THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

   Two major parts of the President's Land Legacy initiative , the 200 million requested for conservation grants and planning assistance and the 66 million increase requested for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, did not receive any funding. Given the threat of development in and around so many of our parks, forests, refuges, and other public lands and given the strong support of acquiring and conserving these sensitive lands by a substantial majority of the American people, the failure of this bill to address these needs adequately is a serious flaw.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference report and avoid the imminent veto by the administration. Passing the conference report right now is futile if changes are not made.

   Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio that I agree with him on the Park Service and on several other areas of this bill. We have made some significant progress, and no one doubts the chairman's commitment to improving our national parks, and I have appreciated the fact that he goes out and he looks at the parks. I think the fact that we are keeping these fees to improve the parks is one of the most positive things that we have done with the authorizing committee, and there are a lot of things that are positive.

   I do not want to paint an entirely negative picture, but unfortunately the other body keeps insisting on these riders; and some of these riders are things that I understand, being from the West. But unfortunately, they get our bill in trouble; and I wish we could convince, and I want to commend the gentleman on this, that the bill when it left the House did not have these riders. They almost, every single one of these riders was added in the other body, and so somehow I hope that we can do better in the next go round because there will be a next go round in my judgment, and we can come up with a bill that can be signed into law.

   I went back and looked at my own record. I have been on this committee, this is my 23rd year on the Subcommittee on the Interior. I have seldom voted against a bill, I have seldom voted against a conference report, and I regret that I have to do it today. But I am convinced that we can do better, that we can make this bill stronger, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA) to accomplish this task at a later date.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. WAMP), a very valuable member of our subcommittee.

   (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for an outstanding job, not just this year, but in previous years, outstanding staff on both sides of the aisle; and I say to my friend, the ranking member who is also an outstanding gentleman, I am reminded today of what Ronald Reagan once said, something like this, I am paraphrasing, that somebody who votes with me 80 percent of the time is not 80 percent my enemy, he is 80 percent my friend, or he is not 20 percent my enemy, he is 80 percent my friend; and I really think that the opposition to this bill is focusing on a few narrow problems that on October 21 we need to get beyond.

   It is time to get beyond this October the 21, in this year pass this bill, move it out of here; and I hate to see the gentleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS) break his perfect record on supporting this because I think it runs counter to the philosophy of the Committee on Appropriations where we do work in a bipartisan way, we do build consensus, we do work through these conference committees, and my colleagues know the old saying that we say in the House from time to time, that maybe the Democrats are our opponents, but the Senate is the real enemy. That seemed to not have changed regardless of who is in the majority. But that is just reality. At the end of the day the Senate does not do what we want them to do, but we have got to move the process forward. So, please do not hold this bill up.

   I want to focus on a couple of things that have not been talked about yet, and that is the energy piece of this bill, a little over a billion dollars out of $14

[Page: H10681]  GPO's PDF

   Let me just say some people may ask why do we fund these programs. Energy research really was brought about by the oil problems of the 1970s and the need for our country at the national level, the Federal level, to rely on research, basic research from the Federal Government, to pursue alternative energy sources so we are not so dad-blasted dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We have got to fund those programs. We are increasing the funding on those programs.

   That is at the heart of this bill. We fund the good guys. We fund the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey; these are the good guys. We are trying to fund these good guys; help us fund these good guys. But we also have to reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil for the peace and well-being of our country at large.

   We hear a lot about climate change, does it lead to global warming? I do not know what the actual science is. I have great questions about it, but I know this. If we can develop better policies through fossil energy research to reduce CO

   2 emissions, it cannot do any harm; it can only do good. Why not do it? That is in this bill, strong effort, thought through, good science. We studied it; we developed these priorities. It is in the bill. Do not hold that up. Move fossil energy research forward; we will have cleaner air guaranteed if we fund these programs.

   Energy conservation, things like weatherization. We do not want cool air to just leak out of our public housing in this country or warm air just to leak out. We want to come up with smarter ways to build public housing in this country to make sure we reduce the cost for our residents and for our Government to take care of the indigent in our country through weatherization programs.

   This research is working. It is basic research fully funded in this bill, the kind of things that we need.

