Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I am very, very supportive of increasing funding in this important program, and I thank the chairman for his hard work, bipartisan work over the years in combating wildland fires. However, I simply cannot support the offset proposed for this amendment. Funding for the EPA in the base bill was already cut $1.8 billion below the enacted level, and this reduction makes it impossible for the EPA to carry out its mission. We need the worker bees of the EPA to keep the EPA moving forward for the American public. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, to be clear, I fully support the oversight efforts and believe in the mission of the inspectors general offices across this government. It is vital. When I was former chair of this committee, I supported their work. I supported their work as the former chair of the Defense Subcommittee and as ranking member, but I have to strongly disagree with the offset and the treatment of the EPA in this bill in general. In the base bill, the EPA is cut by nearly 20 percent. Almost every single account is cut except for the Office of the Inspector General; so, quite frankly, the inspector general's office does pretty well under this bill being protected. Cutting every single program at the EPA and seeking to increase funding for only one office, which happens to be the oversight office, is clearly an attempt by the majority to politicize the inspector general. That, to me, is just unacceptable, Madam Chair, so I oppose the amendment. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining for both sides?

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I appreciate Chairman Simpson's remarks, but I would like to correct a point that was made earlier in the debate. The bill already does include a provision to provide the IG with a percentage of funds from the IRA. It is on page 216, section 471. The gentlewoman might want to double check before making such a broad statement, again, that it didn't include any funding that could be used from the IRA. Mr. Chair, I still oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, first and foremost, I do not believe that the United States Government purchases oil from Russia. We have sanctions against them. We do not purchase oil from Iran. Mr. Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill rider that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law. The fluid mineral lease and leasing program rules haven't been updated for years, and it is our responsibility to make sure taxpayers get a good return on our natural resources when they are put out to lease. What this tries to do is just update these outdated fiscal terms on the offshore oil and gas leasing program, including bonding requirements to protect taxpayers, royalty rates, and minimum bids to make sure that U.S. taxpayers receive a fair amount for their public lands when they are used as lease materials. The rule aims to increase returns to the American taxpayers. I can't say this enough. It is to make sure that taxpayers are getting a fair shake, that they are assured of a fair return from the extraction of natural resources on public lands, and to discourage speculators and improve responsible stewardship as directed by Congress. We are here to protect the cultural and natural resources of our public lands for future generations, and that means when they go out to bid, we make sure that the royalty rates and the minimum bids serve the taxpayers well and bonding requirements to protect taxpayers are put into place. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I want to state another fact for the record. When we extract oil and natural gas out of public lands, it is sold on a global market, so when it is sold, it is sold to other folks. If we are running into energy independence challenges as was pointed out, part of that is because it is sold on the global market. I also want to point out for the record that it has been almost four decades since taxpayers have had bonding requirements, royalty rates, and minimum bids looked at to make sure they are protected. Let me close with this: Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law and trying to circumvent the rigorous practices that are in place to update rules. Nullifying public comments also would happen with this amendment. We can't close our eyes to the impacts of climate change that we are experiencing, as our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend upon a healthy ecosystem. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and being good stewards of our public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations. That means refreshing and updating almost 40-year-old oil, gas, and mineral leasing. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in the strongest opposition possible to this amendment. One of our greatest strengths as a nation is we learn, we grow, and we change. That means diversity is a great strength in this country. There was a time, Mr. Chair, when women couldn't vote. There was a time when juries were only men. There was a time when it was unthinkable for a woman to join a police department or a woman to be a doctor. Her place was to be a nurse. There was a time in our military in which women could be test pilots here at home during the war, but after the war, they were no longer allowed to be pilots in the sky flying commercially. Diversity, equity, and inclusion is DEI. The American experience is not a singular experience, and diversity programs exist to recognize this. I am going to give another example, Mr. Chair. When I was in the State legislature in Minnesota, we had a vibrant Hmong community that came here after the Lao war in Vietnam. It was a secret war in Laos. The Hmong people came here, and there were very outdoors people. In understanding and making sure that they understood our natural resource laws, we decided we wanted to reach out and include that diversity. I was part of the legislation that was written. We asked our natural resources department to look for qualified people to hire--from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia--to work with our wonderful diverse community in the Twin Cities and have them feel included and wanted because we wanted them to experience the great outdoors of Minnesota. We did that. They were well qualified and well respected. Just this year, I was surprised that one of the fathers came up to me when I was doing my recruitment and acceptance for going into the military academies. He said: You don't remember me, but because of you, I felt like I could do this job, and I did it well. He retired from the State of Minnesota working for the Department of Natural Resources, and I appointed his son to go to one of our military academies. That is the beauty of our country. The fact is also that business leaders agree that having a diverse and inclusive workforce is critical to their overall performance. I was in sales for years. If you are selling to somebody, you better understand their culture, and you better understand their needs and their wants. The business community embraces this. The attempt to defund or to block the implementation of these efforts only takes us back to a time in our Nation's diversity when women were not seen as an asset. I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I am not going to speak on this any longer. This has been replayed over and over and over again. For me, it is hateful, it is hurtful, and it is harmful. We amended our Constitution numerous times to include diversity and inclusion. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the amendment would block the Department of the Interior's Bicycle Subsidy Benefit Program which encourages Federal employees to use bicycles to commute to the office. We all know what the traffic is going to be like here tomorrow. Bikes would be handy. The Department created this program in response to a 1993--this is not a new, President Biden-Vice President Harris program. It has been around since 1993. Congress authorized it, and Congress allowed each agency head to establish a program to encourage employees to use a means other than single-occupancy motor vehicles to commute to and from work. That could include taking the subway, taking the bus, or riding your bike. This is a government-wide program, and the amendment unfairly targets the Department of the Interior employees. I urge my colleagues to treat all employees with fairness, and let's reject this amendment. Let's also make sure that when we are talking about it, we have our facts accurate. In 1993, Congress made a law which authorized each agency to establish this program. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill. This legislation houses some of the most important diplomacy, development, and defense initiatives for the United States and the world at-large. The programs that are funded through this bill serve some of the neediest populations in the world, helping millions of people gain access to clean water, safe shelter, nutritious food, and democracy development. Unfortunately, the bill before us today abdicates U.S. leadership in all of these areas. It eliminates funding for the United Nations and underfunds operations and staffing of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. It cuts funding for the Peace Corps and cuts a staggering $362 million from programs that improve maternal and child health around the globe. This bill ignores the existential threat of climate change, which affects the lives and livelihoods of families around the world, including here in America. Climate change is a known threat to our national security, yet there is no funding to help communities adapt to drought, rising coastlines, or extreme heat, and no funding to stop deforestation or recurring coastal flooding. Additionally, there is no support for adapting to renewable energy. Even in areas where we can usually find bipartisan agreement, this bill falls short. For example, the Feed the Future program, which has historically enjoyed bipartisan support across multiple administrations, received a $50 million cut. This program has helped feed 32 million children worldwide in the last year alone and has helped their families learn to farm sustainably and stand on their own. This cut will have devastating impacts on children and families that struggle with malnutrition and food instability. This is a deeply political bill that will diminish America's leadership on the worlds stage, make it more difficult for us to support our allies and deter our adversaries, and will ultimately jeopardize our national security. For these reasons, I ask that my colleagues vote against it.

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment banning sections of Executive Order No. 14019. This is another example of the majority proposing language that is not germane to this bill. Mr. Chair, call me a traditionalist, call me a person who respects the roles that different committees have, but this is not germane to this bill. Section 1 of the executive order states: ``The right to vote is the foundation of American democracy. Free and fair elections that reflect the will of the American people must be protected and defended.'' Section 2 states: ``It is the policy of my administration'' referring to the Biden administration ``to promote and defend the right to vote for all Americans who are legally entitled to participate in elections.'' Now, I don't understand the concern about this order since several places direct officials to conform to the laws of the United States. Furthermore, Mr. Chair, as I spoke about germaneness earlier, I don't understand how this amendment was made in order, especially when the Department of Defense bill has in the gentlewoman's amendment exclusions with reference to the military. In the amendment, which the Clerk has in front, it exempts sections 7, 8, and I believe it is 10. I am trying to do it from memory, Mr. Chair. Those sections deal with the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is totally excluded from anything that the gentlewoman would like to resolve with her amendment. Therefore, it makes it totally nongermane. For that reason alone, I strongly object to this amendment because it is nongermane as to this bill. The comments that have been made are about making sure that the Department of Defense somehow is making sure they follow the law. The Department of Defense is excluded in this amendment, so the gentlewoman's reference to the Department of Defense being laser focused on this amendment is very confusing to me, Mr. Chair, when it is excluded, and it is nongermane to this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I once again state, especially with the exemptions to the military, that this piece of legislation is not germane to the Defense appropriations bill. We have to stop in this institution putting nongermane issues, especially authorizing issues, into appropriations bills. We each have our roles, and we need to respect them. The gentlewoman is concerned about the Biden administration somehow doing something inappropriate by making sure that every American has the opportunity and the acknowledgment of when and how to vote. Maybe she is concerned, Mr. Chair, because the OSC, which is the Office of Special Counsel, found 13 violations by senior Trump administrators, including two violations in connection with the 2020 RNC. Their report outlined how these 13 officials used their authority to influence and interfere or affect the results of the 2022 Presidential election. Maybe that is why she is concerned, because she saw abuses in the previous administration. I believe this administration will uphold the law. They stated that they will. Mr. Chair, once again, this amendment is not germane to this bill, and it is not necessary, but I do share the gentlewoman's concerns that the previous administration violated the law. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) for the MTR, and I look forward to voting for it. Let me just add, the Ukrainian Supplemental Assistance Initiative has long-term spending which has been in the bill since 2016. As the gentleman pointed out, that is one of the reasons why Ukraine was ready to stand up to this unjustified, hostile invasion by Russia. Let us work together and coordinate closely with our allies. Let us support the MTR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 171 Offered by Ms. Titus

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. In the case of Ukraine, I continue to remain concerned that allowing these munitions to go onto the battlefield undermines our moral authority and places the United States in a position that contradicts 23 of our NATO allies, who have joined the convention on cluster mines. To be clear, though, I am a strong supporter of the Biden administration's policy in Ukraine. This is a difficult position that the Ukrainian military has been put in. Yes, Russia has used these types of munitions inside of Ukraine. When we were short on delivering the security that we promised Ukraine, cluster bombs became something that the administration put in the mix. I wasn't supportive of that, but I do realize that this is the choice between the lesser of two evils in the war that Ukraine has been forced to fight because of the Russian invasion. I want to get to a place where we don't have these choices in front of us and where we are not transferring these weapons. Mr. Chair, regrettably at this time, I will be unable to vote for passage of this bill. And I cannot recommend to my colleagues that they support it. Every Member in this chamber knows what needs to happen for this bill to become law. The partisan riders need to come out so the bill can get bipartisan support. Instead the bill now includes additional divisive amendments today that will further jeopardize Congress' ability to enact a Defense appropriations bill on time. And in doing so we are failing to heed Churchill's advice--to learn from history--and not repeat the mistakes from last year.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter dated November 1, 2023, and it is signed by some distinguished Members of this body: Roger Wicker, Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; James E. Risch, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Chairman Mike Rogers, Armed Services Committee; and Chairman McCaul of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 1, 2023. President Joseph R. Biden, The White House, Washington, D.C. Dear President Biden: We welcome reports that your administration has finally provided some limited range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to Ukraine. We remain concerned that the transfers of these shorter-range ATACMS occurred more than a year after Ukraine's public request for this capability, and we believe it demonstrates that your administration's reticence toward arming Ukraine continues. Although this transfer is a positive step, the job on ATACMS is only half-done: the United States has only provided a small number of the Anti-Personnel/Anti-Materiel (APAM) variant of ATACMS and these have a shorter range. We urge you to provide the unitary warhead variant of ATACMS which has a substantially longer range than the APAMS. In addition, we call on you to deliver the balance of U.S. APAMs given the Department of Defense's repeated inability to articulate a clear, current requirement for this weapon. Ukraine's requirement for deep-strike capability remains urgent, particularly to range targets throughout Crimea. Recent successful strikes on Russian targets in Crimea, including on Black Sea Fleet assets, demonstrate the strategic significance of long-range strike options and the relevance of the longer range ATACMS. It is a sad reflection that Ukraine had to rely, in part, on long-range missiles provided by allies to reach these targets in the face of your administration's continued self-deterrence. Ukraine must have the ability to break Russia's logistics network for Ukraine's offensive operations to truly be successful. We also regret that the administration has yet to provide Congress with the definitive status of the ATACMS inventory and warfighting requirements. We have received at least three documents from the Pentagon with substantively different numbers. Given the bipartisan congressional support for providing long-range ATACMS, we cannot understand the Department of Defense's inability to articulate ATACMS requirements. The bottom line is this: Ukraine has requested long-range ATACMS. Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to employ long- range missiles in a responsible and effective manner. Allies have already provided Ukraine with these capabilities, and Russia has clearly declined to escalate upon usage of deep- strike missiles. The United States has an arsenal of long- range unitary warhead ATACMS, a hot production line to backfill them, and affordable and executable paths to speed up delivery of the Precision Strike Missile follow-on capability. Clearly, it is time for you to finish the job on ATACMS. The costs of failing to do so not only risks stalemate on the battlefield and the further protraction of this war, but also threatens further global instability as our adversaries conduct influence operations around the globe. Sincerely, Roger F. Wicker, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee. Mike Rogers, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee. James E. Risch, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Michael T. McCaul, Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.