Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 2020 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member of the full committee and also my ranking member, Mr. Joyce, for all of his collaboration.
I want people to know that this bill is the proud work, hard work, and collaboration of our subcommittee, which held 16 hearings. We received over 6,000 requests from Members of Congress, and we worked hard to make a bill that reflected the priorities of the entire House.
I also want to note that this bill makes critical investments for the American people and for our planet. It does that because the subcommittee had a recommended total of $37.3 billion in discretionary funding. That is an increase of $1.7 billion over last year.
We also were able to include this year, because of hard work by the subcommittee led by Mr. Simpson last year, an additional $2.25 billion in fire cap adjusted funds for suppression operations. That is really important for the Forest Service in order to fight wildland fires without borrowing from nonfire programs.
Some of the biggest increases in this bill, however, honor our Federal and treaty trust responsibilities to provide for the health, safety, and education of our Native American brothers and sisters.
Mr. Joyce and I, Mr. Chair, worked on this in a very nonpartisan fashion with the entire subcommittee. We can be proud that this bill continues to move us in the right direction in honoring our treaty and trust obligations.
In fact, this bill invests over $10 billion to support and strengthen Tribal self-determination, including $1 billion, the highest ever recommended, for the operation of Native American education programs. As I said, Mr. Chair, we did that together in the subcommittee in a nonpartisan way.
For many other agencies in this bill, however, the Trump administration had devastating cuts.
The President's request was a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, and that cut would have prevented the EPA from its mission to keep our communities safe and healthy.
In fact, under President Trump's watch, yesterday, the administration rolled out what many of us call its dirty power plan. We have evidence from the scientific community to say that it could contribute up to 1,400 premature deaths annually.
Democrats are fighting back on this bill with important investments to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. We boost support for the EPA's Clean Air Markets programs by $25.6 million, and we increase congressional oversight to make sure that there aren't any rollbacks attempted to put the public health at risk.
We also fund the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund at the authorized level, and we target resources needed to address drinking and wastewater needs.
This bill also takes a huge step forward in building on what was started in the Defense bill that we voted on earlier this week to address the crisis of PFOS, which is contaminating our water.
I am very proud that, after the President signed a bipartisan bill to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund even though the President zeroed it out in his budget, we chose to invest $524 million in LWCF.
I would like to conclude by talking about climate change for a second. As we know, the administration has cut everywhere it can to decimate Federal funding to do research and combat and adapt to climate change. Our bill does the opposite. It boosts funding for climate change research, tracking and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, and energy and water efficiency programs in the EPA. The U.S. Geological Survey has its role to play on climate, and we support that. It also restores very important programs on this that were eliminated in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
This bill recognizes the importance of science to understand the impacts of climate change in our natural and cultural resources, in our ecosystems, and in human health.
It is a good bill, and I think as we go through it, Mr. Chair, and listen to the amendments we can make a good bill even better.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, as the designee of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I offer amendments en bloc.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order under the rule. I support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would exempt certain small incinerators in Alaska from being regulated under the Clean Air Act.
My good friend knows that this amendment is fundamentally different from what was done in the 2019 bill. That language barred incinerator rules adopted in 2011 from being enforced but left in place the pre- 2011 rules governing those facilities.
This amendment would bar enforcement of any Clean Air Act rule, and, for me, that is unacceptable.
These incinerators, as the gentleman pointed out, are currently burning, but what they are releasing is some of the most noxious air emissions in the country, some of the most grievous.
It is critical that we ensure that we are complying with clean air regulations. There have to be some rules to this.
We have an obligation to protect the health and safety of all Americans, and exempting incinerators in the way that this language is currently written, for even small and remote ones, from the Clean Air Act regulations is just something I can't accept at this time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said, I understand the gentleman's concerns, but the fact is that this is fundamentally different from what we did in the FY20 bill in working with the lead Senator from Alaska, who is the counterpart on the Interior appropriations.
This just goes too far. So, I oppose this as it is currently written, and I can't go just supporting this, because it completely, completely eliminates the Clean Air Act rules.
I offer the gentleman an opportunity to go in front of the authorizing committee, and, at that point, if he wants to talk some more and we can figure out a way to create a win-win, I would be happy to help him in the authorizing committee; but I cannot support this amendment as it stands, eliminating the rules for clean air, at this time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, we should not be facilitating the hunting of species in countries that do not have good domestic conservation programs and have not demonstrated established, sound, science-based management programs.
The Interior bill recognizes the importance of these iconic species and the role they play in the ecosystem. It is imperative to conserve these species, especially in light of the recent UN report on biodiversity that warns us that 1 million species face extinction.
