Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would block the EPA from regulating methane emissions from sources in the oil and gas sector.
Methane is a primary component of natural gas and is a potent greenhouse gas with global warming potential more than 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.
In 2013, nearly one-third of the methane emissions in the United States came from oil and gas production, processing, transmission, and distribution. There is no doubt, no doubt at all that methane contributes to the increased levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, which will contribute to long-lasting changes in our climate such as rising global temperatures, sea level rising, changes in weather and precipitation patterns.
Public health risks include more heat waves and drought, worsening smog, increased intensity of extreme weather events, and increasing the range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread diseases such as Lyme disease, West Nile Virus, and Zika.
The disgraced former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, tried to delay this rule, but the courts blocked that effort and ruled that the EPA cannot delay implementation. When is the majority going to stop the assault on the environment?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment. Climate change threatens the health and welfare for current and future generations.
As the gentlemen have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, industry has moved-- has moved, in part, because of pressure from the EPA, and, in part, because of just the financial loss of allowing this methane gas to escape into the atmosphere. It is dollars that are burning up.
These are precious resources that we are taking from the Earth, and we should make sure that we don't waste any of it, and that is why I think the EPA rule should not be delayed.
As has been pointed out, industry has the ability to capture this methane. It has the ability to make money from it, and I want to just make sure that we encourage everyone in the industry to move forward.
Mr. Chairman, let me the give you an example. The Bakken Oil Field, which is in North Dakota--I am very familiar with it because I spent many a summer in that area--burns brighter than the entire metropolitan area of the Twin Cities at night because of the flares from the methane that are being burnt. That energy should be captured. It should be saved. We should be conservationists for future generations. We must take action, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very harmful rider, and it would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of carbon as part of rulemaking. The social cost of carbon is an estimate of economic damages associated with small increases of carbon dioxide emissions in a given year.
It represents the best scientific information available, incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory analyses. Weakening or eliminating use of social cost of carbon as a tool for Federal agencies that would ignore the sobering cost of health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts.
We cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, so I strongly oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate again: We should be using the best scientific information available, and we should be incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory analysis.
When we see children being hospitalized because of intense smog, more people suffering respiratory and heart disease, and other impacts from that, we all pay for that. Whether we pay for it in emergency room visits, we pay for it in our insurance, there are many ways in which we are individually paying for the pollution that is created, let alone recognizing the effects it has on climate change.
So, simply, again, we cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, this amendment would prohibit the implementation of Washington State's revised water quality criteria. This standard protects communities from exposure to toxic contaminants, such as PCB, arsenic, and mercury in the fish that they eat.
Being from Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, I understand fish advisories very well. I often see signs that limit fish consumption for pregnant women, and for children in particular.
This action, however, would ignore court decisions and the voices of Native American Tribes, Asian-Pacific Islander communities, and fishing interests, all of which agree that seafood consumption standards are necessary in order to protect public health and water quality. In fact, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission has asked that Congress reject this amendment because it puts the treaty rights that have been protected and the resources of Tribes in Washington at risk.
Many native families subsist on the fish that they catch. Passing this amendment lowering water quality standards puts these families at greater risk of poisoning from their traditional foods.
There is a lot of funding in this bill and some of the other bills that we have on the floor, Mr. Chairman, that work to prevent diabetes or to lower risk from diabetes with high blood sugar. Tribal nations are finding that returning to native foods, such as fish, is a great and excellent way of preventing or reducing the effects of diabetes.
But after years of failure by Washington State to propose a protective standard, EPA finally put forth a standard which is more protective and meets the Clean Water Act requirements.
Now, I understand that the regulated community has always been uneasy about what stricter standards might be. The revised water quality criteria take steps to address their concerns.
The standard approved the use of new implementation tools, including a longer compliance schedule and intake credits. An intake credit means that, if the water comes to you with a pollutant and you don't discharge it, you are not responsible for having to remove it. So if you didn't pollute it, you are not responsible for cleaning it up.
