Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly would prohibit Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the endangered species listing of the New Mexico jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act. It would restrict the Service from offering critical protections to preserve the species. This amendment is harmful. Once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife is primarily permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities. Now, the majority of the habitat of the New Mexico jumping mouse is on Federal land, and Fish and Wildlife is working with the Forest Service to develop conservation measures that will protect the mouse while allowing livestock grazing on Forest Service lands and assuring adequate water for these cattle. Since the endangered species listing, members of the livestock community have voiced concern about their impacts to people who recreate and make their livelihood on Forest Service lands, which result from addressing the needs of the mouse. The Fish and Wildlife Service has established three working groups to address these concerns, and they have come up with some creative solutions, like establishing cattle lanes to assure cattle can have access to water while protecting the vegetation necessary for the survival of the mouse. We have been in contact, and we find that there is a lot of excitement and there is a lot of cooperation going on. So I would like to work with the Service to make sure that we give this a full chance of working. Under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to recover this species, though all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. So the Service wouldn't be able to continue to recover the species under this amendment, but all the other activities of the Endangered Species Act would still apply. So the Service wouldn't be able to work collaboratively any longer with stakeholders to provide ESA compliance. The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered Species Act. Defunding the Agency's ability to fulfill these legal requirements just makes the Agency and the Federal Government more vulnerable to lawsuits, which is an unnecessary cost for American taxpayers. Additionally, this amendment would limit the Service from undertaking a required status review of the subspecies or from initiating any rulemaking to downlist or even delist this species, when it became appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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. Chairman, once again, this amendment could go through a different order and not be placed onto an appropriations bill. This is a shortsighted amendment. I think it deserves to have a fair and open vetting with the House concentrated on just what this would mean to the EPA. So I don't think we should attack Federal employees who sometimes have chosen to not receive as much compensation and devote their lives to public service. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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 reserve the balance of my time to close.

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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this rule promotes a generation of cleaner, more fuel efficient trucks. President Obama was right when he said: ``We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.'' This amendment is harmful, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. I yield back 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, as has been pointed out, this amendment would prohibit the implementation of Washington State's revised water quality criteria. This standard protects communities from exposure to toxic contaminants, such as PCB, arsenic, and mercury in the fish that they eat. Being from Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, I understand fish advisories very well. I often see signs that limit fish consumption for pregnant women, and for children in particular. This action, however, would ignore court decisions and the voices of Native American Tribes, Asian-Pacific Islander communities, and fishing interests, all of which agree that seafood consumption standards are necessary in order to protect public health and water quality. In fact, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission has asked that Congress reject this amendment because it puts the treaty rights that have been protected and the resources of Tribes in Washington at risk. Many native families subsist on the fish that they catch. Passing this amendment lowering water quality standards puts these families at greater risk of poisoning from their traditional foods. There is a lot of funding in this bill and some of the other bills that we have on the floor, Mr. Chairman, that work to prevent diabetes or to lower risk from diabetes with high blood sugar. Tribal nations are finding that returning to native foods, such as fish, is a great and excellent way of preventing or reducing the effects of diabetes. But after years of failure by Washington State to propose a protective standard, EPA finally put forth a standard which is more protective and meets the Clean Water Act requirements. Now, I understand that the regulated community has always been uneasy about what stricter standards might be. The revised water quality criteria take steps to address their concerns. The standard approved the use of new implementation tools, including a longer compliance schedule and intake credits. An intake credit means that, if the water comes to you with a pollutant and you don't discharge it, you are not responsible for having to remove it. So if you didn't pollute it, you are not responsible for cleaning it up. This amendment would circumvent all of the work that has been done to devise a standard that protects public health and water quality. Furthermore, Washington State officials believe that, despite the Congresswoman's good intentions--and I do believe that these are good intentions--this amendment would hurt the State of Washington. It would not actually help the dischargers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, when humans consume contaminated fish, it results in serious health impacts, such as cancer, organ damage and reproductive dysfunction, or impairment in brain development. High fish-consuming communities--as I have mentioned, Native American Tribes and Asian-Pacific Islander communities--need the protections afforded by this revised water quality standard. I would like to, for the Record, again state that this amendment is not supported by the State of Washington or the Tribal communities in the area. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Clearly, more work needs to be done. I look forward to having this amendment not pass and for people to get down to doing the serious work that needs to be done to address the gentlewoman's concerns. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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