This amendment supports the committee's efforts to ensure the survival of elephants and lions for future and present generations. I support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, I offer amendments en bloc.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the amendments included in the en bloc have been made in order by the rule and have been agreed to by both sides.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendments and urge their adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), another Great Lakes State.
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. 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. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, whether or not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to admit it, climate change is real. It is caused by human activity. And it will--I should say, it is even currently now having devastating impacts. If we don't take bold action to reduce climate pollution, it is only going to get worse.
I believe we also have a moral obligation to future generations to leave this planet better than we found it. Limiting pollution from power plants is an important part of an overall strategy to limit carbon pollution and keep global temperatures from rising to levels that will bring unacceptable risks from extreme weather and other climate change impacts.
Therefore, I was extremely disappointed that, on Wednesday, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced a rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan, replacing it with a rule that will lead to 1,400 more deaths each year.
Those numbers, Madam Chair, are the EPA's numbers. Just think of it.
The administration that is held with the responsibility of protecting America's air and water so that it is fit for human consumption puts out a regulation to limit the pollution that actually increases the amount of pollution that we emit, causing more deaths, more asthma attacks, more trips to the emergency room.
Every year we continue to see communities devastated by natural disasters related to our changing climate. We are spending billions of dollars each year helping these communities rebuild in the wake of those disasters.
We need action to limit climate pollution. Blocking action to limit carbon pollution from power plants is a step backwards at the exact same moment we should be leaping forward towards cleaner forms of energy.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I believe I have the right to close.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, to be clear, many States supported the clean energy rules of the Obama administration because they know air knows no boundary. So one State decides it is not going to have clean air rules, and that drifts into the next State, affecting that State's health and quality of life. So it was prudent for the Federal Government to step in and set standards.
No one's power plant was going to be forced to be closed. They were just being told to clean up the air. So when it leaves one State to drift into the next State, it is not causing asthma attacks for children.
I believe we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave this planet better than we found it. Limiting pollution for power plants is an important part of an overall strategy to protect us from the worst impacts of climate change. We owe it to the next generation. They are watching our actions.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, we have many fine employees at the EPA-- great employees--and I would be hesitant to put them in the way that sometimes the term ``bureaucrat'' is used, because sometimes that can feel demeaning. So, to the great scientists in the EPA, I just want them to know that I respect their work.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition, as I said, to this amendment, which would prevent the EPA from implementing its endangerment finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.
The EPA's endangerment finding is simply a legal restating of something that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said. Every single scientific academy in the world--and I want to stress that, Madam Chair. I heard the gentleman talk about some kind of peer review, but I am going to go with what the national scientific academies in the world and 97 percent of climate scientists have been telling us for decades. I am going to go with 97 percent of the scientists, Madam Chair.
Whether or not my colleague on the other side of the aisle will admit it, our climate is changing. We know it in Minnesota, and I hear other people from around the country talk about it. And we do know that it is caused by human activity.
We are already experiencing negative impacts from climate change. The severity of those impacts will only increase if we don't reduce climate pollution.
The endangerment finding does not regulate climate pollution, but it does say that we need to take action to address it, and I agree.
We have a moral obligation to future generations to leave this planet better than we found it. Blocking the endangerment rule won't make that happen for future generations.
Madam Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Once again, what I see is delay by not going with scientists around the world.
Madam Chair, 97 percent of the scientists leading the way on what we should be doing clearly state that human activity has a direct impact on climate change. We can't ignore the dangers of it.
We need urgent and bold action to address climate change. We don't need to be putting our heads in the sand. We don't need to be delaying.
I oppose the taxpayers of this country spending more money when we already have sound science. I oppose wasting time. So I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment in order to be able to speak on it.
The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank both gentlemen for their concern and dedication to this issue. In the 1990s when I served in the Minnesota House on our environment and agriculture committee, I first learned of chronic wasting disease and the way that it was frightening hunters and people who like to consume deer meat.
We took some action when I was in the statehouse to address this, only to find out it is a bigger flare-up and something that we need to address.
In my home State of Minnesota, under the leadership of Governor Walz, we are putting more time, more energy, and more resources into working on this issue. That is why my colleagues will find that the House report accompanying the Interior bill highlights the committee's concern about chronic wasting disease and the need to continue to collaborate with partners to develop early detection tools and compounds to disrupt the transmission of this deadly disease.
As of June 7, 2019, chronic wasting disease has been reported in at least 24 States in the continental United States as well as in two provinces in Canada. Once this disease is established in an area, the risks can remain for a long time in the environment, and we are finding out that ``a long time'' is a long time.
