Natural Resources Committee News

EPA Threatened with Subpoena for Documents on Obama Coal Reg. Rewrite that Could Cost Thousands of Jobs

Tue, 15 May 2012 16:30:00 GMT

As part of the more than year-long investigation into the Obama Administration’s rewrite of a 2008 coal regulation, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) today sent a final request letter to the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and threatened a subpoena for information and documents regarding EPA’s involvement in the rewrite of the coal regulation that could cost thousands of jobs. The Committee originally sought this information in a February 3, 2012 letter, along with requests to the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ); and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Administration’s sweeping new rewrites could cost thousands of American jobs and decrease American energy production. All three agencies have been involved in the rewrite and have thus far failed to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation and document requests. Similar letters were sent to CEQ and OMB.

Click here to read the letter to the EPA.

“To date, considerable patience has been demonstrated in seeking EPA’s compliance with this request. However, the agency’s actions have been consistently underwhelming and after three months of delays and excuses, it is time for EPA to fully respond by providing all requested documents and communications,” wrote Chairman Hastings. “As stated at the outset of this letter, despite the considerable patience and willingness to work with EPA that has been demonstrated since February, should EPA again decide to substantively ignore this document request and not produce the materials in a timely and cooperative manner, it will be appropriate and, apparently necessary, to move to compel production of the documents by issuance of a subpoena.”

Click here to read the letter to CEQ.

Click here to read the letter to OMB.

On March 28, 2012 the House Natural Resources Committee voted to give Chairman Hastings authority to issue subpoenas related to the investigation into the Department of the Interior’s rewrite of the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule.

###

Printable PDF of this document

Field Hearing Stresses Need for Active Forest Management to Suppress Bark Beetle Epidemic, Protect Water and Power Supplies

Mon, 14 May 2012 17:35:00 GMT

Today, the House Subcommittees on Water and Power and National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a joint oversight field hearing in Montrose, Colorado entitled, “Logs in the Road: Eliminating Federal Red Tape and Excessive Litigation to Create Healthy Forests, Jobs and Abundant Water and Power Supplies.” At the hearing, Subcommittee Chairmen Rob Bishop (UT-01) and Tom McClintock (CA-04) and Colorado Congressman Scott Tipton (CO-03) heard from witnesses about how the bark beetle epidemic and inadequate forest management have devastated federal lands throughout the West, leaving them susceptible to catastrophic wildfire, endangering neighboring communities and putting water and power supplies at risk.

“The Mountain Pine Beetle has turned most of Colorado, not to mention pine forests throughout the West, into a sea of dead and dying trees. Sadly, decades of the federal government’s failed forest policies have in part allowed this native insect to reach epidemic proportions that have impacted over three million acres in Colorado alone. Bark beetles have so far claimed over 40 million acres nationwide – equal to nearly 20% of the National Forest System,” said Chairman Bishop. “Fortunately, we are in the position to change course on this issue. Active, scientific forest management – when not impeded by inflexible regulations and frivolous appeals and lawsuits – can begin the process of restoring our forests. This epidemic was decades in the making and will not be curbed overnight, but it is important to ensure that our federal land managers have the flexibility to implement forest management projects and utilize our partners to maintain infrastructure that is necessary to ensure the long term health and productivity of the land and natural resources that have been entrusted to their care.”

Throughout the West, there has been a severe decline in federal forest health caused by the absence of active forest management. The lack of long-term timber harvesting has left forests overcrowded and blanketed with dead and diseased trees. Unnatural forest density coupled with drought and wildfires cause further damage to the landscape and water supplies. High intensity wildfires strip vegetation and alter soil composition, which increases the probability of severe erosion, floods and surface water pollution to rivers, lakes and reservoirs. As a headwaters area, the State of Colorado supplies water to eighteen western states.

“Today’s hearing was yet another vivid indictment of the long-term mismanagement of our public lands. These policies have systematically transformed once-thriving communities into victims of economic devastation, unemployment, overgrown and diseased forests, overdrawn watersheds, jeopardized transmission lines and increasingly intense and frequent forest fires. The testimony we gathered from local experts will facilitate unraveling of the paralyzing tangle of litigation, over-regulation, and endless deliberation that have misguided our federal agencies so far from their public trust,” said Chairman McClintock.

Another factor contributing to the decline of forest health is the bark beetle epidemic. Since 1996, bark beetles have ravaged Western forests, infesting over 41.7 million acres of state, private and federal land nationwide. Even though the bark beetle is native to the western United States, poor forest health conditions caused by the lack of proper forest management, warm winters and drought have exacerbated the spread of the epidemic. As a result, stands of dead trees left in their wake are susceptible to catastrophic wildfires leaving neighboring communities, water supplies and power lines at risk.

“You don’t have to look far from this spot to see the devastating impact that decades of federal obstruction to effective management have had on Colorado’s once healthy forests. Dead timber, lost jobs, contaminated water, and landscapes eviscerated by catastrophic wildfire are hallmarks of a bureaucratic process that places politics and inaction ahead of common sense and conservation,” said Rep. Tipton. “The witnesses today clearly made the case that much of this has been preventable. By removing federal obstacles and allowing access for responsible forest management, we can reverse the trend, restore and protect precious habitats and water supplies, preserve our scenic natural beauty, reinvigorate local economies, create needed jobs, and reduce the threat of wildfire.”

Lawsuits and fear of litigation have directly impacted how the U.S. Forest Service handles forest management operations. Environmental activist groups have exploited the administrative process provided by NEPA and other laws to object to projects on both procedural and substantive grounds, using lawsuits and legal actions to prevent timber harvesting and other multiple-uses. Despite historically serving as one of the few revenue-producing agencies in the federal government, the Forest Service now spends $2 for every $1 in receipts it collects from timber harvest or other multiple-use activities.

Witnesses at the hearing agreed that the best long term solution to resolving the bark beetle situation is to improve forest management. Restoring active forest management will not only aid in restoring forest health, but it will also improve water supplies and wildlife habitat, protect the electricity rights-of-way on federal lands so as to prevent widespread power outages and fire danger, as well as create much-needed jobs in the surrounding communities.

###

Printable PDF of this document

Second Subpoena Issued to Interior Dept for Investigation into New Obama Coal Regulations that Could Cost Thousands of Jobs

Fri, 11 May 2012 19:50:00 GMT

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) today issued a second subpoena to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for additional information relating to the investigation into the Obama Administration’s rewrite of the Stream Buffer Zone Rule (Rule) that began over a year ago. The second subpoena follows after DOI has failed to comply with the April 5^th subpoena for documents sent as part of a more than yearlong investigation into the Obama Administration’s rewrite of coal regulations that could cost thousands of jobs, negatively impact the economies of 22 states and significantly harm American energy production.

In issuing today’s subpoena, Chairman Hastings wrote a letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Click here to read the full letter.

“The [April 5] subpoena was narrowly crafted and asked for specific documents and recordings. The expectation was that the subpoenaed material would be readily producible by the Department. It is unfortunate that the Department has chosen not to comply with this straightforward request. Department officials and political appointees are not allowed to shield their communications from public scrutiny on the basis that the information may prove embarrassing, especially where, as here, there are very serious questions about how and why this administrative action was initiated and is to be completed on a hastened schedule.” wrote Chairman Hastings. “The fact that an agency may be in the process of improperly imposing new regulations, eliminating thousands of jobs, and raising energy costs on the American people, is absolutely not a shield against transparency and Congressional oversight. Absent a valid claim of Executive Privilege for these documents, the Department has a duty to fully and promptly comply with both of these duly authorized and issued subpoenas and must do so by May 24, 2012. I am prepared to initiate further action, should the Department continue to refuse to comply.

As previously stated, today’s subpoena to the Department seeks communications within OSM and the Department regarding the changes to the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, the decisions to expand the scope of the re-write, and the cost this rewrite will have on the American people and the economy. This subpoena represents a broader, more comprehensive set of information and documents that will answer questions the Department has refused to answer for more than a year. The specific documents sought in the subpoena include:

