standards. Those standards are really a limitation on what they could and I think should be doing in terms of regulating pollution throughout the country. But they're going to stick to the two largest sources.

Ironically, given all of the rhetoric we've heard about environmental regulations hurting the economy, this Poe amendment is a job-destroyer. Under the Clean Air Act, a company wanting to build or expand a power plant or other facility has to get a permit for that facility's carbon pollution before beginning construction. The Poe amendment does nothing to change that. What it does do is take away EPA's authority to issue those permits. So that basically amounts to a construction ban.

This is more than a paperwork problem. In essence the Poe amendment will impose that de facto construction ban on jobs in all or parts of at least 13 States. And without the needed permits, construction cannot proceed. So a vote for the Poe amendment would be a vote not only against the Clean Air Act, it is a vote for a de facto construction ban. Thousands of jobs lost in States across this country. That's why we very strongly oppose the Poe amendment. We do support EPA's authority to cut carbon pollution and allow the construction of energy-efficient power plants, refineries and other facilities to proceed as planned.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source