   This is a good bill. It went through the process, we had the hearings, we do travel, we hear from everyone, we vent, we work through it. Dad-gummit, it is October 21. Let us pass this bill with bipartisan support like we always have before and move this process forward. It is not time to obstruct or delay unless my colleagues are being excessively partisan, and I am not one that is excessively partisan. I jump back and forth depending on what my guts tell me to do, and it is time for my colleagues who want to play partisan games at the end of the year to do the right thing, move this bill forward, pass the bill.

   Congratulations.

   Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MARKEY), one of my distinguished classmates who is working on umpire reform at this very moment.

   Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the problem with being a Red Sox fan is not unlike being in the minority with this particular Republican in the majority. We just do not have any chance to win. We can, like, script it, as my colleagues know, differently each time to make it interesting; but the outcome is always predetermined, and we lose. So I am quite used to this, given the way in which the umpires stole the American League championship from the Red Sox.

   Today, I rise to denounce the assault on America's environmental tradition in this Interior appropriations conference report. I am honored to have helped shape the tradition in a small way by ensuring fair royalties for our oil and gas reserves in a law which I authored in 1981 when I was the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Investigations overseeing the Department of Interior by preventing corporations from robbing the American people of their natural resources.

   How then can I accept this bill in which the Republican leadership plays with the Minerals Management Service like a yo-yo? The Minerals Management Service proposes rules valuing our oil and gas reserves. The Republicans respond with riders, restricting the rule. For 4 years this yo-yo has rolled back and forth without resources trapped on the string; and, true to form, an additional 6-month delay has been attached to this conference report.

[Time: 17:45]

   It is time to end this destructive game. Cut the string and give the American people reasonable compensation for oil and gas from Federal lands .

   Mr. Speaker, I wish that I could say that this was the only threat in the Interior Appropriations conference report, but I cannot even say it is the worst. Extension of grazing permits and an allowance for increased mining waste on Federal lands are just a few of the destructive provisions that remain. They buzz around this bill like gulls in a trash dump. We cannot accept a conference report with any of these provisions. We have a responsibility to our natural resources, to our tradition of environmental stewardship.

   As we enter the 21st century, we must not relinquish this responsibility. We must protect our resources and we must start by defeating this Interior conference report on the floor this evening.

   I thank the gentleman from Washington State for his national leadership and for his civility and compassion for Red Sox fans.

   Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS).

   (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to extend my great congratulations and thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the bill that we are about to have. I know it is the best we could do with the Senate that we are dealing with on the other side, and certainly, it is not a perfect bill, of course not. But there have been a great number of mistruths presented in this bill that I would like to straighten out in this few minutes that I have.

   Over the debate of the last few weeks we have had the so-called Rahall mill site rider included. Did I support it? No. Let me tell my colleagues why. Because the mistruths that were there need to be corrected.

   Current law mandates that mill sites can only be five acres in size, but additional mill sites may be used in order to support an economic ore body. That is current law. The reason being, this limitation forces the mining company to use only the minimal amount of public land needed. However, when an additional 5-acre mill site is required, mining companies must comply with all State and Federal environmental laws.

   It is important to note that what many would characterize as ``mine waste'' is nothing more than dirt and rocks covering the ground that is similar to any jogging path or driveway that we have in America today.

   Allow me to share with my colleagues on the left who oppose this bill the current environmental laws that mining companies must comply with every time they seek an additional five-acre mill site.

   They must fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. This means that all activities on mill sites located on public land must be evaluated in an environmental impact statement before they are allowed by the BLM or the Forest Service to have additional acreage. They must comply with the Federal Surface Management Rules which apply to Federal lands and State mining and reclamation programs, which apply to Federal, State and private lands . These programs typically require a detailed characterization of the dirt and rocks which is called overburden; operating controls to prevent or control generation of any excess waste or overburden; continuous monitoring of overburden placed on sites; containment of any wastes; precautions to maintain stability of waste management structures; containment of any chemicals to prevent releases to the environment; reclamation of mill sites to return land to post-mining productive use.

   They must comply with Air Quality standards on Federal, State and private lands . All activities on mill sites are subject to the Federal Clean Air Act; State implementation plans and State air quality laws, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, major source permitting, and new source review; Title V operating permits and regulation of hazardous air pollutants and control of fugitive dust.

