STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 2042 – Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015
(Rep. Whitfield, R-KY, and 67 co-sponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R.
2042, which would undermine the public health protections of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and threaten to slow or stop U.S. progress in cutting
dangerous carbon pollution from power plants.
In 2009, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) determined that Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution threatens
Americans' health and welfare by leading to long-lasting climate changes
that are already having a range of negative effects on human health and
the environment. Power plants account for roughly one-third of all
domestic GHG emissions. While the United States limits emissions of
arsenic, mercury, and lead pollution from power plants, there are no
national limits on power plant carbon pollution. As part of his Climate
Action Plan, the President directed EPA to work with States, utilities,
and other stakeholders to develop the first ever national standards to
address carbon pollution from power plants. In June 2014, EPA proposed
to do just that by issuing the Clean Power Plan proposal for public
comment.
The bill would give governors
unprecedented and broad discretion to avoid compliance with the CAA,
thereby delaying the delivery of important public health benefits. The
bill’s effects would be felt hardest by those most at risk from the
impacts of air pollution and climate change, such as the elderly, the
infirm, children, native and tribal groups, and low-income
populations.
In addition, the bill is premature and
unnecessary. It is premature because the Clean Power Plan has not yet
been finalized; it is unnecessary because EPA has made clear its
commitment to address concerns raised during the public comment period
(including concerns related to cost and reliability) when issuing the
final Clean Power Plan this summer and working with the States on the
development of the State Plans. The effect of the bill would therefore
be a wholly unnecessary postponement of reductions of harmful air
pollution.
The bill also is unprecedented. The
Administration is not aware of any instance when Congress has enacted
legislation to stay implementation of a CAA standard during judicial
review. To do so here, before the rule is even final, would be an
unprecedented interference with EPA's efforts to fulfill its duties
under the CAA.
Since the CAA was enacted with bipartisan
support in 1970, (and amended in 1977 and in 1990), the economy has more
than tripled in size while emissions of key pollutants have decreased
by nearly 70 percent. More than forty years of clean air regulation has
shown that a strong economy and strong environmental and public health
protection go hand-in-hand.
Because H.R. 2042 threatens the health
and economic welfare of current and future generations by blocking
important standards to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector, if
the President were presented with H.R. 2042, he would veto the bill.
H.R. 2822 – Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2822, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016,
and for other purposes. The bill drastically underfunds core
Department of the Interior programs as well as the Environmental
Protection Agency's operating budget, which supports nationwide
protection of human health and our vital air, water and land resources.
Funding levels in the bill would prevent investments that reduce future
costs to taxpayers by facilitating increased energy development and
maintaining facilities and infrastructure in national parks, refuges,
forests, public lands, and Indian Country. They would make it harder
for States and businesses to plan and execute changes that would
decrease carbon pollution and address the challenges the Nation faces
from climate change. They would also reduce support for partnerships
and effective collaboration with States, local governments and private
entities on efforts to restore and conserve natural resources. Further,
the bill includes numerous highly problematic ideological provisions
that have no place in funding legislation. These provisions threaten to
undermine the ability of States and communities to address climate
change and protect a resource that is essential to America's
health—clean water, as well as the most basic protections for America's
special places and the people and wildlife that rely on them. If the President were presented with H.R. 2822, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Enacting H.R.
2822 and adhering to the congressional Republican budget's overall
spending limits for fiscal year (FY) 2016 would hurt our economy and
shortchange investments in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was
never intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to threaten such
drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense funding that policymakers
would be motivated to come to the table and reduce the deficit through
smart, balanced reforms. The Republican framework would bring base
discretionary funding for both non-defense and defense for FY 2016 to
the lowest real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's Budget,
the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the Nation's most
vulnerable children losing access to Head Start, millions fewer workers
receiving job training and employment services, and drastic cuts to
research awards and grants, along with other impacts that would hurt the
economy, the middle class, and Americans working hard to reach the
middle class.