This amendment would circumvent all of the work that has been done to devise a standard that protects public health and water quality.
Furthermore, Washington State officials believe that, despite the Congresswoman's good intentions--and I do believe that these are good intentions--this amendment would hurt the State of Washington. It would not actually help the dischargers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, when humans consume contaminated fish, it results in serious health impacts, such as cancer, organ damage and reproductive dysfunction, or impairment in brain development.
High fish-consuming communities--as I have mentioned, Native American Tribes and Asian-Pacific Islander communities--need the protections afforded by this revised water quality standard.
I would like to, for the Record, again state that this amendment is not supported by the State of Washington or the Tribal communities in the area.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Clearly, more work needs to be done. I look forward to having this amendment not pass and for people to get down to doing the serious work that needs to be done to address the gentlewoman's concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from implementing or enforcing its greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium-and heavy-duty engines.
Specifically, this amendment carves out an exemption for trailers. These fuel standards were jointly developed by the EPA and the Department of Transportation, and they will improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution to reduce the impacts of climate change.
In fact, the EPA and DOT estimate that these standards will lower CO
These standards will achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions that are nearly equal to those associated with all the energy used by U.S. residents in 1 year.
These efficiency fuel standards have been in place since 2016, and companies around the world have already made massive investments in the cleaner technology. Blocking the rule now would have negative consequences for human health and the environment, but also for the economy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this rule promotes a generation of cleaner, more fuel efficient trucks. President Obama was right when he said: ``We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.''
This amendment is harmful, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like to make the case that this is a rider, that this is authorizing on an appropriations amendment, and that the author of the amendment is in the majority.
The majority could have a hearing in the authorizing committee. It could come to the floor. It could pass on the floor. The Senate could move it. And it appears to me that President Trump is in a position to sign this into law, should he choose to do so.
So there is another alternative vehicle for moving the gentleman's amendment forward, and that is to do it legislatively and not put it on an appropriations bill. The Senate has chosen to put no riders on their appropriations bill.
But the amendment is before us. As pointed out, it would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the threatened species listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act, and it would restrict the Service from offering any of the critical protections to preserve the species.
Now, once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is the role of Fish and Wildlife, and it is primarily permissive, to help parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities.
I also want to make sure the Record is clear that Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the information claiming an alleged taxonomic error in the listing of the species and found no evidence that the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is not a valid subspecies.
But under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to offer to recover this species, though the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. The Service would not be able to work with agencies. The Service would not be able to work with developers. The Service would not be able to work with landowners and others to provide ESA compliance.
The Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions. This means that landowners, industry, and other parties who might need to take the Preble's meadow jumping mouse incidental to their otherwise lawful activities, such as urban development, would become vulnerable to third-party lawsuits.
Additionally, this amendment would also limit the Service from undertaking the required status reviews of the subspecies or from any initial rulemaking to downlist or to delist the species, as appropriate.
Mr. Chair, I think it is pretty obvious that this amendment should go through a different way of coming to the floor, and that is through the authorizing committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered Species Act. Defunding the agency's ability to fulfill its legal requirements makes it more vulnerable to lawsuits, and I know that that is something that we are all trying to avoid here. When you have lawsuits, it is an unnecessary cost for the taxpayers.
Now, the gentleman's amendment would undermine the Service's ability to work collaboratively with States, local governments, communities, and landowners, to conserve this imperiled species. The amendment would create uncertainty for landowners and also make them vulnerable to lawsuits.
So we should not pass this amendment. We should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service efforts and not blocking the agency from doing its job.
Mr. Chair, my commitment to the chairman and to my walking partner in the tunnels as we all come over for votes is to work with them to make the Fish and Wildlife Service more responsible to the gentleman's concerns. But at this time, I have to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the Service attempts to comply with the statutory mandate to review the status of listed species every 5 years to determine whether their classification as threatened or endangered is still appropriate. However, the Service has a backlog of such reviews due to funding limitations, such as the 42 percent listing `reduction contained in this bill.
