Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, essentially, the LaMalfa amendment would prohibit funds from being used to enforce the criteria for abandoned prior converted cropland. Currently, if land categorized as prior converted cropland has not been used for agricultural purposes for 5 consecutive years, if the owner of that land wanted to fill or dredge it, they would need to get a section 404 permit from the Corps, and those are generally wetlands.

So this amendment would basically create a ``once exempted from having to get a Section 404 permit, always exempted'' standard, overturning 35 years of Federal policy.

The amendment makes a significant change to the Clean Water Act regulations, one that deserves thoughtful consideration. Under current law and regulation, activities that convert wetlands that occur as a part of existing ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture activities do not require section 404 wetlands permits.

Let me repeat that for my colleagues. The Clean Water Act explicitly exempts certain activities from regulation, including normal agricultural activities like plowing fields, planting and harvesting crops, and maintaining irrigation and drainage ditches.

The gentleman from California wants to go further than the exemptions already in the law and in the underlying bill. In his view, wetlands should be able to be filled, even when prior converted farmland has had no action or indication of actual agricultural use for 5 consecutive years; that is, there has been no cropping, no management, no maintenance activities related to agricultural production.

I say to my dear colleague from California, it is hard to understand how prior cropland wouldn't be abandoned if none of the activities of farming are performed there for 5 consecutive years.

I would also like to point out that this specific regulation has been on the books for 35 years; yet this amendment would overturn at least 35 years of policy to create a ``once exempted, always exempted'' standard for any land that was ever used as farmland.

Now, let me tell you, additionally, why this concerns me. According to the Ohio--my home State--Environmental Protection Agency, since the late 18th century, 90 percent of Ohio's wetland resources have been destroyed or degraded through draining, filling, or other modification. Because of the valuable functions the remaining wetlands perform, including filtration to adjoining lakes and streams, it is imperative to ensure that all impacts to wetlands are properly mitigated.

Wetlands help filter impurities from water. Sediment settles out the runoff, and contaminants bind to plant surfaces in wetlands, resulting in improved water quality. Wetlands perform other valuable functions, including reducing flood flow and shoreline erosion control.

In Ohio, we also depend upon our wetlands as a haven for rare and endangered plants, and one-third of all the endangered species depend on wetlands for survival; and many wetlands are important fish spawning and nursery areas, as well as nesting, resting, and feeding areas for waterfowl.

So we should make certain that any changes we make to wetlands policy that may result in the destruction of these important ecological areas are evaluated carefully and that we not overturn decades-old policy lightly.

It is for these reasons that I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I have to oppose my good friend Mr. Gohmert on this amendment.

The gentleman actually wants to prohibit funds from being used to implement any activities regarding the social costs of carbon. And this amendment tells the Department of Energy to ignore the latest meteorological data and changes dealing with weather science. And the amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful. According to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero.

I remember my first trip to New York City after I graduated from college. Thank goodness it has changed. I had a pink blouse on. By the time I finished the first afternoon, it was so full of gray spots I hardly recognized it. And I didn't know what it was. Well, it was carbon. It was fallout from the chimneys and so forth in New York City.

So we know that carbon has impacts. This amendment is tantamount to saying that weather changes and climate change have no cost and no one will get hurt. Well, that simply isn't true. Tell that to citizens in Puerto Rico who lost businesses, homes, and loved ones after Hurricane Maria, that there is no cost from weather changes.

Last year's devastating hurricane season resulted in Puerto Ricans still without power 9 months later, almost 5,000 lives lost, and almost 200,000 people displaced from their homes.

House Republicans can vote for this amendment, they can try to block the Department of Energy from recognizing the damage caused by climate changes, but they can't overturn the laws of nature.

I am amazed in my part of the country how much water is coming down now, spring rains at such fierce levels. The way they come, it is very different from when I was first growing up there.

So, in the National Climate Assessment, our Nation's leading climate scientists reiterated what we have known for years: Climate change is real, evidenced by the climate-related indicators we have observed, including longer seasons, extreme droughts, and sea level rise.

The amendment tells the Department to ignore these scientific findings. That is irresponsible and a blatant disregard to the well- being and security of our great Nation, not just now but into the future.

The truth is that unchecked climate change would have catastrophic impacts here in the United States and across the globe. They are already starting.

Those who are less fortunate will face the heaviest impact. I remember going down to New Orleans and seeing the Ninth Ward. The poorest people in New Orleans lived in the Ninth Ward, and it was the most dangerous place to live.

While claiming that climate change has no cost, House Republicans and the Trump administration seem to be arguing that they are the champions of the working class, decrying the critical EPA safeguards and their alleged impacts on working-class Americans and their access to healthcare.

It is amazing to look at maps of where trees exist. Many times in cities across this country, where the poorest people live there are no trees. And there is a direct relationship between asthma, the lack of oxygen, and trees.

So you don't have to pay attention to the science, but it is pretty clear.

I think it is outrageous that the opposition party has the nerve to pose as the defenders of working-class Americans because, actually, you have a pretty poor record of defending those who are the poorest, ranging from dropping food stamps, to the GOP tax scam selling out Medicare and Medicaid to pay for corporate tax breaks, to Republican Governors deciding not to approve the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and now trying to get rid of people on insurance who have preexisting conditions, to failing to quickly provide funding resources and the necessary leadership to help the victims of last fall's hurricanes.

The evidence is all out there if anybody cares to look. But to hear you tell the story, the only way to protect the health of America's workers and their children is to weaken longstanding public health protections.

To say we should allow polluters to pollute more? That is nonsense. More air and water pollution won't make our Nation's citizens any healthier. More toxic pollution certainly isn't the answer. And the answer certainly isn't pretending that climate change won't have real costs to all Americans.

I was interested to hear tonight some of our colleagues from New Mexico telling about how very, very dry New Mexico is, with one of the shortest snowfalls in history.

So it is time to stop denying the science and accept reality: Climate change is occurring, it is caused by humans, and it is already causing serious damage.

We are at the beginning of a new hurricane season, and now is not the time to pretend that extreme weather events, rising seas, and more frequent storms do not have a cost.

Before the Trump administration abandoned common sense, the social cost of carbon was a very conservative calculation. The full costs of a rapidly changing climate are almost certainly significantly higher, but the social cost of carbon is a much, much better estimate than assuming the costs are zero.

Unfortunately, that is what this amendment would require the government to assume: zero harm and zero cost from carbon pollution and climate change.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Pretending climate change doesn't exist won't make it go away.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source