All documents regarding the March 2010 settlement between the Coal River Mountain Watch, et. al., the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement of the Department of the Interior “requiring OSM to make their best efforts to sign a final action on the proposed [Stream Protection] Rule no later than Friday, June 29, 2012”; including but not limited to:
1. Any drafts of the settlement;
2. Any changes or proposed changes to the settlement;
3. Any discussion about the Department and/or OSM’ s effort to meet the terms of the settlement;
4. All documents related to attorney fees paid as a result of the settlement.
All documents, including emails or memoranda, regarding the decision not to rely on the EIS or RIA for the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule and to conduct a new EIS and RIA.
All documents, including emails or memoranda, regarding OSM’s costs and benefits analysis of the Stream Protection Rule.
All documents, including emails or memoranda, within the Department and OSM; between the Department and OSM; between the Department and/or OSM, OMB, CEQ, USACE, and White House staff; and between OSM, the Department, and any Contractors or Subcontractors regarding the baseline parameters for the EIS and the RIA, specifically but not limited to documents regarding:

The baselines and parameters that were provided to the Contractors prior to and including February 2011.
The baselines and parameters that were provided to the Contractors after February 2011.
The decision to expand the scoping opportunities for the re-write of the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule.
The decision to use the 2008, 2009, or 2010 coal production numbers, or an average of the three years combined in creating assumptions for the EIS or RIA.
Whether the proposed Stream Protection Rule would cover only surface mining or surface and underground mining.
The implementation timeline of the Stream Protection Rule.
Assumptions that the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule was in effect and being enforced across the United States.

All communications, within the Department and OSM; between the Department and OSM; between the Department and/or OSM, OMB, CEQ, USACE, and White House staff; and between OSM, the Department, and any Contractors or Subcontractors regarding the baseline parameters (including all those parameters listed above in question 4), for the EIS and the RIA, including communications to/from and between the following individuals:
1. John Craynon
2. Mary Katherine Ishee
3. Brent Means
4. Glenda Owens
5. Dennis Rice
6. Sterling Rideout
7. Dianne Shawley
8. Nancy Sloanhoffer
9. Stephanie Varvell
10. William Winters

The deadline for responding to this subpoena is May 24, 2012.

For more information, on the Committee’s oversight investigation, visit http://naturalresources.house.gov/oversight/coalregs

###

Printable PDF of this document

Chairman Hastings: Documents Raise Serious Questions about Thoroughness and Independence of Inspector General’s Investigation into Drilling Moratorium Report

Thu, 10 May 2012 20:00:00 GMT

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) today sent a letter to Department of the Interior’s Acting Inspector General Mary Kendall expressing deep concern with the thoroughness of the Office of Inspector General’s (IG) investigation into whether an Obama Administration report that recommended a six-month drilling moratorium was intentionally edited to incorrectly state the views of peer reviewers, and with the IG’s explanation for refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena for further information.

Chairman Hastings today also released documents the Committee has received to date from the Interior Department and the Office of Inspector General. This includes emails from the IG’s lead investigators that details how they were not able to obtain all DOI documents that may have been relevant to their investigation or interview White House staff involved in the editing of the report. Chairman Hastings has already requested additional emails from the IG’s office so that the Committee can continue to look into this matter. Click here to view documents.

“The IG report is being used by the Obama Administration and others as a defense that this matter has already been investigated and resolved. These emails contradict that claim and raise new questions on whether the IG’sinvestigation was as thorough and complete as it should have been,” said Chairman Hastings. “To date, the Interior Department has never had to disclose documents to the IG or to Congress. Despite the President’s pledge of transparency, this Administration has not answered questions by anyone on how this decision was made that forced thousands of Americans out of work and cost millions of dollars in lost economic activity.”

Excerpts of the letter from Chairman Hastings:

“Documents recently obtained from your office raise serious questions about the thoroughness and independence of the IG’s investigation, including whether the lead investigators were able to obtain, or were directed not to obtain, all internal Department documents necessary to independently confirm witness statements and other facts at issue in the investigation, as opposed to only a select few documents provided by the same senior Department officials subject to the investigation or publicly available documents. This approach seems in direct contrast to how the IG handled similar high-profile investigations of alleged scientific misconduct in the previous Administration.”

***

“Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar stated in a November 9, 2010 letter to you that the report ‘confirms there was no wrongdoing or intent to mislead the public.’ However, the IG’s November 2010 report confirmed that White House officials were involved in editing the report and were responsible for the incorrect peer review language but did not address the central question of whether the peer reviewer’s role was intentionally misconstrued to mislead the public and provide cover for the moratorium.