The lack of treatment or vaccines for this insidious disease highlights the need for more research. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, we have been talking to the USDA about what we can do about disposing of these carcasses because this disease not only appears in the wild, it also appears in some captive herds that are used for consumption.
I want my colleagues to know that I look forward to working with them on this issue. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to let both gentlemen know that it is in the report language, and we look forward to the authorizers working more so we can do even more to address this disease.
Madam Chair, I thank the gentlemen once again for their amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment that would strike section 118 from the bill.
I want to begin by setting the record straight on what section 118 of the Interior bill does and does not do. The opponents of this amendment have characterized the Interior language as preventing energy leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. That is an outright misstatement, Madam Chair. Although, as I will explain, I can understand why those who championed the inflated revenue numbers 18 months ago might be a little worried.
On the contrary, the language says that when the Department of the Interior offers those leases up for sale, it simply must make sure that the sale raises more than the $500 million that was promised.
In 2017, the Republicans were putting together their tax bill. The budget resolution directed the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to come up with legislation that would raise $1 billion over 10 years.
Since the lease, that $1 billion was supposed to help offset the cost of a $5 trillion tax cut. In reality, I believe it was a scam to get around a point of order. Once the ANWR provision was included in the tax bill, the Congressional Budget Office said the provision would raise little more than $2 billion over 10 years, and, by law, half of those revenues go to the Federal Treasury and half go to the State of Alaska.
According to the CBO, which got its information from the Interior Department, the first resale was going to raise $1 billion with $500 million going to the Federal Government. Well, if that $500 million is what the Interior Department told CBO they could raise from our public lands, then they should have no problem with the language in our bill, because that is exactly what our language does. It tells the Interior Department that if you decide to go forward with the lease sale next year, then you need to raise the $500 million you promised the American people. That is called accountability, and the taxpayers have a right to expect it.
Now, since we don't know exactly how many acres Interior intends to offer up for lease, and we can't know the exact per acre dollar amount, but if the department leases a minimum of 400,000 acres required by law, then all it needs to do is put out a lease sale requirement to the companies to bid $2,500 an acre for these public lands.
Apparently, the administration and the congressional opponents are having second thoughts about those promises now and want a little amnesty. On May 21, the Office of Management and Budget sent the Appropriations Committee a letter making it clear that the administration opposes section 118 language. OMB says that the $500 million figure was arbitrary and unrealistic.
Now, how could the administration claim that that number was arbitrary and unrealistic when CBO estimates were based on the administration's data?
Where was OMB in December of 2017 when CBO first came out?
More importantly, where were the congressional opponents of drilling ANWR back then?
Why didn't they sound a little alarmed 18 months ago?
Why not speak up and say: ``Wait a minute, I think this number is too high, maybe it is unrealistic''?
Well, I suspect they thought they would never be held responsible for the projections that they were touting back then, and maybe that explains why the language in the Interior bill is characterized as preventing lease sales. Supporters know that the department is required to live up to the promises everyone made, and they may be unattainable to achieve.
So let me be clear. I oppose opening up ANWR for drilling. But now that it is in the tax bill, we have an obligation to make sure that the American taxpayer is protected, and the language currently in the Interior bill does exactly that, Madam Chair. It ensures that the public property is not given away to the oil and gas industry for a song.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. May I inquire how much time I have on closing, Madam Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Well, Madam Chair, facts speak for themselves. This sale was used to offset the tax bill, to keep the American people confident that we were going to have our house in order when the tax bill passed. Well, the first sale was supposed to guarantee $500 million, and if they get less than that on the first sale, as the gentleman said, how much lower does it go on the second?
I just remind people that we need to protect the American taxpayer on this one and make sure that we don't get taken to the cleaners.
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this amendment would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing commonsense rules requiring oil and gas industries to prevent natural gas leaks from their drilling operations. The rule has been in effect for 3 years now, and the oil and gas industry is complying with those regulations.
Preventing methane leaks has an important public health benefit. Leaks from natural gas operations are significant sources of ozone pollution which trigger asthma attacks and send thousands of children to emergency rooms every year.
This rule actually saves the oil and gas industry money because natural gas that is not wasted can be sold.
The proponents of this amendment argue that the rule isn't necessary because oil and gas companies have an incentive to prevent leaks. But the simple fact is leaks continue to happen unless companies are required to prevent them. People might not like eating their vegetables, but we are all better off for doing it.
Madam Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, we know for a fact that methane leaks contribute to ground level ozone pollution. We know that that is harmful to human beings. We do know that reducing leaks improves the bottom line for the oil and gas companies.
So I oppose this amendment. And I want to stand with common sense to do everything possible to keep these leaks from happening in the future.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source