In this bill, the work that the Service would need to do to comply with what you want in this bill alone is cut $8 million, so that just puts them farther behind.
In recent years, the Service has only been able to complete 100 to 120 reviews per year, which is less than half of what is needed to keep up with the requirement to review all the species every 5 years. So that falls on Congress for us not giving them the funds that they need to do the job effectively and efficiently as you are requesting, and the way to fix that is to give them the proper funding.
But as the gentleman might be aware, the chairman was given level funding this year. He did the very best that he could with what he had to balance things out in the interests of the requests he had from Members of the House, but this particular $8 million cut just makes your problem even worse.
This amendment would not remove species, without reviews, from the list of the species protected by the ESA. So the ESA prohibition against take would still remain, as would the ability of citizens to sue to force compliance.
If funding cannot be used to enforce the ESA for species with late reviews, that will leave the species unprotected.
While the proposed language would prohibit the Service from working with agencies, developers, landowners, and others to provide ESA compliance through section 7 consultations or section 10 permits for Federal or private projects that could potentially affect the species, it would not affect the ability of third parties to sue those agencies or landowners and potentially enjoin their projects due to the lack of ESA compliance.
Mr. Chairman, as I said about the last amendment, we don't need another rider or extraneous provision in this bill. It is already overburdened with many, many riders.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to take this language to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction and work through and see if we can make positive changes and create win-wins.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And I would urge my colleagues, if they want the backlog to change, to help the chairman and me get more money into the allocation of this bill so the chairman and I can work to achieve those goals together.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow those who pollute the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's water quality standards.
Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed continues to be a priority, and a priority for this committee to fund it. The EPA established the mandatory water quality standards and Congress has appropriated over $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay Program to help States, localities, and businesses meet those needs. This amendment would jeopardize that funding and have devastating effects on the health of the bay.
How long will the States and localities be able to meet their obligations that they agreed to in 2014 in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement if the Federal Government's financial assistance goes away?
This is a partnership. We should keep the partnership moving forward.
Furthermore, if this amendment were to become law, it would block the EPA's ability to enforce the court-ordered settlement requiring the farm community and agribusinesses to meet watershed specific pollution limits. It would not, however, relieve the farms and agribusinesses from the requirements in the settlement.
The State and local governments want to move forward. They want to keep the partnership moving. But the Farm Bureau and, in fact, some of the industrial operators they represent don't think that they should be responsible for controlling the pollution that they dump into our rivers and streams across the country.
The courts have sided with the EPA on this matter, and the Farm Bureau continues their pursuit to stop mandatory cleanups through judicial appeals and through this amendment.
There are enough special interest provisions for big business in this bill already. We don't need any more.
Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, for more than 35 years, there has been a regional partnership created through the Chesapeake Bay Program, and it sought to restore and protect the Nation's largest and most productive estuaries. That is a partnership with the Federal Government which includes funding that is working together to achieve those common goals.
Now, I have nothing before me saying that the State of Virginia, or any of the regional partners, want to withdraw from this moving forward to continue to clean up this estuary. This amendment would undermine decades of work and decades of Federal dollars that the Federal Government has put in in partnership, and it would have devastating effects to the health of the bay and the economy it supports.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, this amendment, like some of the other amendments that we have seen, could be handled in the authorizing committee, which the gentleman is a member of, if memory serves me correctly.
The gentleman is in the majority. Call up, have a hearing, pass legislation, and then do it in a way that doesn't add more burdensome amendments and riders to this bill. The Senate is also controlled by the same party in the majority, and the President is of that party. So I would encourage the gentleman to go through what I would call regular order.
This amendment would prohibit the EPA from hiring scientists using its title 42 authority, the flexible hiring mechanism that allows agencies to attract and retain staff with outstanding scientific and technical skills.
This authority, as has been pointed out, is used by the EPA, the CDC, the NIH, and other agencies that require candidates who have specialized degrees in areas such as medicine, science, and engineering.
It is not always easy for the Federal Government to attract high- level professionals who have invested many years in school and could easily make more money in private practice or academia. In fact, we have heard that USGS and BLM quite often have problems keeping highly educated engineers in place because the private sector comes and offers them so much more money.
So the Federal Government has found it wise to allow these agencies to provide some additional funding to retain and recruit these employees. We should want to have the best and the brightest working for us and the American people--the best doctors, the best scientists, and the best engineers. So I am disappointed that the gentleman does not believe such highly specialized employees deserve the title 42 designation.
With our Nation facing crises like Lyme's disease, PFAS in our drinking water, and climate change, we should be investing in our scientists. We should be encouraging them to seek employment with the Federal Government.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, this amendment could go through a different order and not be placed onto an appropriations bill.
This is a shortsighted amendment. I think it deserves to have a fair and open vetting with the House concentrated on just what this would mean to the EPA. So I don't think we should attack Federal employees who sometimes have chosen to not receive as much compensation and devote their lives to public service.
Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the amendment is going to be withdrawn, but let me explain what this language would have done. To the best of my knowledge, the leases haven't been permanently withdrawn yet.
This language would have prevented the Forest Service and the Interior Department from acting to protect our Nation's most visited wilderness area. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is located in northern Minnesota, and it is one of the last truly undisturbed wild places in America.
It is a national treasure, and it is under threat from sulfide-ore copper mining. The proposed mine is next to the wilderness. There is no buffer, and there is no barrier here. It is literally in the same water.
Sulfide-ore mining is the most toxic industry in America. It pollutes waterways with acid drainage that contains arsenic, mercury, and lead.
The Forest Service recognized how damaging this type of mining could be to the Boundary Waters, so they proposed a 20-year halt to Federal mine leases in the watershed. They were urged to study this withdrawal by our Governor from Minnesota, Tribal Governments, and people from all across America who were worried that sulfide mining could destroy the surrounding waters and lands.
They have a right to be worried. All these mines have failed. In 2014, a sulfide-ore mine in British Columbia failed, dumping billions of liters of toxic sludge, causing permanent environmental damage.
So the Forest Service wisely decided to conduct a science-based assessment to see if mineral withdrawal would make sense for the water- intensive ecosystem of our Boundary Waters.
Now, Mr. Chairman, despite what you might hear about what the gentleman said, the proposed mining withdrawal is not some overreach or some past or current administration being out of line. In 1976, Congress established this exact review process under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Congress intentionally provided a way to protect our country's natural treasures and vulnerable places.
If the gentleman's amendment would have come to the floor for a vote and would have passed again, it would have stopped that review process. It would make the withdrawal study meaningless, because it dictates the outcome.
If this amendment had been on the floor and it would pass, the withdrawal of the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore mining would have been off the table no matter what the study would have said is best for the wilderness.
In every conversation I have had, and I have had many, with Secretary Zinke and Secretary Perdue, they have told me the same thing: The study should be completed.
So I hope my colleagues and the President would reject having these leases go through without having a study.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I reserved my time. The gentleman has withdrawn the amendment. Even though the amendment has been withdrawn, I don't have the right to close or I would have used my time.
Could the Parliamentarian instruct me as to if my time is actually gone.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, we do have a tradition of mining in Minnesota--taconite mining is the new mining--and I just want to reiterate the fact that these leases are for mining and the company that is looking to mine is sulfide-ore mining.
But, Mr. Chairman, I want to close by sharing some words from the founding members of Kids for the Boundary Waters. I have their handwritten notes. To have handwritten notes from America's young adults these days is pretty special.
From Callie: ``This unique place shaped my life. The Boundary Waters helped me to realize my potential.''
From Henry: ``I have watched year after year as families like my own have grown together in this wilderness.''
From Julia: ``The pristine, untainted waters of the Boundary Waters are essential to the quality and uniqueness of the journeys of visitors.''
From Tommaso: ``I am more committed than ever to help preserve and protect this beautiful and unique ecosystem for future generations.''
