Natural Resources Committee News

Documents Sought on High Costs Associated with Eisenhower Memorial Gehry Design

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:00:00 GMT

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) and Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Chairman Rob Bishop (UT-01) sent letters to the National Park Service, General Services Administration, and Eisenhower Memorial Commission seeking information about the activities and costs associated with the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission and the current design and construction of the planned presidential Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The current plan for the Memorial, created by architecture firm Gehry Partners, LLP, has faced intense scrutiny for both a poor, flawed design and potential construction and maintenance costs. Subcommittee Chairman Bishop has introduced legislation, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Completion Act, that would implement a new design competition and eliminate nearly $100 million in future funding the Commission has said would be needed to build the Memorial as currently designed The bill would also provide a three-year extension of the site designation approved by Congress in 2006, which included a seven-year sunset on the site.

At a Subcommittee hearing last March, Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of President Eisenhower, expressed concern that the cost, scale, and design of the planned Memorial are not in keeping with President Eisenhower’s values and do not enjoy a consensus of support.

Since 1999, Congress has appropriated $63 million in taxpayer funds for the design of the Memorial and operations of the Commission, and the Commission has requested an additional $51 million in Fiscal Year 2014 to begin construction.

“Many outstanding questions remain about the accounting of millions of taxpayer dollars, and a full accounting of the funds is necessary before we can move forward with this project in any way. Right now, the accountability of the Commission and the integrity of the process remains in question, and I look forward to the responses to these letters. The bottom line is that the Eisenhower Memorial must be an appropriate and fitting tribute to one of our nation's greatest leaders and it must be done the right way,” said Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop.

In the letters, the Chairmen seek specific information on how appropriated funds for the Memorial and Commission have already been spent and clarification on the costs and future liabilities that could result if the Commission were to move forward with the current design.

“Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on a design that is inherently flawed and does not even have the support of President Eisenhower’s family. These letters seek to hold these agencies and the Commission accountable and provide greater clarity of how this money has been spent. Meanwhile, I will continue to work with Rep. Bishop to move forward with his legislation to seek a new design and build consensus around constructing an appropriate memorial for President Eisenhower,” said Chairman Doc Hastings.

Click here to view the letter to National Park Service.
Click here to view the letter to the General Services Administration.
Click here to view the letter to the Eisenhower Memorial Commission.

###

Printable PDF of this document

Breakfast Links

Fri, 17 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

The Natural Resources Morning News Round-up:

Fuel Fix – Jennifer A. Dlouhy: “Feds make concessions to oil industry in new hydraulic fracturing rule”
Examiner – Charles Pekow: “Committee approves two bills to help national wildlife refuge system”
Washington Post – Steven Mufson: “Obama administration issues draft fracking regulations”
KRBD – Ed Schoenfeld: “Feds oppose smaller Sealaska land bill”
Associated Press: “House approves swap of mineral rights between Utah, Indian tribe”
Havre Daily News – Tim Leeds: “Daines calls for hydropower on waterways, including Milk River Project”

Witnesses: 2008 Lacey Amendments’ Unintended Consequences are Raising Costs, Threatening Jobs and Small Business

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:00:00 GMT

Today, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs held an oversight hearing entitled “The 2008 Lacey Act Amendments.” The hearing focused on the significant May 2008 expansion of the Lacey Act to include all plants and plant products.

“The full House was never given the opportunity to debate or amend the 2008 Lacey Act Amendments. The language was added in the Senate as a floor amendment to the 700-page 2008 Farm Bill. These provisions are costing millions of dollars in compliance costs and subjecting Americans to literally thousands of foreign laws, regulations and decrees,” said Subcommittee Chairman John Fleming (LA-04). “I am disappointed that neither the Obama Administration nor any of our witnesses presented any evidence on how the 2008 Amendments have stopped the flow of illegal logging which was the fundamental reason given for enacting these changes in the first place.”

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, strict liability, and the importation and sale of illegally obtained timber and other plant products.

The 2008 Amendments to the Lacey Act resulted in an extensive expansion of the law to include all plants and plant products; a requirement to submit a declaration document for all imported plant products; and a requirement that Americans comply with not only domestic, state and tribal laws, but also thousands 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.

Steve McCreary, General Manager of Collins Guitars and representative of the National Association of Music Merchants, discussed how the Lacey Act declaration requirements have affected his business. “About forty percent of our woods come from outside the United States and for every shipment a document must be filed with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture… it does cost us money each time a Lacey import declaration is filed. We understand that APHIS is currently receiving some 40,000 declarations each month and processing these imposes a substantial cost and burden on the agency as well. Even a reported effort toward electronic filing will not substantially reduce our costs or those of the government.”

Travis Snapp, COO of Benchmark International and representative of the International Wood Products Association, noted how their efforts to create a program, called the Lacey Compliance Verification Program (LCV), for importers and manufacturers to ensure compliance with the law have been hindered due to the reach and complexity of the 2008 Amendments. “Since Benchmark began offering the LCV program in 2009 we have had 33 manufacturing facilities from around the world request to enroll in our program. However, due to the complexity of the supply chain and the broad scope of the Lacey Act, I have been forced to turn 29 of them away. Several manufacturing facilities, if enrolled in our program, would have required 2 to 3 full time staff working 40 hours per week just to keep track of the raw material stream used to produce finished products. The vast scope of foreign laws included under Lacey are unmanageable in scope - Benchmark International contracts 6 legal firms who track only the laws related to wood export, processing, concessions, and cutting in a mere 6 countries. That limited scope alone accounts for over 1000+ laws (and growing), and has cost my clients upwards of 300,000 USD since 2009 when we began our program.”

Birgit Matthiesen, Special Advisor to the President and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, addressed his experiences with the Lacey Act from an international perspective, noting that “a transactional Lacey Import Declaration is unnecessary and a tax on North American competiveness. [G]iven that the vast majority of Lacey regulated shipments originate in Canada, the border compliance requirement, specifically the transactional import declaration, must be revisited. In our view, not only because of the commercial costs but because we believe that only through combined government efforts based on sound and proven risk management principles can we protect our industries and our communities from the scourge of illegally harvested plant products. In a time when governments on both sides of our border are reducing their operational budgets, it is important that agencies be able to target high-risk shipments and to act quickly. If those same agencies are buried in paper import declarations – mostly from Canada – they have fewer resources to go after the much higher or unknown risk elements.”

Erik Autor, President of Autor Global Strategies, a former representative of the retail industry, and former Counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, testified on the unintended consequences of the law that “unnecessarily burden compliance and enforcement, needlessly engender unpredictability, threaten American businesses and jobs, and deviate from the law’s core objectives.”

###

Printable PDF of this document

Chairman Hastings: Obama Administration’s Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Rule Imposes New Layers of Red-Tape, Duplicates States’ Efforts

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:00:00 GMT

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) released the following statement on the proposed regulations of hydraulic fracturing on federal lands announced today by the Department of the Interior:

“The Obama Administration is once again choosing costly red tape at the expense of American jobs and American energy production. It is charging forward with new regulations on hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands that are burdensome, restrictive, unnecessary, and directly duplicate what states have been doing efficiently and effectively for over sixty years. States are able to carefully craft regulations to meet the specific needs of their states. Yet the Department seems committed to imposing a new ‘one-size-fits-all’ set of rules for hydraulic fracturing. This is nothing more than another roadblock by the Obama Administration in the way of job creation, lower energy prices, and American energy security. At a time when the Interior Department is currently canceling lease sales because they say they do not have the necessary funds, they should not be wasting federal dollars and resources implementing duplicative and unnecessary regulations.

“Furthermore, it is unacceptable that the Administration is only offering a mere 30-day public comment period on this proposed regulation that will have significant job, economic, and energy production impacts throughout the country. The public comment period should be no less than 120 days.”

Background

For over two years, the Natural Resources Committee has conducted aggressive oversight of the Obama Administration’s pursuit of duplicative and potentially costly regulations of hydraulic fracturing on federal lands. The Committee has held numerous hearings to learn from stakeholders about the job and economic impacts of federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing – most recently an oversight hearing on May 8, 2013 – and will conduct additional oversight of this proposed rule in June.

###

Printable PDF of this document

Breakfast Links

Thu, 16 May 2013 14:30:00 GMT

The Natural Resources Morning News Round-up:

Platts: “US House Republicans release bills for more oil, gas drilling”
Associated Press: “Gosar, Kirkpatrick legislation for proposed Arizona copper mine gets committee approval”
Green River Star: “Lummis soda ash bill passes House committee”
Associated Press: “New secretary lays out agenda for Native Americans”
The Hill – Julian Hattem: “Interior pressed to encourage Indian tribes to develop oil and gas”

VIDEO: Drill Permit Streamlining Bill Sponsored by Rep. Cramer Passes House

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

In North Dakota, it can take 10 times as long to get a drilling permit on federal lands compared to state lands. That is why the House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to pass H.R. 767, a bill sponsored by Committee member Congressman Cramer, which streamlines the federal permitting process in North Dakota to reduce delays in obtaining a permit to drill on federal lands.

Check out what Rep. Cramer has to say in this news video highlighting his bill below.

House Committee Approves Legislation to Approve Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement with Mexico

Wed, 15 May 2013 19:45:00 GMT

Today, the House Natural Resources Committee approved H.R. 1613, the “Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act” with a bipartisan vote of 25-16. This important legislation would approve and implement the terms of the U.S. - Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement that governs the development of shared oil and natural gas resources along the U.S. – Mexico maritime border in the Gulf of Mexico.

The bill would lift the current moratorium on drilling along the maritime border and provide new access to an area estimated to contain as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas. This will expand energy development, create new American jobs, lower energy prices, generate new revenue, and make America more energy secure.

“Today we took another step towards embracing an all-of-the-above approach to energy that safely develops our natural resources to help achieve North American energy independence. This bipartisan bill will help lower energy costs while creating American jobs by safely opening up more than 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for exploration and production. This is a common sense approach to work with our partners south of the border to make both countries more energy secure, while protecting our sovereignty. This legislation works out the vast majority of differences with the Obama Administration, while also ensuring that those seeking to harvest these resources have the certainty they need to move forward. I’m optimistic that this legislation will pass the House of Representatives, and continue on its path towards becoming law,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03).

“Approval of this legislation by the Committee is important to finalizing this agreement and expanding American energy production. This bill would create jobs, lower energy prices by increasing our domestic supply, generate new federal revenue to help lower the debt and strengthen our economy, and make America more energy secure by opening up new areas in the Gulf of Mexico to exploration and development. In addition, this important legislation would lay the framework for transboundary agreements with other nations that will allow America to fully utilize its shared natural energy reserves.” said Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04).

The House Natural Resources Committee recently held an oversight hearing on H.R. 1613 where the Obama Administration and expert witnesses both voiced their support of the “Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act.”

###

Printable PDF of this document

Natural Resources Committee Approves Three Bills to Help Develop Rare Earth and Critical Materials in the United States

Wed, 15 May 2013 19:00:00 GMT

Today, the House Natural Resources Committee approved three bills with bipartisan support that will create jobs, streamline government red-tape, and make America less dependent on foreign critical and strategic minerals.

Critical and strategic minerals are vital to our everyday lives and are essential components of renewable energy, national defense equipment, medical devices, electronics, and common household items. Unfortunately, the U.S. relies on foreign sources for a majority of our non-fuel mineral materials and is 100 percent dependent on foreign sources of rare earth minerals. These three bills would remove government hurdles and regulations that delay and block development of our critical and strategic minerals.

H.R. 687, “Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act,” sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04), was approved by a bipartisan vote of 23-19. This bipartisan bill authorizes a land exchange to open up the largest copper mine in North America and protect environmentally sensitive land. The legislation would create nearly 3,700 jobs, provide billions in tax revenue, generate over $60 billion in economic activity, and strengthen our national security by developing our own U.S. copper resources. Click here to learn more.

“This land exchange and conservation bill is the direct result of years of negotiations, an open process and a common vision amongst its supporters to bring good paying jobs to Arizona,” said Rep. Paul Gosar. “I am very proud to have shepherded a final product that balances conservation and getting our economy growing again.”

H.R. 761, “National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013,” sponsored by Rep. Mark Amodei (NM-02), was approved by a bipartisan vote of 24-17. This bipartisan bill allows the U.S. to more efficiently develop our Nation's strategic and critical minerals. The bill streamlines the permitting process for mineral development by coordinating the actions of federal agencies and defines critical and strategic minerals.

"In the 2012 ranking of countries for mining investment, the United States ranked last in permitting delays," said Rep. Mark Amodei. "Duplicative regulations, bureaucratic inefficiency, and lack of coordination between federal agencies are threatening the economic recovery of my home state and jeopardizing our national security. Nevada, which is rich in strategic and critical minerals, also has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Decade-long permitting delays are standing in the way of high-paying jobs and revenue for local communities. This bill would streamline the permitting process to leverage our nation's vast mineral resources, while paying due respect to economic and environmental concerns."

H.R. 1063, “National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013,” sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-05), passed by unanimous consent. This bill addresses the lack of a coherent national policy to assure domestic availability of minerals essential for national economic well-being, national security, and global economic competitiveness.

“Though at least 40 percent of the world’s rare earth reserves are located within the borders of the U.S. and its ally nations, our country now depends on imports from China for nearly 100 percent of its rare earth needs. We should not continue to ship American jobs overseas. This is unacceptable,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn. “H.R. 1063 is the first step in reversing the trend of import mineral dependence and will create American jobs, and energy independence.”

###

Printable PDF of this document

Minerals in Our Everyday Lives

Wed, 15 May 2013 17:30:00 GMT

Today, the Full Committee on Natural Resources is holding a markup on 18 bills including legislation that will help develop critical and strategic minerals. Critical and strategic minerals are fundamental components of technologies and everyday items ranging from cell phones, building materials and motor vehicles to personal hygiene products.

Over 66 individual minerals are used to make the typical computer, including silver, aluminum, copper and gold.

Four rare earth minerals are required to make a hybrid vehicle: dysprosium, lanthanum, neodymium and praseodymium.

Energy-efficient light bulbs use europium, terbium and yttrium.

iPods require five rare earth minerals: dysprosium, neodymium, praseodymium, samarium and terbium.

Deodorant contains aluminum and the container is made of petroleum products.

A clock includes iron, nickel, petroleum products and silica.

Lipstick and makeup include clay, mica, talc, limestone and petroleum products.

Mail boxes are made of copper and zinc, which make brass.

Pens are made out of limestone, mica, petroleum products, clays, silica and talc.

Toilets are made of clays, silica, copper, zinc, petroleum products and borates.

###

Legislation Introduced to Protect and Expand Energy Production on Federal Lands

Wed, 15 May 2013 14:45:00 GMT

Members of the House Natural Resources Committee introduced two bills to protect and expand U.S. onshore energy production on federal lands. The bills would remove government roadblocks and hurdles that delay American energy production, promote production of our oil shale resources, and ensure that oil and natural gas resources in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) are developed and transported in a timely, efficient manner.

“Our onshore federal lands contain incredible potential for energy production, job creation, and economic growth. Yet federal red-tape and regulations imposed by the Obama Administration are keeping these resources under tight lock-and-key,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04). “These bills will help protect our oil and natural gas resources from onerous, duplicative federal regulatory hurdles and streamline the process so that energy production on federal lands can be as successful on private and state lands.”

A legislative hearing on the bills will be held on Tuesday, May 21, 2013. The hearing will also include H.R. 555, the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act by Rep. Bill Johnson (OH-06) and H.R. 1394, Planning for American Energy Act by Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03).

The Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act (H.R. 1965), introduced by Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Doug Lamborn (CO-05), would streamline government hurdles that block and delay development of our onshore oil and natural gas and renewable energy resources. The bill would reform the leasing process for onshore oil and natural gas projects on federal lands to eliminate unnecessary delays; reform the process for energy permitting, once a lease is in hand, to encourage the timely development of our federal resources; ensure funds are available for efficient wind and solar permitting; and set clear rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources.

“America has vast untapped energy resources but the Obama Administration has repeatedly blocked and delayed the development of energy on federal lands. By allowing us to responsibly develop our vast energy reserves, these bills will not only create jobs, but will lower energy costs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” said Subcommittee Chairman Lamborn.

The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act (H.R. 1964), introduced by Chairman Hastings and Rep. Don Young (AK-at large) would cut through bureaucratic red tape to unlock the full potential of energy resources in the NPR-A by ensuring that oil and natural gas are developed and transported in a timely and efficient manner. The NPR-A was specifically set aside for energy production and according to the U.S. Geological Survey could contain over 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 114.36 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In February, the Obama Administration announced final plans to close over half of the NPR-A to energy production.

The bill would require annual lease sales to be held in the NPR-A, streamline the permitting process to ensure timely development of resources, and set firm timelines for infrastructure permits to be approved. It would also nullify the plan released by the Obama Administration in February 2013 and require the Interior Department to issue a new integrated activity plan.

“Continually, the Obama Administration boasts that oil and natural gas production in the United States has increased, but everyone knows that those increases are a result of drilling taking place on state and private land. Today’s legislation would add some truth to their misleading statement by furthering responsible resource development in promising areas of the NPR-A,” said Rep. Young. “Most importantly, this legislation nullifies the Obama Administration’s flawed recent NPRA management plan, and requires that it be replaced with a plan that supports, rather than hinders, resource development. If producers can’t drill in the NPRA, then where can they drill?”

Similar legislation was introduced last Congress and passed by the House with bipartisan support.

###

Printable PDF of this document