releases: http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=d0e69d59-a101-4224-91a0-694baf0c9342
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=d0e69d59-a101-4224-91a0-694baf0c9342 | Barrasso Questions Assistant Secretary Schneider on OSMs Anti-Coal Stream Rule | 2015-10-27 | 2015 | 2015-10 | Republican | House | WY | John Barrasso | B001261 | www.barrasso.senate.gov | legacy | WASHINGTON, DC Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) questioned Janice Schneider, the Interior Departments assistant secretary for Land and Minerals Management, about the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcements (OSM) proposed stream protection rule. Barrasso also asked Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Director Todd Parfitt, who also testified at todays Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, to respond to the administrations estimates on the cost of the rule to states. Senator Barrasso Questions Ms. Schneider about ignoring states in rulemaking process: Click here to watch Sen. Barrasso question Ms. Schneider Ms. Schneider, I would like to turn to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires every federal agency to assess the environmental impacts that would result from actions taken by that agencyactions like approving a permit or issuing a new regulation. A federal agency assesses environmental impacts in what is known as an environmental impact statement. Prior to issuing an environmental impact statement, a federal agency is required to consult with other agenciesincluding state agencieswhich have special expertise with respect to the action under consideration. The federal agency preparing the environmental impact statement is called the lead agency the other agencies are called cooperating agencies. Under NEPA, the lead agency is not only required to consult with cooperating agencies. It must ensure that the participation of cooperating agencies is meaningful. So when the Office of Surface Mining began developing the so-called stream protection rule, it identified ten state agencies as cooperating agencies. The Office signed agreements with each of these state agencies in which it pledged to provide them with: copies of key or relevant documents underlying the EIS; administrative drafts of the EIS; and a reasonable time for review and return ofcomprehensive comments. Thats what you promised. However, between January 2011 and the issuance of the proposed rule on July 2015, the Office of Surface Mining did none of this. For four and a half years, the Office of Surface Mining shared neither drafts of the EIS nor documents related to the EIS. During this time, it engaged in no meaningful consultation whatsoever with state agencies. It even ignored the states repeated requests for consultation. And in response, eight of the ten state agencies felt they had no other choice but to withdraw as cooperating agencies. Now you have overseen the Office of Surface Mining since May 2014. Why is the Office of Surface Mining allowed to make a mockery of its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act? Lets be clear, that sharing was done before January of 2011. I want to know where this law allows your agency to go dark for four and a half years? How is that consistent with the Presidents claim that his administration is the most transparent administration in history? They seem like lame excuses to me. Senator Barrasso Questions Ms. Schneider about the cost of rule: I would like to turn to the Office of Surface Minings draft regulatory impact analysis or the R-I-A. A regulatory impact analysis estimates the cost of a rule on industry as well as the federal government and the states. The Office of Surface Mining estimates that the total annual cost of the proposed stream rule to the entire Rocky Mountain region is $29,000. Now, Mr. Parfitt testifies that: [o]n its face, that figure is laughable. He says the state of Wyoming spent more than that simply reading and analyzing the Proposed Rule and associated documentsan effort that is not even remotely close to being finished. He goes on to say that the Office of Surface Mining: grossly underestimates the impact of the proposed rule on Wyoming and federal tax revenueby more than $1.3 million per year. Ms. Schneider, wouldnt you agree that the Office of Surface Minings annual cost estimate of $29,000 for the entire Rocky Mountain region ison its faceridiculous? Senator Barrasso asks Mr. Parfitt to respond to Ms. Schneiders comments: Click here to watch Mr. Parfitt respond to Ms. Schneiders comments ### https://www.barrasso.senate.gov Twitter | Facebook | You Tube | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |