Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

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

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. 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. 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 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. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

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, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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, 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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment. Climate change threatens the health and welfare for current and future generations. As the gentlemen have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, industry has moved-- has moved, in part, because of pressure from the EPA, and, in part, because of just the financial loss of allowing this methane gas to escape into the atmosphere. It is dollars that are burning up. These are precious resources that we are taking from the Earth, and we should make sure that we don't waste any of it, and that is why I think the EPA rule should not be delayed. As has been pointed out, industry has the ability to capture this methane. It has the ability to make money from it, and I want to just make sure that we encourage everyone in the industry to move forward. Mr. Chairman, let me the give you an example. The Bakken Oil Field, which is in North Dakota--I am very familiar with it because I spent many a summer in that area--burns brighter than the entire metropolitan area of the Twin Cities at night because of the flares from the methane that are being burnt. That energy should be captured. It should be saved. We should be conservationists for future generations. We must take action, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 believe I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very harmful rider, and it would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of carbon as part of rulemaking. The social cost of carbon is an estimate of economic damages associated with small increases of carbon dioxide emissions in a given year. It represents the best scientific information available, incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory analyses. Weakening or eliminating use of social cost of carbon as a tool for Federal agencies that would ignore the sobering cost of health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts. We cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, so I strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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