Sequestration
funding levels would also put our national security at unnecessary risk,
not only through pressures on defense spending, but also through
pressures on State, USAID, Homeland Security, and other non-defense
programs that help keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our
economy and the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the
President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in sequestration
going forward, nor will he accept fixes to defense without also fixing
non-defense.
The
President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto H.R. 2822 and
any other legislation that implements the current Republican budget
framework, which blocks the investments needed for our economy to
compete in the future. The
Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to reverse
sequestration for defense and non-defense priorities and offset the cost
with commonsense spending and tax expenditure cuts, as Members of
Congress from both parties have urged.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee's version of the bill.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA Operating Budget. The
Administration disagrees strongly with the bill's reduction to EPA's
operating budget by $474 million, or 13 percent, compared to the FY 2016
Budget request. This reduced level of
funding would significantly undermine implementation of the Clean Power
Plan and the recently finalized Clean Water Rule. The Clean Power Plan
is a flexible and practical approach to addressing the risks of climate
change by reducing carbon pollution from the electric power sector, the
largest source of carbon pollution in the United States. Climate change
is not only an environmental challenge, it is also an economic, public
health, and national security challenge. Unabated climate change is
projected to hamper economic growth in the United States and put the
health and well-being of the Nation at risk from extreme weather events,
wildland fire, poor air quality, and illnesses transmitted by food,
water, and disease carriers such as mosquitos and ticks. Failing to
address climate change would also exacerbate poverty and contribute to
environmental degradation in developing countries, potentially resulting
in resource shortages, political instability, and conflict. Meanwhile,
the bill also reduces funding to implement the recently finalized Clean
Water Rule that would ensure waters protected under the Clean Water Act
are more precisely defined and predictably determined. By delaying
implementation of this rule, business and industry face a more costly,
difficult, and slower permitting process.
State Categorical Grants. The
Administration opposes the $118 million reduction to State and Tribal
Categorical grants compared to the FY 2016 Budget request. Often,
States and Tribes implement environmental programs through delegated
authorities. However, the bill reduces these grants to States and
Tribes to carry out activities such as water quality permitting, air
monitoring, and hazardous waste management programs. In
addition, the bill reduces funding for brownfields projects by $35
million, or 32 percent, from the FY 2016 Budget request. This reduced
level of funding severely limits opportunities for local communities to
revitalize their contaminated lands to improve environmental quality and
spark economic redevelopment.
State Revolving Funds (SRFs).
The Administration objects to the funding levels provided for EPA's
Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs. The bill reduces SRF funding by a
combined $527 million from the FY 2016 Budget request, reducing
necessary support to help communities finance water infrastructure
improvements, resulting in approximately 200 fewer projects being funded
nationally.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Limits for Power Plants.
The Administration strongly objects to section 428 of the bill, which
would prohibit the use of funds to propose, finalize, implement or
enforce carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel-fired electric
generating units that are the largest source of carbon pollution in the
United States. The bill seeks to derail Administration efforts to
address under section 111 of the Clean Air Act the urgent economic,
public health, and national security impacts of unabated climate
change. Failure to reduce the utility sector's carbon footprint places
the Nation at risk from extreme weather events, wildland fire, poor air
quality, global instability, accelerated environmental degradation, and
illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers such as
mosquitos and ticks.
Clean Water Act (CWA). The
Administration believes that the CWA provisions in the bill undermine
efforts to protect America's clean water resources, which are critical
to American families and businesses. The Administration strongly
objects to section 422 of the bill in particular, which would disrupt
the Administration's current efforts to clarify the scope of CWA,
hamstring future regulatory efforts, and create significant ambiguity
regarding existing regulations and guidance.
Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The
Administration regards the SCC as an essential component of the
environmental rulemaking process and opposes the Congress' interference
with the Interagency Working Group's (IWG) development of the SCC. The
Administration strongly objects to section 437 of the bill, which would
force the IWG to revise the SCC using only the discount rates and
"domestic" SCC values stated in Executive Order 12866 and Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-4. This revision would ignore the
trans-boundary movement of carbon, fail to capture key costs of carbon
emissions, and disrupt dozens of upcoming rules that would use the SCC
to monetize carbon reduction benefits.