From Elsa: ``Once the watershed faces sulfide-ore copper mining, it will never be the same.''
From Joseph, who started this organization during his fight with leukemia: ``What cancer has taught me for sure is that sometimes life only gives you one chance to get things right, and this is our one chance to protect the Boundary Waters.''
I urge my colleagues and others to join me in standing with these young, inspiring people and to oppose the lease renewal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Grothman
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska has been enlightening me more about placer mining, and I appreciate learning more; but I have some questions that remain unanswered, so that is why I have opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
I understand that between 400 and 600 miles of BLM-managed streams have historic or active placer mining impacts, and there is a legacy of historic claim with reduction of ecosystem function.
Now, BLM continues various outreach activities, including public meetings and interactions with individual miners, and is working with industry to incorporate best management practices and new reclamation techniques to accelerate stream recovery. I think that would be a good thing.
Of course, reclamation activities may be necessary, and what they are looking to do is to increase the cost to the miners, which the gentleman is objecting to, if I understand correctly, in order to get these streams and ecosystems back up to function.
This amendment would prohibit assessing the cost of the reclamation areas to placer miners who are profiting from mineral extraction on BLM-managed land.
I personally believe the American taxpayer should not shoulder the burden of the restoration costs, that responsible parties should.
So the gentleman will probably be enlightening me over the next couple of months on what he thinks might be able to be worked out so that both parties feel that the burden is not over-burdensome, but there is adequate reclamation going forward.
Mr. Chair, at this time I have to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, it has been pointed out that this amendment would block the EPA from regulating air pollution under section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which deals with international pollution and allows the United States to work with other countries on transboundary pollution issues.
Being a State that borders Canada, we enter into agreements with them many times to make sure that both of our countries are working together in the best interest of their citizens.
This gentleman has offered this amendment for a number of years. It used to be the amendment to torpedo the climate change agreement, but President Trump took care of that, so I am a little unclear as to why it is continuing to be offered.
Section 115 could be a tool in our toolbox for a path to achieve reduction targets for greenhouse gases. The gentleman's amendment would prohibit both the EPA and the Trump White House from even developing a well-considered recommendation as to whether or not to use this authority.
The President might, in some circumstances, want to work with another country to address something. This to me is just the latest in a long line of attacks on clean air and on the EPA's authority to respond to the urgent threat of climate change.
A vote for this amendment is another vote, in my opinion, for climate denial and to block action to curb carbon pollution that is driving our dangerous climate change.
We see the hurricanes getting stronger, the wildfires raging stronger, and now we are seeing the glaciers melt.
Mr. Chair, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to leave this tool in the toolbox for the Republican administrator at EPA, as well as for the Republican person who is serving in the White House. Let's leave them one tool in the toolbox in case they want to take it out and use it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly would prohibit Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the endangered species listing of the New Mexico jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act. It would restrict the Service from offering critical protections to preserve the species.
This amendment is harmful. Once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife is primarily permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities.
Now, the majority of the habitat of the New Mexico jumping mouse is on Federal land, and Fish and Wildlife is working with the Forest Service to develop conservation measures that will protect the mouse while allowing livestock grazing on Forest Service lands and assuring adequate water for these cattle.
Since the endangered species listing, members of the livestock community have voiced concern about their impacts to people who recreate and make their livelihood on Forest Service lands, which result from addressing the needs of the mouse.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has established three working groups to address these concerns, and they have come up with some creative solutions, like establishing cattle lanes to assure cattle can have access to water while protecting the vegetation necessary for the survival of the mouse.
We have been in contact, and we find that there is a lot of excitement and there is a lot of cooperation going on. So I would like to work with the Service to make sure that we give this a full chance of working.
Under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to recover this species, though all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. So the Service wouldn't be able to continue to recover the species under this amendment, but all the other activities of the Endangered Species Act would still apply. So the Service wouldn't be able to work collaboratively any longer with stakeholders to provide ESA compliance.
The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered Species Act. Defunding the Agency's ability to fulfill these legal requirements just makes the Agency and the Federal Government more vulnerable to lawsuits, which is an unnecessary cost for American taxpayers.
Additionally, this amendment would limit the Service from undertaking a required status review of the subspecies or from initiating any rulemaking to downlist or even delist this species, when it became appropriate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wasn't here earlier, because he was attending to other work and now has come down to do his amendment, but I have been making the case that this type of authorizing language, these types of debates and discussions, should be taking place in the authorizing committee where we can bring in the Service, bring in the ranchers, find out what we need to do better to create win-wins.
When we just come and put things on the appropriations bill, it doesn't allow for that full vetting. It doesn't allow us that opportunity to work with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee after the authorizing committee is coming through and figuring out where we need to adjust the budget, or what we need to do, or how we need to do oversight to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing things that the gentleman is talking about.
So, an interesting thing, we got some information from the Service, and the Service has been working with the research community to expand the survey of the jumping mouse outside its currently known occupied areas. The goal of this expansion effort is to document additional populations. If they document additional populations, we could possibly move toward downlisting or delisting the species, as appropriate. But your amendment, unfortunately, would block that.
I would like to see this type of amendment be brought up under the majority--the majority is the same in the Senate, and the majority is in control of the White House--and have an opportunity to do the right kind of oversight to make sure that, when we are doing legislation with the best of intentions--if this survey were to come back and say that we could downlist or delist the species, this amendment would prohibit us from doing it.
So, at this time, I will oppose the gentleman's amendment. But I thank him for bringing this attention to the floor, and I will look more into it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in 2016, the Service officially removed the lesser prairie chicken from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife in accordance with the September 2015 court order vacating the Service's 2014 delisting determination, as the gentleman pointed out.
Now, the administration action was taken in light of the decision not to appeal the court's ruling. So they decided they weren't going to appeal, but they were going to try to move forward.
So the Service is currently conducting a species status assessment to characterize the current and future conditions of the lesser prairie chicken. The assessment takes into account both the threats and conservation efforts.
When I was in Nevada--I wasn't in your State, sir, but I was in Nevada with one of our other colleagues--I saw amazing work that was being done in collaboration, in fact, with an energy company, amazing work being done.
The gentleman from Nevada was unable to produce one prairie chicken for me to see that morning when we were out, but I believe that they are there and that the conservation is working, in spite of the fact that I didn't get to see one lesser prairie chicken.
But going back, the draft report was shared with peer and partner reviews, and the Service is working with them to get feedback. If the Service determines the listing of the lesser prairie chicken as threatened or endangered is warranted, it is unlikely that any rulemaking could be completed before 2018. So that would take 2 years, in which Congress could take action.
I would like the Service to be able to continue working closely with its partners, including State fish and wildlife agencies, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, industry, private landowners, and other partners, in the interest of conserving the lesser prairie chicken.
So what the amendment does, and why I am objecting to it, it halts, it stops, that transparent process that is working properly, that I saw in the field working properly and providing ample opportunity for public comment in how we could move forward.
So this amendment would make the decision. It would make the decision final about the conservation of the species on the basis of what is not, in my opinion, good science. So, at this time, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I hope all partners continue to work together.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment seeks to block collaborative water management in California. Such management is aimed at benefiting all water users, cities, farmers, Tribes, the fishing industry, and recreation interests.
Specifically, this amendment blocks Federal compliance with the California Bay-Delta Plan, which is a plan being developed by the State of California to prevent the collapse of California's iconic salmon fisheries, and to preserve all beneficial use of the State's water.
After a decade of research and public outreach, the State government is close to finalizing the Bay-Delta Plan. It will increase water flows into the California Bay-Delta from the San Joaquin River. The increased flows will improve salmon survival and prevent an unfolding ecological crisis in the Bay-Delta, which is key for the environment for the Bay and the Pacific Northwest fisheries, one of the most valuable and unique ecosystems in the world.
