Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, over the past decade, Congress has provided Israel with more than $30 billion in security assistance. Israel's security is important, but according to UNICEF, Israel is the only country in the world that systematically uses its military to arrest, interrogate, and imprison children--Palestinian children--some as young as 12 years old. Countless cases of mistreatment, solitary confinement, and forced confessions have been documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and our own State Department. We must ensure that no U.S. tax dollars are supporting the mistreatment and abuse of Palestinian children. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 4391, a bill to prohibit U.S. funds from supporting Israel's violent military detention and abuse of Palestinian children. This abuse must stop. Peace in the Middle East can be achieved only by ensuring Israel's security, respecting human rights, and promoting equality and justice for all Palestinians.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the American Legion on its 100th anniversary and to welcome the 2018 national convention back to Minnesota where this venerable organization had its founding convention November 10-12, 1919. It is a special privilege to recognize the host of this historic gathering, the American Legion Department of Minnesota. Minnesotans are honored to welcome Legionnaires from across America. We are grateful for the many contributions the American Legion makes on behalf of all men and women who have worn the uniform through its 2.3 million members in 14,000 posts in communities across the United States. We also welcome National Commander Denise Rohan, the first woman to serve as National Commander of the American Legion. Only steps away from where this year's convention is being held in Minneapolis, the American Legion was founded 100 years ago. The American Legion is a voice for those who served in the U.S. Armed Forces and to assist veterans who were disabled through their service. Since its founding, the American Legion has been a driving force expanding services provided by the Federal Government for our nation's veterans and their families, including creation of the forerunner to the modern-day Department of Veterans Affairs. As the American Legion's advocacy and vision continued, services for veterans improved. In 1922, the American Legion Department of Minnesota created the Minnesota American Legion Hospital Association to provide medical care to veterans and their dependents at little or no cost. This groundbreaking effort helped to build the extensive hospital and clinic system of the VA Health Care Administration. Since the founding of the American Legion, women have been vital to the successful advocacy efforts on behalf of veterans. One hundred years ago, a Legion women's auxiliary group began to form robust child- welfare and hospital visitation programs. As a life member of the American Legion Auxiliary Post No. 39, North Saint Paul, Minnesota, I know firsthand the many contributions that local auxiliary posts make to our veterans, our community, our state and our nation. From drafting the original document that would later become the first GI Bill to the ongoing ``We Believe Campaign'' highlighting the positive impacts that veterans make on their communities, the American Legion continues its essential work to support our veterans and their families for their service and sacrifices. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Commander Rohan and the 2.3 million members of the American Legion as they meet to convene their 100th national convention in the place where it all started, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lifetrack on 70 years of providing high quality supportive services to some of the most vulnerable residents of Saint Paul, Minnesota and surrounding communities. Throughout decades of adaptations, Lifetrack remains constant in serving those in need, and empowering families to thrive through challenges. In 1948, injured veterans returning from WWII and families ravaged by the polio epidemic faced major obstacles. Lifetrack was born as a collaboration of social services agencies that embarked on a mission to provide speech, physical, and occupational therapies to these adults and children. Later, the organization launched vocational programs that aimed to prepare people for life and work after their rehabilitation. Services have continued to expand to assist families and individuals experiencing homelessness and new refugees. Lifetrack also now provides services to families of highly stressed and deaf and hard-of-hearing children to help them build social, emotional and life skills that can carry them through their lives. When individuals and families face adversity, a network of support is critical to resiliency. For the most vulnerable in our community, that support is not always available. Lifetrack strengthens our community by empowering families and forging connections. Staff and volunteers make it their mission to help individuals build their own support systems and by connecting them to services both within and outside the organization. All of us benefit when individuals and families have the tools to reach their full potential. For 70 years Lifetrack has worked to help the most vulnerable achieve better lives by building resilience, breaking cycles of trauma and hardship, and providing therapies that make working and living a comfortable life more attainable. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the staff, volunteers, board of Lifetrack on seven decades of remarkable service to the community.

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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 CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons and cut fuel costs by $170 million. And cutting fuel costs is always a good thing to go do. 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.

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