Limitations on Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The Administration objects to section 435 of the bill, which would
block the finalization, implementation, and enforcement of a rule to
prohibit certain uses of climate super-pollutants known as
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Domestic action to reduce use of HFCs is
consistent with U.S. advocacy for addressing HFCs on a global basis,
such as through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
National Ocean Policy. The
Administration objects to section 425 of the bill, which prohibits any
funding provided in the bill from being used to implement the marine
planning components of the National Ocean Policy. This provision would
prohibit the Department of the Interior (DOI) and EPA from participating
in marine and coastal planning efforts, a process to better determine
how the ocean, the Nation's coasts, and the Great Lakes are managed in
an efficient manner.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) Financial Assurance. The
Administration objects to section 427 of the bill, which prohibits the
use of funds to develop, propose, finalize, and implement financial
responsibility requirements under CERCLA 108(b). On May 19, 2015, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered EPA
to develop an expedited schedule for financial responsibility rules for
the hardrock mining industry and for three other industries.
This provision would severely limit EPA's ability to develop these
rules in a timely manner and abrogates EPA's responsibilities laid out
in CERCLA 108(b).
Classification of Forest Biomass Fuels as Carbon-Neutral.
The Administration objects to the bill's representation of forest
biomass as categorically "carbon-neutral." This language conflicts with
existing EPA policies on biogenic CO2 and interferes with
the position of States that do not apply the same policies to forest
biomass as other renewable fuels like solar or wind. This language
stands in contradiction to a wide-ranging consensus on policies and best
available science from EPA's own independent Science Advisory Board,
numerous technical studies, many States, and various other stakeholders.
e-Manifest. The Administration
objects to the elimination of funding for e-Manifest development, EPA's
system for electronically tracking the transport of hazardous waste.
While the Administration acknowledges the concern about the pace of
development of the e-Manifest, eliminating the requested $7 million in
funding at this time would jeopardize EPA's ongoing progress to develop
the system and begin operations in the coming years.
Lead Test Kits. The Administration objects to section 426 of the bill that would disrupt EPA's current activities under the 2008
Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule until EPA approves a
commercially available "improved" lead paint test kit. This provision
would undermine EPA's efforts to protect sensitive populations from
exposure to lead, a known toxin to children and developing fetuses,
during home renovation projects.
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Topline. The Administration opposes
the $159 million, or 5 percent, reduction to BIA as compared to the FY
2016 Budget request. This funding level would limit DOI's ability to
make key investments in education and wrap-around services to support
Native youth, eliminating all increases to post-secondary scholarships
and $10 million for education program enhancement funds to allow Bureau
of Indian Education to drive school improvement and reforms. The bill
reduces funding for initiatives aimed at supporting tribal
self-determination through the creation of a one-stop portal to
facilitate access to Federal resources and funding to address data gaps
in Indian Country, and the creation of an Office of Indian Affairs
Policy, Program Evaluation, and Data to support effective, data-driven,
tribal policy making and program implementation. In addition, this bill
eliminates all increases to natural resources management on tribal
lands, including funds to help tribal communities prepare for and
respond to the impacts of climate change.
National Park Service (NPS) Centennial. The Administration opposes funding levels provided for the NPS Centennial. The
bill fails to provide adequate funding to prepare for the Centennial in
2016, resulting in the delay of roughly 70 percent of line-item park
construction projects and 36 percent of repair and rehabilitation
projects, and forgoes millions in matching private donations. The bill
also fails to provide funding for engaging youth and cultivating the
next generation of conservation-minded individuals, including funding
for transportation assistance to students from Title I schools.
Onshore Inspection Fees. The
bill does not include a proposal in the FY 2016 Budget request to
institute a new onshore oil and gas inspection fee program. The
proposal, which is similar to the program already in place for offshore
operations, would cover the cost of inspection activities and reduce the
net cost to taxpayers of operating the Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) oil and gas program. Failure to adopt the new fees and
associated funding would hamper the BLM's ability to protect human
safety, conserve energy resources, facilitate the proper reporting of
oil and gas production, and ensure environmental requirements are being
followed in all phases of development.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. The Administration opposes the
15 percent reduction to State and Tribal Wildlife Grants compared to
the FY 2016 Budget request. This important program allows States and
Tribes, key partners in conservation, to strategically protect wildlife
and conserve habitat in a way that complements Federal investments and
yields better results for the public.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).
The bill provides $452 million for PILT, which the Administration has
proposed to fund through a separate mandatory appropriation in line with
its previous congressional enactment. While the Administration
appreciates the Committee's support for PILT, inclusion of these funds
in the bill comes at the expense of all other programs funded by the
bill.
Carcieri Land into Trust. The
bill fails to include the provision in the FY 2016 Budget request to
clarify and reaffirm the Secretary of the Interior's authority to
acquire land in trust under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). In Carcieri v. Salazar,
555 U.S. 397 (2009), the Supreme Court held that the Secretary could
acquire land in trust under the IRA only for tribes that were "under
Federal jurisdiction" in 1934. A legislative solution would help
achieve the goals of the IRA and tribal self-determination by clarifying
that DOI’s authority under the law applies to all tribes, whether
recognized in 1934 or after. Such legislation would be consistent with
the longstanding policy of assisting Tribes in establishing and
protecting a land base sufficient to allow them to provide for the
health, welfare, and safety of tribal members, and in treating all
tribes equally for purposes of setting aside lands for tribal
communities.
Hydraulic Fracturing: Section
439 of the bill would block DOI from implementing, administering or
enforcing the Bureau of Land Management’s recently-finalized Hydraulic
Fracturing rule. This would leave the agency reliant on 30-year old
requirements and prevent it from taking key steps to improve the safety
of oil and gas drilling activities and improve opportunities for BLM to
coordinate standards and processes with States and Tribes to reduce
administrative costs and improve efficiency.
Stream Buffer Regulation.
Section 423 would prohibit DOI's Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation,
and Enforcement from updating 30-year-old stream protection regulations
to reflect modern science and technology and better protect people and
the environment, provide industry more certainty, and address recent
court decisions.
Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting. Sections 421 and 424 would substantially impair the enforcement of a
longstanding ban on the use of lead ammunition in the hunting of
migratory waterfowl, and would complicate in other ways the overall
implementation of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on public
lands.
Wildlife Trafficking. Section 120 would interfere
with ongoing Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) actions to combat wildlife
trafficking, curb the poaching of African Elephants, and restrict trade
in ivory, which would impair U.S. leadership in the global fight
against ivory poaching.
Endangered Species Act Restrictions.
Sections 117, 121, and 122 of the bill undercut the Endangered Species
Act by limiting the ability of the FWS to properly protect, based on the
best available science, a number of species, including the greater sage
grouse, northern long-eared bat, and certain gray wolf populations.
Language provisions, like those affecting the sage grouse, would only
create additional uncertainty and undermine unprecedented efforts to
conserve the sagebrush landscape and the Western way of life.
Federal Acknowledgement of American Indian Tribes.
Language under the heading "Bureau of Indian Affairs, Administrative
Provisions" in the bill would block DOI from finalizing, implementing,
administering, or enforcing the Administration's proposed Federal
acknowledgment rule, preventing DOI's effort to improve the regulations
governing the process and criteria by which the Secretary of the
Interior acknowledges an Indian Tribe.
DOI and Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
The Administration objects to the drastic reduction of $152 million, or
38 percent, to the requested discretionary funding for DOI and USDA
LWCF programs. LWCF is a cornerstone of Federal conservation and
recreation preservation efforts. This funding level would severely
impede agency capacity to further protect our Nation's natural
heritage. To date, the LWCF has contributed to the protection of key
public lands, such as Rocky Mountain National Park, Mount Rainier
National Park, and portions of the Appalachian Trail, among others, as
well as State and local recreation projects and important cultural
heritage sites.