“Notwithstanding its apparent shortcomings, the IG’s November 2010 report has been used by the Department to justify its refusal to provide documents that would allow Congress to evaluate for itself the circumstances surrounding the editing of the Drilling Moratorium Report and the imposition of the moratorium.”

***

“After more than a year of trying to obtain documents from the Department, much is still unknown about these events. The Department has consistently refused to release drafts of the Drilling Moratorium Report or internal documents between the senior Department and White House political appointees who were involved in editing the Drilling Moratorium Report. The Department has never disclosed – either to the IG or to Congress – the internal Department emails surrounding the edits to the Drilling Moratorium Report... This lack of responsiveness and transparency about what really led to the moratorium and the incorrect peer review language necessitated the issuance of subpoenas to both the Department and the IG. I am deeply frustrated by the Department’s – and now the IG’s – reliance on vague and unsubstantiated claims of confidentiality as justification to refuse to comply with these duly issued and authorized subpoenas.”

***

“Absent a legitimate assertion of Executive Privilege, I see no justification for the Department or the IG to refuse to comply with a duly issued and authorized subpoena based solely on the confidentiality claims articulated to date. Given the significance of the harm caused by the moratorium and of the questions raised by the IG’s investigation, it is important that Congress and the American public have a full accounting from the IG and the Department into the circumstances surrounding the Drilling Moratorium Report.”

###

Printable PDF of this document

House Votes to Halt Funding for Obama Administration’s Mandatory Ocean Zoning

Wed, 09 May 2012 23:00:00 GMT

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) and Representative Bill Flores (TX-17) released the following statements after the House passed, in a bipartisan vote of 246 to 174, an amendment offered by Rep. Flores to the FY 2013 Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to halt funding for the implementation of Executive Order 13547, President Obama’s ocean zoning and National Ocean Policy.

“The National Ocean Policy creates a new layer of federal bureaucracy that has the potential to make major changes to the way inland, ocean and coastal activities are managed. Mandatory ocean zoning has already proven to be an excuse for the Administration to block economic activity. Without knowing the potential jobs and economic ramifications of the Policy, nor the amount of time, money and resources it will cost to implement, it is imperative that we halt funding so that these questions can be answered and proper Congressional oversight can be conducted,” said Chairman Hastings.

“The National Ocean Policy was formed without congressional authority and would be run by unaccountable and unelected Washington bureaucrats. These proposed policy guidelines and processes have the potential to change the permitting criteria and requirements for a large number of economic sectors, including tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, maritime shipping, traditional fuels and renewable energy development, mining and power production. It is imperative that we first understand the effects this policy will have on jobs as well as the vast coastal and inland economies, which collectively impact almost 80 percent of our entire country. I was pleased to see the passage of my amendment preventing the funding for the National Ocean Policy, which had the potential to take funds away from existing congressionally authorized activities critical to the ocean and coastal economies,” said Rep. Flores.

In July 2010, President Obama signed an Executive Order to implement a new National Ocean Policy, which includes a mandatory Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiative to “zone” the oceans. The Natural Resources Committee has held five hearings related to either the mandatory ocean zoning or funding for agencies which are implementing the National Ocean Policy. Chairman Hastings sent two letters – the first on February 23, 2012 and the second on March 20, 2012 – to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) asking questions about how funds have already been used to implement the Policy. The Committee has yet to receive a complete response to all of the questions and requests for information. Chairman Hastings also sent a letter to the Chairmen of the House Committee on Appropriations asking for the inclusion of language to prohibit the use of funds to implement that National Ocean Policy in all of the FY13 Appropriations bills.

Chairman Hastings’ letter was followed by an industry coalition letter signed by 83 industry groups and trade associations also asking that no funds be appropriated for implementing the Policy until there is time for further examination of the Policy’s jobs and economic implications.

###

Printable PDF of this document

50 Billion Barrels of Oil Not Enough for Obama Admin to Stop Playing Politics with America’s Energy Security

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:50:00 GMT

Apparently, an offshore oil find that would more than double America’s current proven oil reserves still wouldn’t be enough for the Obama Administration to stop playing politics with America’s energy security. Channeling his best auctioneer chant, Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) gave Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Tommy Beaudreau a chance to say how much oil would need to be found in the Southern Pacific Ocean for the Obama Administration to allow offshore drilling. 7 billion barrels? 10 billion barrels? 20 or 50 billion barrels? American jobs and energy security going once, going twice, SOLD TO OPEC!—courtesy of the Obama Administration. If this Administration isn’t serious about producing more offshore energy in the hypothetical world, how can they be taken seriously in the real world?