[Page: H10682]  GPO's PDF

   Mines must also comply with the Surface Water Quality on Federal, State and private lands . All activities on mill sites are subject to the Federal Clean Water Act. All discharges of pollutants are subject to Federal discharge permits and effluent standards, as well as State water quality controls and numeric stream standards. Most mine standards are subject to a Federal zero discharge standard.

   Mines must comply with the Ground Water Quality on Federal, State and private lands . All activities on mill sites must meet stringent ground water protection requirements and standards promulgated by States. Most States impose a no-discharge standard on mill site activities. The absolute minimum level of protection mandated by any State is the drinking water standards from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

   All activities on mill sites must obtain a Federal wetlands protection permit before placing fill or waste on a mill site.

   At the end of the mine life, all activities on mill site must be closed under State laws to be stable, safe, and to remove the potential to degrade the environment.

   Lastly, numerous Federal and State laws require operations on mill sites to report spills or environmental incidents and to remediate immediately. Again, reclamation of mill sites must be done to return the land to post-mining productive land use.

   This measure contains the mill site provision, but it was unnecessary because all mines today have to go through a very stringent evaluation and environmental protection for mill sites. It was unnecessary to have this rider in it and certainly, I could not support that mill site, but I think this is the best bill we could get, and I want to thank the chairman for his success in getting it to the floor.

   Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. INSLEE), who has been very concerned about environmental issues and one of our outstanding new Members.

   (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must speak against this bill, and that is with due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA) who I think has been very sincere in his efforts to improve this bill. But one of the things the gentleman said struck me in his comments. He mentioned Central Park, a beautiful place loved by maybe all Americans, at least New Yorkers.

   But the problem with this bill, if we give up, if we put up the white flag to the other chamber, it would allow somebody to go into Central Park if it was owned by the Federal Government and put in a strip mine, a gold mine and put as much as they want over 5, 10, 15 or 20 acres. We should not do that in Central Park and we should not do it in the forestlands of Washington where, in fact, that is going to go on if we accept that.

   The problem with this bill is simple. While America wants us to go forward on the environment, this takes step by step backwards. We should go forward on mining reform; we go backward. We should go forward on forest reform; we go backward. We should go forward on oil royalties; we go backward.

   My colleagues are right, we did send this bill over to the other chamber, but it came back infested with these antienvironment riders. When we sent it over to the other chamber, it was a puppy; and it came back full of fleas and now those little fleas have got to be removed from this bill.

   I want to tell my colleagues why I think Americans are going to be so angry, and I think angry is the right word for it, when they hear about this continued giveaway. It is because if you go on Main Street, nothing will outrage the American people more than the giveaways to special interests, the giveaways that this body has given time after time to special interest legislation and antienvironmental riders. That should stop.

   If we do not stand for the environment, we ought to stand for this House, for ourselves, for each other. When we voted 273 to say to the other chamber we will not let you shove this down our throats. We will not let you go backwards on mining reform. I do not want to encourage anyone to put up the white flag to the other chamber on this subject. We ought to stand firm.

   Let me just point out, when I say this is an abject retreat on mining reform, it is. I would encourage my colleagues to look at section 337(b), which has some of the cleverest legal writing I have seen. It is a little trick in here that says basically that Congress agrees with the mining industry on their interpretation of existing law, existing law. There is a little time bomb in here that will entirely ruin our efforts.

   Now, there is talk about compromise, and I understand compromise in a legislative body. But frankly, compromise in this manner, giving in to these special interests is like the guy who steals $10 from your pocket and wants to compromise by giving you five back. That is the situation with mining reform.

   I am simply saying this: we are going to stand divided, unfortunately, on this. Some are going to stand for going forward on the environment and vote ``no;'' some are going to stand with going backward on the environment and vote ``yes.'' I am going to stand to go forward. It does not matter how many more stands as far as I am concerned, but the American people desire and are entitled to move forward when it comes to the environment.

   Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. PETERSON), a valued new member of our subcommittee.

   Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   It is a pleasure to be a part of this committee. It has been my first year in the appropriations process, and I have found it most interesting. I found today most interesting. As I said earlier during the debate on the rule, this bill received overwhelming support from this body, and it should have. A lot of hard work went into it. I have listened here during the discussion when the minority Member spoke of the many improvements in the conference report. That was the term he used. He did not define them, but he listed many improvements. So some things are better. But it has been interesting to listen to the discussion, and I think the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS) explained the mining issue well.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents