Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

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? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment highlights the very need for more funding in the EPA's Environmental Justice Program. As a Member of Congress, we should be appropriating adequate resources to ensure everyone--everyone--in this country enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental health hazards. This is clearly another example of why the interior bill should not have received flat funding and 302(b) allocation and the impact of not having a more transparent process. We should be standing up for our communities of color and for the children of color who are impacted by these hazardous pollutants to which they are subjected.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in great support of this amendment. Just last year, I dealt with a frightening situation in my district where a company abandoned its facility, leaving dozens of vats of drums of cyanide and various assorted other toxic chemicals. This facility was in the middle of a residential neighborhood with some neighbors only living 15 feet from the facility. There is a legacy of abandoned waste sites that must be dealt with, and the cost far exceeds what we can fund in our bill. This flat funding that we have with the 302(b) allocation is something that the chairman knows I feel very strongly about, and I want to be on record of supporting this, and maybe we also need to include the reinstating of a Superfund tax. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase that reduction and transfer $5 million to the National Forest System account, and as the gentleman explained, the funding would be used for the purpose of eradicating illegal marijuana growing operations in the national forests, and that is something that I support. I know we work on it in Minnesota, and we have worked on it in our State forests. So I agree that this work is very important. I worked to ensure this funding was included in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus bill, so the funding is already provided, and now it is part of the program's base. So the amendment, to me, is unnecessary because the program is already funded, but the offset is also problematic. The Forest and Rangeland Research account fund does scientific research that informs policy and land management decisions regarding such issues as I know we all care about: wildfire, fuels research, invasive species, which also can, especially in our forests, lead to the forest being less healthy so they have less resilience to wildfire, and new, innovative ways to harvest forest products, which in my State and many States is very important. This amendment, I don't think is intended to, but I do believe it could negatively impact bipartisan programs like the Forest Products Laboratory and the Forest Inventory Analysis program. So, as I mentioned, I am opposing this not because I don't think we need to work on eradicating illegally grown marijuana in our public lands, but because this program is already in part of the base, and the offset is problematic for many of the shared goals I think many of us in this body have. So with that, I oppose this amendment, and I currently don't plan on speaking on it again. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear. I understand that this amendment would direct more funding to States in Appalachia who have suffered from the ravaging environment caused by coal mining, and that is a very noble goal, as I said before. But at this time I have to oppose this amendment. Once again, I want to point out, we were level funded in our allocation in the Interior bill that we are debating today with amendments, and I cannot support any further deeper cuts to the EPA. But as the chairman moves forward and as we go to conference, if we can start restoring some of the funds to the EPA, I would like to work with the gentleman to restore some of the funds to this also important program; but at this time I have to oppose. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I think what the gentleman from New Jersey is talking about is something that I am supportive of, but I am not supportive of the offset. As the gentleman is aware, our 302(b) allocation was level-funded, and the 2018 omnibus bill provided $5 million to implement the Delaware Basin Conservation Act in FY19. An additional $5 million is provided, so it is a total of $10 million. The offset to the amendment is what I have an objection to, not the gentleman's goals. The offset the gentleman uses does not require a one-for-one match. The offset that he is using in order to move forward would reduce Fish and Wildlife Service construction by $3.85 million, and it has already been cut by $6 million. So the total cut to Fish and Wildlife construction would be $10 million at the end of the gentleman's amendment. At this time, I am going to object to the amendment, but I would work with the gentleman and the chair to not only get a higher 302(b) allocation, but to find a different offset.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Point of parliamentary inquiry. Could our side have an opportunity to look at the amendment? We haven't had an opportunity to see it. We do not know whether or not we would object. It might be a friendly amendment to us. Permission to Consider Amendment Nos. 16 and 17 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Ohio En Bloc

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I am honored to stand up and support Historically Black Colleges and Universities and, as has been pointed out, the important role that they play in our education system. Adding additional resources to preserve these structures on these campuses is necessary to maintain them. Madam Chair, I am very honored to represent many people from the Oromo community who are proud alumni from HBCUs. I stand with the gentleman to make sure that we have the resources needed for African American preservation and history, not only to have passed along our appreciation of our Nation's history to future generations, but to give the next generation great buildings to be educated in.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, to the gentleman who is offering the amendment, I appreciate his goal of wanting to address backlog. I would love to address more of our national park's backlog. But as I pointed out, the Land and Water Conservation Fund also has broad bipartisan support and has already taken a cut of $65 million below the FY18 budget level. So increasing access to our public lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities has bipartisan support, just as addressing the deferred maintenance. So if we can see an increase in the 302(b) as we move forward in committee, I am sure the chairman would consider that, and I would be very much in support of working something out. But at this point, I am adamantly opposed to cutting the Land and Water Conservation Fund any further. With that, I would tell my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I would like to thank Ranking Member Lowey as well as the full committee chair for their work, but I would like to give a special thanks to Chairman Calvert and his staff, whom he mentioned by name, and of course my wonderful staff, including my personal staff, for working together using a collaborative approach to help us move forward. The subcommittee has a challenging portfolio of issues, and I commend the chairman's efforts to maintain many of the fiscal year 2018 investments, such as addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance on Federal lands and investing in Indian Country. I want to express how sincerely proud I am of this subcommittee's nonpartisan approach to addressing the issues facing our Native American brothers and sisters. I am pleased that the bill recommends an increase of $410 million over the fiscal year 2018 enacted level for programs critical to Indian Country. The health, education, and safety of our Tribal communities is a Federal responsibility that our subcommittee takes very seriously, and that is the one bright spot in this bill; but, unfortunately, other important priorities for the American public did not fare as well. Even though the fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee allocation is equal to the fiscal year 2018 enacted level, the majority is proposing a $100 million cut from the Environmental Protection Agency, which is just untenable. The cuts in this bill would target air and water quality programs, reduce Federal funding to enforce the law against polluters, and, if enacted, they will undermine the EPA's ability to keep our families and communities healthy and to protect our environment for future generations. We are at a defining moment in history. The Interior bill has an opportunity to make a global difference in the quality of life for generations to come, but, sadly, this bill is a mirror of the Trump administration's actions and disregard for the environment. We cannot afford to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence the planet is warming, sea levels are rising, and glaciers are melting. We must do more, not less, to pursue policies and programs that will put us on the right path to conserve and protect our natural resources and the planet we call home. The bill before us also reduces funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by $65 million from the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. This program has strong bipartisan support. It conserves natural areas and provides recreational opportunities in all 50 States. The American people expect us to be good stewards of our public lands and wildlife, but this bill falls short on that commitment. In addition to the irresponsible cuts to the EPA, I must express my concern and my disappointment to the 18 partisan riders in this bill that pander to special interests at the expense of the public good. These riders undermine clean water and clean air safeguards, jeopardize protection and recovery for vulnerable species, and even intercede in California water issues outside of the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. The Senate has committed to work in a bipartisan manner to keep controversial policy riders out of their appropriations bills. I agree with that strategy and believe these policy issues should receive a full and transparent debate in the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. Congress must stop holding the government hostage over these ideological policy riders. And, finally, it is impossible to talk about the bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency without addressing the ethical problems that have plagued this administration and were embodied by the former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. There is ample evidence that the former Administrator was misusing Federal dollars for lavish expenses and prioritizing the interest of corporations over protecting America's families. Mr. Pruitt may be gone from the Agency, but Congress should be doing considerable oversight to ensure that a culture of transparency and accountability is restored at the EPA. We should also be doing our best to ensure that every agency we fund is not abusing taxpayers' dollars. So I am deeply disappointed that my Republican colleagues voted down multiple amendments in our committee markup that would have held up our responsibility for oversight and adequately funded ongoing investigations. They also denied several more Democratic oversight amendments a chance to come to this floor for debate today. Madam Chair, this bill fails the American people. It cuts environmental protections. It removes safeguards for our air and water and endangered species and allows rampant corruption in the executive branch to go unchecked. I know we can do better than this, and it is my hope we will do better after conference.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank Mrs. Lowey for yielding. So despite my current opposition, I intend to continue to work with the chairman through this year's appropriations process to produce a responsible bill that I know we can have both parties support in the end.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund support public land conservation and ensure access to all the outdoors for all Americans. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, all 50 States enjoy and appreciate access to this fund. The House bill provides $360 million which is $65 million below the fiscal year 2018 level. So this account has already seen a cut. So I think that the committee made it very clear. We are very concerned about deferred maintenance in the national parks. The FY18 budget provides a $40 million increase over the FY18 enacted levels for facility operations and maintenance. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment that takes more money from an already starved EPA account. This bill already severely cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's operating account by more than $100 million. The air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the funding and policy decisions that are made in this bill, and the consequences will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation. It is unfortunate that our 302(b) allocation was level funded, and I am sorry to hear that the gentleman's account in which he is trying to restore funding also received a cut. I often know that cutting the EPA is an easy target for many of my colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Chair, but I want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would cut, if adopted. This account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle: permitting construction projects across the country, toxic risk prevention, and a successful brownfields program, and even pesticide licensing. I understand that the amendment would direct more funds to States in Appalachia who have suffered ravaging environmental costs caused by coal mining, and, once again, I want to stress that it is unfortunate that you are trying to restore funding that had been cut, but our allocation was very short. Unfortunately, I cannot support any deeper cuts to the EPA because they will have consequences that will be felt by people all across the country, so I must oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Robert Holmstrom of Maplewood, Minnesota. Earlier this year he, along with 13,000 men and women who formed the ranks of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Their heroic actions during World War II contributed greatly to the success of our nation's war efforts. So consequential were the missions they carried out that Robert and those with whom he served were sworn to secrecy for 40 years. The OSS served as the preeminent intelligence and special operations organization over the course of World War II and the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency. The OSS ``organized, trained, supplied, and fought'' in both the European and Pacific theaters, playing a decisive role in the Allied victory over Axis forces. The ranks of the OSS were comprised of exceptional citizens as well as members of every branch of the armed services. Their work was often conducted under conditions of extreme danger and in the most intense environments. The tide of the war may very well have turned against the Allies had it not been for the perpetual bravery and success of the men and women of the OSS. An Army Air Corps-trained pilot, Robert Holmstrom was recruited to fly missions for the OSS. Conducted under Operation CARPETBAGGER, the missions would take him and a crew, in a blacked-out B-24, deep into Nazi occupied France where they dropped weapons, equipment, and OSS agents to assist French resistance fighters prior to the Allied invasion at Normandy on D-Day. Often flying in weather deemed unsafe for regular missions, and only on moonlit nights so as to see the resistance fighters signaling them with flashlights, these airdrops were often flown at very low altitudes. Between January of 1944 and May 1945, the men and women working under Operation CARPETBAGGER, completed 1,860 sorties and delivered 20,495 containers and 11,174 packages of vital supplies to the resistance forces in western and northwestern Europe. Their success and bravery earned them the moniker of ``Carpetbaggers''. Mr. Holmstrom returned to Minnesota where he had a long and successful career in Airline Plant Protection for Northwest Airlines. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Robert Holmstrom and the many others like him, who so admirably served our nation in the Office of Strategic Services during WWII. In a time of unparalleled challenges, their bravery helped to lead the U.S. and our Allies to victory.