Director Beaudreau tried to explain that available resources are just one of the factors that the Administration takes into consideration and highlighted the importance of input from affected states. Apparently the Obama Administration only listens to states like California that agree with their no new drilling agenda, not states like Virginia, which has repeatedly asked for an offshore lease sale only to have this Administration delay, block and cancel the already planned Virginia lease sale.

Click here to watch the video

The California Energy Commission reported earlier this year that the State is now 50% dependent on foreign oil as California domestic production and Alaskan imports are declining. Currently, there is estimated over 5 billion barrels of oil in the Southern Pacific Ocean planning area that could create thousands of new jobs, help lower gasoline prices and add millions of dollars to State and Federal Treasuries. House Republicans passed a bipartisan plan to open this area and other areas in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans where we know America has the most oil and natural gas resources.

###

Printable PDF of this document

Witnesses: Bills to Amend Lacey Act Would Correct Unintended Consequences of Law, Protect from Over-Criminalization

Tue, 08 May 2012 20:45:00 GMT

Today, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs held a legislative hearing on two bills that would amend the Lacey Act, H.R. 3210, the “Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement Fairness Act,” and H.R. 4171, the “Freedom from Over-Criminalization and Unjust Seizures Act of 2012.” The Lacey Act was first enacted in 1900 to protect native flora and fauna by prohibiting the sale or transportation of wild animals or birds killed under violation of state law. Since its enactment, the Lacey Act has since been amended several times including expansions to include foreign laws, fish, and the importation and sale of illegally obtained timber and other plant products.

“Changes to the Lacey Act that were rushed through in 2008 made for imperfect outcomes that put Americans in legal jeopardy. Those amendments must be addressed before another person is unfairly prosecuted. This hearing is a good first step in finding ways to improve the law while still keeping its original intent of animal and plant protection intact,” said Subcommittee Chairman John Fleming (LA-04).

The 2008 Amendments to the Lacey Act resulted in an extensive expansion of the law to include all plants and plant products; a first time requirement to submit a declaration document for all imported plant products; and required Americans to comply with not only domestic, state and tribal laws, but also volumes of foreign laws, regulations, resolutions and decrees dealing with Forestry and plants, some of which are not even available in English. As a consequence of these Amendments, thousands of large and small American businesses who previously had little, if any, exposure to the Lacey Act have now become part of the regulated community.

The RELIEF Act (H.R. 3210) would make changes to several of the 2008 Amendments in an effort to protect the individuals, businesses and industries that were unintentionally affected due to their enactment. First, the bill would re-establish the “innocent owner” defense for plant and plant products facing civil forfeiture proceedings. Despite the intentions behind the 2008 Amendment that sought to reaffirm the “innocent owner” defense, the intent of the Amendment failed because products in violation of the Lacey Act are still considered contraband and therefore are illegal to possess, subject to confiscation and penalty of law. Second, the bill includes a grandfather provision exempting any plant imported into the United States prior to enactment of the 2008 Amendment or any finished plant or plant product assembled and processed before that date. Third, it would modify the plant declaration requirement to apply to only solid wood and items imported only for commerce. Last, it reduces the penalty for first time violators, as it affects plants, as long as the offense was not knowingly committed.

“Helping musicians like Vince Gill and Ricky Skaggs is the primary impetus of our legislation. Not only are musicians and music stores in jeopardy, but other legitimate businesses such as antique dealers and lumber importers. We can help these innocent people without harming the worthy environmental goals of the Lacey Act. We can have healthy forests and legal guitars,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (TN-05).

H.R. 4171, known as the FOCUS Act, would repeal certain provisions of the Lacey Act relating to violations of foreign laws and criminal penalties. The bill would remove language requiring compliance with relevant foreign laws, therefore limiting violations to federal, state or tribal laws. It would also eliminate provisions in the Act that allow for criminal prosecutions; reduce the penalties and fines for violation; and delete language that grants federal government authorities certain powers to carry out the law including the right to carry firearms, search and seize, and make an arrest without a warrant.

“Congressman Broun and I introduced companion bills in the House and the Senate because of our shared concern regarding a dangerous law called the Lacey Act. I believe that the Lacey Act is unconstitutional both because of its foreign law component, and because it is so vague that it fails to satisfy basic due process requirements of fair notice. The FOCUS Act fixes what is but one example of the ever-growing problem of overcriminalization that we face in this country: the Lacey Act,” said Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).

“Over the years, and most recently through changes in 1981 and 2008, the Lacey Act has become the poster child for how the federal government abuses broad, sweeping criminalization. The Lacey Act is no longer about conservation, but rather subjects American citizens to prosecution based upon foreign laws and regulations that are often ambiguous in nature,” said Rep. Paul Broun (GA-10). “I believe that passage of the FOCUS Act would go a long way toward correcting many of these abuses. Our bill is a commonsense step to protect law abiding businesses and American citizens from foreign laws and over-criminalization.”

###

Printable PDF of this document

Chairman Hastings' Statement at Conference Committee Meeting on Highway Bill

Tue, 08 May 2012 20:21:00 GMT

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) delivered the following opening statement today at the Conference Committee meeting on the Highway bill:

“The federal government’s slow, cumbersome bureaucracy is consistently getting in the way of job creation and economic growth. Nowhere is this more evident than infrastructure and energy projects, where burdensome red tape and duplicative federal programs hamstring the ability to approve projects and get Americans working.

For this conference report to be considered a success, meaningful reforms need to be made to streamline government inefficiencies for infrastructure projects. Similarly, approving the Keystone Pipeline is an opportunity to address high gasoline prices, put Americans to work and reduce America’s dependence on unfriendly Middle Eastern oil. While the President has repeatedly refused to act, Congress must.

From the perspective of the Natural Resources Committee, one of the most important ongoing challenges is to reduce overlapping, duplicative, and costly environmental paperwork and regulatory requirements. Streamlining environmental reviews will allow proposed projects to move forward in a smarter and more efficient manner. To be blunt: it’s cheaper and faster to build a road if the federal government stops requiring more miles of paperwork than the actual asphalt used to build the road. On this point, the streamlining reforms prepared by Chairman Mica are clearly superior to the Senate bill.

At the last minute, the Senate added several other unrelated pieces of legislation to its version of the highway bill, including a number under the jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Among these are one-year extensions of the Payment-In-Lieu-of-Taxes and the Secure Rural Schools programs. Congress absolutely needs to act to address both of these, but it’s also important to recognize that one-year extensions alone are not true fixes, and the affected rural communities deserve much more from this Congress.

The Senate added what is commonly referred to as the RESTORE Act, which would direct funds to Gulf states affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but also would create broad new federal spending programs. The Natural Resources Committee has spent more time and energy on matters affecting the Gulf states region than any other Committee in Congress. I am certainly sympathetic to the impacts the spill had on Gulf States, but I’m not sympathetic to the notion that an effort to provide support directly to Gulf States requires ballooning the federal bureaucracy with permanent new federal spending programs.

There is also a Senate provision to establish a new ‘National Endowment for the Oceans,’ which is a clear attempt to provide some legal authorization and a permanent funding stream for President Obama’s Executive Order on ocean zoning. This provision is totally unrelated to the highway bill and should be kept separate and apart from the highway discussions.

Lastly, it was particularly egregious for the Senate to pile the highway bill up with $1.4 billion in new, automatic spending over the next two years to buy more land across the nation through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF. The mandatory buying of more land under LWCF is a fiscal dereliction of duty – especially since the government can’t afford to maintain the lands it already owns. The maintenance backlog on America’s federal lands registers in the multiple billions of dollars. Congress should be addressing this backlog, not adding to it.

Furthermore, while LWCF doesn’t expire until late 2015, the Senate highway bill would extend it for an additional 7 years to 2022. The Senate’s proposed highway bill doesn’t even extend transportation funding for as long as LWCF is currently authorized.

Ironically, under the law, LWCF funds come from offshore drilling revenue, yet in mandating over a billion dollars in new, automatic LWCF spending, the Senate in this bill and as a body during this entire Congress has done absolutely nothing to expand offshore drilling or open new areas to oil and natural gas drilling.