While multiple factors have contributed to recent salmon declines, a key factor has been unsustainably large water diversions from the California rivers. The Bay-Delta seeks to address this by reducing diversions and increasing river flow.
Mr. Chair, this obviously is an amendment which the author is very passionate about. This also is something that the State of California has engaged in.
This amendment, in my opinion, once again, should be something that should be handled in an authorizing committee so the State of California can come in, the gentleman and his proponents of what the State is doing can have a discussion, and then the authorizers can work their will and let the appropriators know whether or not to move forward on this.
To do this amendment here shuts out a full, transparent discussion about what should or should not take place in the State of California, where the California citizens all across the State have had input with their elected officials on how to move forward.
So this amendment seeks to undermine what appears to be a successful implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan, which California has seen as a necessary step toward preventing precious fishery declines and the loss of thousands of jobs that rely on healthy fish and functioning ecosystems.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time both sides have?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, at this time I will make my remarks to close.
This amendment is an attempt to get the Congress involved in undermining a State's rights and its prerogatives.
The Federal Government should be assisting California in ways to restore the State's rivers and recover needed fisheries, instead of trying to interfere with obstruction from Washington. I often hear my colleagues say that Washington should get out of the way. In this case, I totally agree.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment clearly would prohibit Fish and Wildlife Service from enforcing limitations or prohibitions on the use of genetically modified seed in commercial agricultural operations conducted on national wildlife refuges.
As the gentleman pointed out, in 2014, a decision to curtail the use of genetically modified seeds or crops, GMOs, for use on National Wildlife Refuge System lands by 2016 grew out of several years of litigation successfully brought against U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
During the term of the litigation, the courts did not allow the use of GMOs. As a result of this restriction, the refuges found that they were able to meet their biological objectives and accomplish their wildlife management purposes without the use of GMOs and that GMO use could be curtailed nationwide.
This approach avoids costly litigation for the taxpayers and the need for additional site-specific compatibility determinations and NEPA analysis of GMO crops. It is a saver of the taxpayers' dollars.
Fish and Wildlife Service has proven over several years that they can accomplish their wildlife objectives without the use of GMOs. However, Fish and Wildlife policy on biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health does allow for the use of GMOs when it is essential to accomplish the refuge purposes and is approved by the Regional Refuge Chief.
This amendment jeopardizes the current FWS policy that is based on years of experience. We should be supporting Fish and Wildlife Service and its efforts, not blocking the agency from doing its job.
Mr. Chair, once again, this is the appropriations portion of Fish and Wildlife. This clearly is something that has gone through the court system, that has gone through authorization. It is a policy discussion and it should be done in the policy committee. It should be done where people can come in and testify and have their debate in full transparency. It should be done then and brought to the floor.
Mr. Chair, the majority controls the House, the Senate, and the White House. I would encourage the author of the amendment to not use the appropriation bills to put more riders on.
The gentleman may or may not be aware, Mr. Chair, that the Senate has no riders on its bill at all. And I believe that this could really put the chairman and myself, as the ranking member, possibly at a disadvantage when we go to reallocate those precious dollars, with all the requests that we have had on the floor over the past 2 days, when we go into doing what our job is, the appropriations.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for this opportunity. I also thank the chairman of our subcommittee for accepting the amendment.
Mr. Chair, many cities don't have urban wildlife refuges nearby, and to address that challenge, the Service has 21 Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships spanning the country. These partnerships have nourished an appreciation of wildlife conservation to new audiences, and I have seen them in action, empowering local community organizations to inspire conservation in local parks and other natural areas.
I just want to list a few of these urban partnerships that can be found: New Haven; Chicago; Houston; Providence; Seattle; Baltimore; Los Angeles; Albuquerque; Santa Barbara; Yonkers; New Orleans; Denver; Philadelphia; Atlanta; Springfield, Massachusetts; Anchorage; Cincinnati; the twin cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, St. Paul being my hometown; Elizabeth, New Jersey; West Palm Beach, Florida; San Juan; and Alamo, Texas.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to learn more about this program.
Once again, I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I thank Chairman Calvert for accepting this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for the time, and I would like to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for accepting this amendment.
The chairman and I know the importance of museums and the wealth of knowledge that they share with the American public. And when we have the Smithsonian Day at our hearings, when the chairman puts the gavel down, everybody is in attendance to see what the Smithsonian is going to bring to the history lesson that it is going to share with the Members of our committee.
We are inspired, just as these museums inspire people of all ages, to better understand our world, and our place in it.
I am very pleased that the Smithsonian is going to be able to go forward with its public outreach programs, including exhibitions, programs, and online resources, which anybody can access. It ensures that as many Americans as possible can benefit from their vast collections.
At the Science Museum of Minnesota, we call it ``Museum in a Box,'' and I am glad the Smithsonian is going to continue with that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I want my colleagues to listen closely to what this amendment does. It prohibits funds to support the EPA's Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, which, since its inception in 1994, has awarded funding to local and Tribal organizations working with communities facing environmental justice issues.
These grants support and empower low-income communities to understand and address exposure to environmental harms and risks.
If there is a problem, if there is a grant that hasn't been done properly, then it is Congress' responsibility to do oversight. So, in my opinion, there should be no Member of this body that supports cutting these critical funds. If there are problems, we should be requesting oversight.
This is a case of David versus Goliath. With this amendment, small communities would be left defenseless when confronted with corporations that come in and sometimes cause illness due to their underlying pursuit of profit over human health.
Examples of these programs supported by these grants are: a program to promote Baltimore residents' awareness of lead health risks and lead abatement services. It is important to provide education:
Working with the residents in Puerto Rico to clean up coastal areas and reduce solid waste and aquatic debris. I was just recently in Puerto Rico watching the EPA work and clean up the debris, the unimaginable debris of the hurricanes that went through last year.
Working in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in one of the poorest and most populated cities in New England to educate families about lead contamination in soil, and, yes, sometimes that means knowing what is in the garden, what is in the yard, what is in the playground, as children touch soil contaminated by lead and then touch their faces and their mouths. The negative effect of growing vegetables in lead- contaminated soil can be life changing for children.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would gently remind the gentleman from Georgia that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. It is not a foreign entity.
I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), my dear friend and chairman of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just have to ask the question. Tragedies like the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, demonstrate the issues surrounding environmental justice to continue to persist in our country. So the question is: When did it become partisan to ensure children drink clean water?
This amendment ignores the need to identify and address disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. I urge, I implore the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Chair, if he suspects that there is waste in this program, let's do the oversight together.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and to stand with communities and the disenfranchised over corporations.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused, because it would be only when the Trump administration would decide to be a party of a lawsuit that this judgment would ever be used. So I would assume that you would trust the Trump administration to be overly judicious before involving itself with any suit, would you not?
I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is why I am confused, because this would be the Trump administration. The gentleman said, if I heard him correctly, Mr. Chair, that he would expect the Trump administration to be very judicious in using this.
So I find this amendment is extraneous. It puts the same parameters on attorneys' fees under the ESA, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that are already in place for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The Equal Access to Justice Act already caps the hourly rate of attorneys' fees, unless the court determines an increase in the cost of living or special factors such as limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings justifies a higher fee. And it requires the party to be a prevailing party.
Mr. Chairman, we don't need to add an extraneous, redundant provision to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders, especially when I trust that the Trump administration would be very limited and very judicious in ever using this.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time and my right to close.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. The Equal Access to Justice Act already provides a framework for legal fees related to cases in which the Federal Government is a party. I find myself standing here as a Democrat, a person who has been resisting almost everything that President Trump has been trying to do in the environmental arena and other arenas that affect healthcare and so much more, but I find myself defending the Trump administration's right in which they are a party to participate in the Equal Access to Justice Act, just as I did for President Obama's administration.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stop, take a minute, think about what this amendment is really doing, and agree with me that we should oppose this amendment. We should not stop the Federal Government when it is involved in cases and is a party from participating in the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source