Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

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.

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.

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.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

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.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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.

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.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I believe I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCOLLUM

Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), another Great Lakes State.

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I would like to clear up a little bit of information. There was a time a short while ago where the National Academy of Sciences asked the EPA, under the IRIS program, to tighten up their process. It needed fixing. It needed adjusting. The Agency reacted. They got an A-plus rating from the scientists now. So the fine-tuning that was unnecessary to make this good program even greater happened. But what this amendment would do is it would prohibit the EPA from funding the Integrated Risk Information System. Now, the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, is an electronic base containing information on human health effects that may result from exposure to various chemicals in the environment. This was developed by the EPA's staff with consistent information to uniform risk assessments and regulatory decisionmaking with respect to health effects from exposures to chemicals found in the environment. There is a chemical right now that has captured the attention of people all across the United States, in fact, across the world, and it is PFOS. We need now, more than ever, to be laser focused, working with IRIS to do everything we can to get the data and the information so we know the health effects from being exposed to these chemicals for both military and civilian people all across the United States. It is a very serious problem, and IRIS' program review process is widely considered to be a gold standard when it comes to accessing chemical toxicity. Now, it is based on extensive scientific literature; it is peer- reviewed; and IRIS' toxicity assessments are relied upon by programs at the EPA and across the Federal Government, by States, and it is because of the high quality of the assessments. Because these assessments assess risk across a variety of exposure paths, assessments can inform regulatory decisionmaking across all media offices in the EPA. So they can look at it holistically and be making very informed decisions. It is no surprise, Mr. Chair, that the chemical industry has long sought to undermine the IRIS program. From their point of view, the less the public knows about the risk from toxic chemicals, the more money the chemical industry can make. We ought to be looking out for the safety and welfare of the American people, not the bottom line polluters who profit from pollution. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from California for bringing it forward. This bill provides substantial funding to prevent and suppress wildfires. For the first time, this bill includes $2.25 billion in cap adjusted fire suppression funding, for a total of $5.2 billion for wildland fire management. Forest Service research and development is increased by $10 million to advance the understanding of wildland fires and climate adaptation. While the administration proposed to eliminate the Joint Fire Science Program, this bill includes funding at the fiscal year 2019 enacted level of $6 million. Hazardous fuels is $27 million more. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that we only have the fire cap adjusted funds for 2 years. We must ensure that any budget agreement includes the fire cap adjusted funds in future budget years. These critical funds will allow the Forest Service to fight wildland fires without borrowing from nonfire programs. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and I support this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?