LWCF is unrelated to the RESTORE Act and totally unrelated to the highway bill. With nearly three years to go until LWCF expires, and the fact that not one Committee hearing in either Chamber has even been held on renewing LWCF, there is more than ample time to consider this topic. It should not be blindly reauthorized in this conference report.”

###

Printable PDF of this document

Hastings: For Years, Obama Admin Prevented Utahns from Thousands of New Jobs, Billions in Revenue

Tue, 08 May 2012 16:45:00 GMT

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) released the following statement after the Department of the Interior, after years of delay, finally approved nearly 4,000 natural gas wells near Vernal, Utah:

“If the Obama Administration had simply done its job instead of playing politics, this project would already be well on its way to creating nearly 3,000 jobs and generating $5 billion in revenue. Unfortunately, this Administration is not taking seriously America’s energy security or the livelihoods of those who have been counting on employment from these natural gas wells. This project has been held up for years by the EPA and the Interior Department while unemployment and a weak economy continue to hurt American families. It is sad that what should be a minor Record of Decision for one project in Utah instead becomes a signature achievement of this Administration—especially given their long record of blocking energy development. Do they believe Utahns don’t remember that one of the very first actions of this Administration was to withdraw 77 oil and natural gas leases in the state? There seems to be no end for this Administration’s ability to play games with America’s energy production and job creation.”

###

Printable PDF of this document

What They’re Saying About Federal Regulations on Hydraulic Fracturing

Fri, 04 May 2012 17:02:00 GMT

The Obama Administration today announced new regulations on hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands. Tribal leaders, State officials and energy job creators have already testified at numerous Natural Resources Committee hearings explaining how new federal regulations will cost jobs, slow energy production and cause economic harm.

Tribal Leaders

“BLM’s proposed rule on Hydraulic Fracturing, if adopted, will create additional burdens to an already burdensome process that will likely delay and possibly prevent beneficial development of Blackfeet oil resources.” (T.J. Show, Chairman of the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council, 4/19/12)

“The steps being proposed by BLM to regulate hydraulic fracturing on our lands have been developed with little regard for practical considerations or the adverse financial impact that such regulations will have upon Indian tribes.” (James M. Olguin, Vice Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, 4/19/12)

“BLM’s actions to date have given me and other tribes the impression that tribal input is not desired or only minimally needed even though there is strong evidence that the proposed regulations will cost the MHA Nation and the surrounding community a sizable number of jobs and money.” (Tex G. Hall, Chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation of the Fort Berthold Reservation, 4/19/12)

“The additional delays that will be caused by the BLM’s fracing rule will have an astronomical economic impact on the Tribe.” (Irene Cuch, Chairwoman of the Ute Business Committee, 4/19/12)

States

“A ‘one size fits all’ regulatory structure at the federal level will be devastating to the energy industry in Colorado. The difference in regulatory needs for Texas and places east of the Mississippi are as diverse as the differences of energy production in Colorado…These needs and concerns are best addressed by those that understand our state, our people, our land, and our industry. Those people are the ones that live and work right here in Colorado.” (Colorado State Representative Jerry Sonnenberg, 5/2/12)

“The consequences to energy producing states and the nation will be fewer jobs, a less predictable energy supply and less state and federal revenue from mineral royalties.” (Shawn Reese, Policy Director for Wyoming Governor Matthew Mead, 5/2/12)

“The State of Utah is very concerned about these proposed regulations, for several reasons, but primarily because they appear entirely unnecessary and duplicative of state programs, and therefore are not worth the costs of implementation.” (Kathleen Clark, Director of Public Lands Policy Coordination Office from the State of Utah, 5/2/12)

Energy Job Creators

“The permitting on federal lands in the Rockies is already a long, cumbersome and costly process. BLM regulations have pushed much of current energy development to the private lands of the east where there is no federal regulation. New fracking regulations from BLM would sound the death knell for oil and gas development on federal lands of the Rockies.” (Christopher Rockers, CEO of Magna Energy Services, 5/2/12)

“Upon review, it is apparent these draft regulations will add significant costs and burdens to companies operating on federal lands without any appreciable improvement in environmental protection. Over the last several years, new rules, policies and administrative actions have made it more difficult for oil and natural gas producers to operate on federal and tribal lands.” (Thomas Stewart, Executive VP of Ohio Oil and Gas Association, 2/27/12)

###

Printable PDF of this document