WASHINGTON D.C. – During a full committee markup of the CLEAR Act (H.R. 3534) in the Natural Resources Committee Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) introduced an amendment to strike section 238 of the legislation.

Representative McClintock’s Statement on the Amendment to HR 3534 is attached below:

Statement on Amendment to HR 3534
House Natural Resources Committee
July 14, 2010

Mr. Chairman:

My amendment would strike Section 238 of the bill.  Specifically, it stops the attempt to use this bill to piggy-back an unrelated measure, HR 2807, America’s Wildlife Heritage Act.  That act was going nowhere in its own right, but apparently is trying to hitch a ride on a bill purporting to deal with the oil spill in the Gulf.

Despite the fact that America’s Wildlife Heritage Act was proposed more than 13 months ago, neither the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife nor the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands have held a hearing on this measure.  More recently, the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs conducted three comprehensive oversight hearings on the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill accident.  They obtained the views of nearly 30 witnesses.  Not a word was spoken concerning this measure.

And yet, magically this forgotten bill that was going nowhere suddenly appears as section 238 of this bill.  This is exactly the kind of abuse of process by this Congress that the American people are growing increasingly disgusted with.

This section does not stop the oil leak in the Gulf, it does not clean up the oil in the Gulf, it does not address the needs of Gulf state communities, and it does not hold BP accountable for the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Rather, the majority is attempting to use that disaster as an excuse for enacting a Christmas-tree full of unrelated bills that can’t stand on their own merit and wouldn’t withstand scrutiny if taken up in their own right.  The sponsor tacitly admits this by sneaking his bill into this one.

Why is the majority trying to avoid scrutiny?

Perhaps it is because it is unclear how much these provisions will cost and what, if any, benefits will be derived.

For example, this measure protects so-called “Desired non-native species.”  I would expect the sports fishermen in California will argue that the Striped Bass is a desired non-native species, given the popularity and economic impact of the industry in California and many other states around the country.  However, the striped bass has devastated the populations of several native species that are now listed on the Endangered Species Act, including the notorious Delta smelt. 

The measure also conflicts with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act – because it limits the Forest Service’s ability to give “due consideration” to resource values other than species conservation.  And by doing so, it removes cost-benefit consideration – including economic impact – read, JOBS – from decision making.

It sets up standards that are contrary to established science on the subject.  For example, it requires sustainable populations at the planning unit level – which is frequently a biologically inappropriate scale for a wide-ranging species.

Simply stated, this ill-considered section places federal law in conflict with itself – because we are using a single crisis – the Gulf oil spill – to enact unrelated legislation without hearings, without serious consideration and without due process.

The Gulf oil spill has done immense economic damage to the Gulf region.  Why would we want to compound that damage by enacting a measure that ignores any cost-benefit issues and can only result in locking up vast additional natural resources that could be providing jobs for our people, revenues for our government and prosperity for our economy?

Mr. Chairman, the majority is either serious about addressing the Gulf oil spill, or it is not.  If it is serious, then it should report out a bill singularly focused on this issue that would command broad, bi-partisan support.  If it is NOT serious about addressing the Gulf oil spill, it should reject my amendment and continue down the road it is on.  But I warn you, that road may lead you to a place you won’t like.