Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source