Wildland Fire Suppression.
The Administration's cap adjustment for wildfire suppression was not
included in this bill. Continued inaction on this proposal, which has
bipartisan support, would increase the likelihood of disruptive funding
transfers for suppression and away from the very restoration and fire
risk reduction programs that are meant to restore landscapes and reduce
suppression costs and restore landscapes.
Land Management Operations. The
Administration opposes the $502 million, or 8 percent, reduction to
operational funding to land management agencies, relative to the FY 2016
Budget request. This reduction would undermine support for the
provision of basic public and business services that support the
long-term health and resilience of national parks, forests, refuges, and
other public lands.
Water Rights on Federal Land.
Section 434 prohibits agencies from conditioning land use authorizations
on the transfer, relinquishment, or impairment of a water right, or on
the acquisition of a water right in the name of the United States. This
language is unnecessary for its intended purpose, and would preclude
land management agencies from protecting the public interest. The
provision would eliminate the ability of land management agencies to
maintain sufficient water for other congressionally-designated purposes
and ensure water rights are tied to the activities for which they were
developed. These restrictions would also hamper cooperative work with
land users to improve land conditions, such as range improvements, or
conduct habitat mitigation activities as part of land use agreements.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service
Land Management Improvements. The
bill provides $357 million for capital improvement and maintenance of
the national forest system, a 5 percent increase from the FY 2016 Budget
request. While the Administration supports the capital improvement and
maintenance of the Nation's public forests in order to increase its
health, resilience, and accessibility, the increase in this bill comes
at the expense of other needed priorities.
Department of Health and Human Services
Indian Health Service (IHS) Topline.
The Administration strongly opposes the reduction to funding for Native
American health care programs and facilities of the Indian Health
Service (IHS) by $300 million, or 6 percent, below the FY 2016 Budget
request. This would result in inadequate funding for the provision of
health care to a population that is sicker and poorer compared to
national averages. For example, compared to the FY 2016 Budget request,
the bill reduces funding by nearly $50 million for Purchased and
Referred Care, a program that supports health care not available in IHS
and tribal facilities, which would exacerbate existing levels of denied
care and waiting lists for services.
Contract Support Costs. The Administration objects to the limitation in funding for tribal
Contract Support Costs (CSC) for BIA and IHS. Specifically, the bill
would limit funding for CSC that could perpetuate the funding issues
described in the Supreme Court's Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter decision.
The Congress should pursue a long-term solution for CSC appropriations,
providing an increase in funding in FY 2016 as part of a transition to a
new three-year mandatory funding stream in FY 2017, as proposed in the
President’s Budget.
Other Provisions
Smithsonian Institution.
The bill reduces funding for the Smithsonian Institution by $116
million, or 12 percent, below the FY 2016 Budget request—a reduction
that can be expected to reduce public access to the Smithsonian as well
as increase safety concerns through delays in planned renovations. With
over 30 million visits to Smithsonian facilities recorded in 2014, it
is important to ensure the museums, galleries, National Zoological Park,
and nine research facilities that make up the world's largest museum
and research complex remain open, maintained, and available to the
generations of Americans who make use of this unique institution each
year. Specifically, the bill reductions would delay renovation for the
National Air and Space Museum, where the museum has had to establish
temporary covered walkways to protect the public from potential falling
debris from its facade, and would reduce operating hours for the
museums, including the new National Museum of African American History
and Culture.
Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).
The Administration urges the Congress to fully fund the FY 2016 Budget
requests for DOI and EPA to implement the DATA Act. This funding would
support efforts to provide more transparent Federal spending data, such
as updating information technology systems, changing business processes,
and employing a uniform procurement instrument identifier.
U.S. Digital Service Team.
The Administration urges the Congress to fully fund the FY 2016 Budget
requests for DOI and EPA to develop U.S. Digital Service teams. This
funding would support managing the agency's digital services that have
the greatest impact to citizens and businesses.
Constitutional Concerns
Several provisions in the bill raise separation of powers concerns.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment