The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAW” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H6566 on Oct. 12, 2013.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, one of the basic premises of our U.S. Constitution and form of government is equal protection under the law and equal protection and equal application of the law. Now the Obama administration has developed a reputation of unequal application of Federal laws. For example, Jon Stewart, the talk show host, recently interviewed Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and he asked her a question that many Americans have been asking, and that was: Why has the Obama administration given waivers and extra time to companies and labor unions so that they do not have to meet the deadlines required by ObamaCare, but he is unwilling to give that waiver and the same additional time to individuals?
{time} 1230
Now, we know that under the law, individuals are required to buy insurance; and if they do not buy insurance, then they will have to pay a penalty or a fine. That was a question that many people have been asking. That's been part of the debate, by the way, of this continuing resolution, as well as the debt ceiling issue. Why cannot individuals be given additional time and consideration to meet this law, but you do give time to companies and labor unions? That is an unequal application of Federal law. By the way, Secretary Sebelius could not answer that question.
Now, just as the administration favors companies and unions over individuals in that context of ObamaCare, the administration is also giving special favors to the wind industry in the energy sector. For example, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act have been enforced for many years by Federal prosecutors in America. To give you an example, we all are very much aware of the tremendous oil spill in the gulf a few years ago. Well, British Petroleum Company was fined $100 million for killing migratory birds.
We have a number of former Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Congress, and I was talking to one of them just yesterday. He was telling me about a case that he had down in North Carolina in which an individual shot and killed an eagle, and that gentleman was prosecuted by the Federal Government, fined $100,000, and had to forfeit some profits from his timber company. And so the Federal Government has been quite forceful in the protection of eagles and also migratory birds.
Now, wind projects, and I'm quoting now from an article that appeared in the paper just a couple days ago, wind projects routinely violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but not one wind farm in America has ever faced a single prosecution or paid one penny in fines. As I said, BP alone paid a $100 million fine for killing migratory birds.
I could also quote a utility company in Wyoming in which some eagles were electrocuted, and that company paid a $200,000 or $300,000 fine.
According to studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other groups, wind turbines overall kill over 573,000 birds each year, including over 83,000 birds of prey. Now, that's according to a study this March in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.
So the Federal Government, under this administration, is not prosecuting violations of these Federal laws because of their favor of the wind industry. But worse than that, now the Department of the Interior has notified through a publication on September 27 in the Federal Register that they are going to pass a regulation so that wind companies cannot be prosecuted for killing eagles and migratory birds in most circumstances. So they haven't been prosecuting under existing laws, and now we are going to pass a regulation to give them additional protections.
As this article says, there are two scandals here. First, wind turbines are killing legally protected eagles in the name of slowing climate change, but whatever reductions in carbon dioxide emissions that may be occurring--and I'm not going to go through all the facts and figures here in this article--but whatever emissions may be occurring is equivalent, according to this article, to a baby's burp in a hurricane.
And then, second, the wind energy industry is lobbying to extend a production tax credit, the 2.2 cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy, that has caused windmills to be built in America. Without that subsidy, it is doubtful any would be built; but last year, the subsidy was extended for an additional year at a cost to taxpayers of $12 billion. Now another 1-year extension is being lobbied for by the industry. That would cost an additional $6.1 billion. So it is bad enough that this wind industry wants to continue killing eagles with impunity, but now they are asking the taxpayers to give them the money so that they can do it.
Now, as chairman of the Energy Committee, unlike President Obama, I genuinely do believe and understand that we need an all-of-the-above policy on energy. We need renewable energy, we need windmills, we need solar panels, we need nuclear, we need natural gas, and we need coal. But to exempt one industry from Federal laws because they are favored by this administration is not what America is all about.
Now the President goes all over the country talking about an all-of-
the-above energy policy; but how many people in America know that because of his administration and regulations at EPA, America is the only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant. And yet even in Europe, which is known as a green energy sector, they have on the drawing board 60 gigatons of new coal-fired plants, and we continue to export more coal today than we ever have to other countries that recognize they have to have coal to be competitive in the global marketplace because coal does produce low-cost electricity.
But, as I said, unlike the President, I genuinely believe we need everything; but I do not believe that any industry, certainly not the wind industry or any other industry, should be exempt from Federal laws that protect endangered species--migratory birds and eagles--that are the symbol of this great country.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
