Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I fully support a long-term extension of FAA authority, and I am very concerned that the expiration on September 30th will have serious consequences for our air safety and economy. Congress owes the American people a bill that will provide stability for our air traffic controllers and keep our skies safe. So I am extremely disappointed that the Republican leadership has decided to attach a number of controversial and partisan policy provisions that are not germane to air travel and for that reason, I cannot support the bill in its original form. For example, this legislation contains provisions that relate to hurricane disaster relief and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Unfortunately, this bill does not extend reauthorization, increase borrowing authority, or address the overall stability of the NFIP. Instead, Republicans have decided to use this legislation as a vehicle to develop the private flood insurance market. Furthermore, the provisions providing tax relief to hurricane victims are woefully inadequate in assisting our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Additionally, while this bill extends authority for a number of health care programs, Republicans have decided to disregard essential bipartisan priorities like the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Community Health Centers. These programs require immediate reauthorization, and failure to do so will leave states like Minnesota without money to provide healthcare for babies, children, and expecting mothers. Community health centers across the country will lose the support they need to provide basic healthcare. Some will even be forced to close. The bill also fails to address the urgent need to reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program. While a short-term extension is included for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, the funding is inadequate. Mr. Speaker, these are all important issues, and deserve immediate Congressional action, but the only way to solve them is with bipartisan solutions. Half measures and political games will only waste more time, and Democrats stand ready to work with our Republican colleagues to address each of these issues in a more thoughtful way. The Republican leadership has had nine months to work out a bipartisan, long-term solution for FAA Reauthorization. Instead of working with Democrats to pass a customary multi-year reauthorization, the Republican leadership waited until the last minute to push forward only a six month patch. Republicans then wasted more time by including a number of unrelated and partisan provisions that had nothing to do with FAA Reauthorization. Their decision to include a provision that would have effectively dismantled the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) ensured that the previous version of this bill would never pass the Senate. We owe the American public and our air traffic controllers better. Playing political games with something as important as airline safety is unacceptable. Failure to reauthorize FAA authority would leave our air traffic controllers and the travelling public at great risk. Not only would a lapse in reauthorization mean furloughs for tens of thousands of air traffic controllers, but it would also force vital airport improvement projects to come to a halt. The effects of this shutdown would have serious implications on America's economy and air safety. Now that the Senate has stripped out the most controversial provisions of this legislation, I am able to support it. However, Congress must put aside partisan differences, work together, and produce a long-term extension that our airline industry so desperately needs

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on September 28, to celebrate the first ever National Bakery Day and to honor our independent bakeries. Local and family-owned bakeries put bread on our tables and a touch of sweetness in our lives, all while reflecting the uniqueness of our neighborhoods. They're small businesses that invest in Main Street and provide good jobs and give back to our communities in many ways. Grandma's Bakery, in White Bear Lake, Minnesota and others like it around the country succeed along with their communities. Located in historic downtown White Bear Lake, Grandma's owners John and Deb Lupo employ 100 hundred staffmembers making delicious breads, delectable pastries and other goodies. By investing in the bakery and the community, John and Deb have grown Grandma's Bakery into a beloved institution and a destination in White Bear Lake. All across Saint Paul and the East Metropolitan area, independent bakeries are part of the lifeblood of their neighborhoods--like Dorothy Ann Bakery in Woodbury, the excellent Saint Paul bakeries A Piece of Cake, Wuollet's, PJ Murphy, Trung Nam, Morelos, Mojo Monkey Donuts, Pancho Villa, and so many others. Bakeries are special places that deliver wholesome goodness and a place for neighbors to gather. National Bakery Day is a way to celebrate not only the important role that bakeries play in our lives, but also the creativity and talent required of bakers to make the tasty baked goods that are so hard for us to turn down. Bakeries help us preserve and enjoy the individual character of the community and the traditions passed down from generation to generation. Bakeries are with us not only during meals, but also during important and joyous moments in our lives such as weddings, birthdays and graduations. In recognition of National Bakery Day, I thank independent, local bakers around the country for the important place that they hold in our communities.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman wrote recently in The New York Times about ``the dangerous political turn of an agency that is supposed to be guided by science.'' Governor Whitman, a Republican who served as EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush, has a stark warning about the direction the Agency is taking under President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt: ``Policy should always be rooted in unbiased science. The EPA is too important to treat like a reality TV show. People's lives and our country's resources are at stake.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the entirety of Governor Whitman's op-ed in The New York Times, ``How Not to Run the E.P.A.'': I have been worried about how the Environmental Protection Agency would be run ever since President Trump appointed Scott Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, to oversee it. The past few months have confirmed my fears. The agency created by a Republican president 47 years ago to protect the environment and public health may end up doing neither under Mr. Pruitt's direction, As a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush to run the agency, I can hardly be written off as part of the liberal resistance to the new administration. But the evidence is abundant of the dangerous political turn of an agency that is supposed to be guided by science. The E.P.A.'s recent attack on a reporter for The Associated Press and the installation of a political appointee to ferret out grants containing ``the double C-word'' are only the latest manifestations of my fears, which mounted with Mr. Pruitt's swift and legally questionable repeals of E.P.A. regulations--actions that pose real and lasting threats to the nation's land, air, water and public health. All of that is bad enough. But Mr. Pruitt recently unveiled a plan that amounts to a slow-rolling catastrophe in the making: the creation of an antagonistic ``red team'' of dissenting scientists to challenge the conclusions reached by thousands of scientists over decades of research on climate change. It will serve only to confuse the public and sets a deeply troubling precedent for policy-making at the E.P.A. The red-team approach makes sense in the military and in consumer and technology companies, where assumptions about enemy strategy or a competitor's plans are rooted in unknowable human choices. But the basic physics of the climate are well understood. Burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. There is no debate about that. The link is as certain as the link between smoking and cancer. A broad consensus of scientists also warn of the influence of the warming climate on extreme weather events. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the enormous wildfires in the Western United States and widespread flooding from monsoons in Southeast Asia are potent reminders of the cost of ignoring climate science. As a Republican like Mr. Pruitt, I too embrace the promise of the free market and worry about the perils of overregulation. But decisions must be based on reliable science. The red team begins with his politically preferred conclusion that climate change isn't a problem, and it will seek evidence to justify that position. That's the opposite of how science works. True science follows the evidence. The critical tests of peer review and replication ensure that the consensus is sound. Government bases policy on those results. This applies to liberals and conservatives alike. There are two sides, at least, to most political questions, and a politician's impulse may be to believe that the same holds true for science. Certainly, there are disputes in science. But on the question of climate change, the divide is stark. On one side is the overwhelming consensus of thousands of scientists at universities, research centers and the government who publish in peer-reviewed literature, are cited regularly by fellow scientists and are certain that humans are contributing to climate change. On the other side is a tiny minority of contrarians who publish very little by comparison, are rarely cited in the scientific literature and are often funded by fossil fuel interests, and whose books are published, most often, by special interest groups. That Mr. Pruitt seeks to use the power of the E.P.A. to elevate those who have already lost the argument is shameful, and the only outcome will be that the public will know less about the science of climate change than before. The red-team idea is a waste of the government's time, energy and resources, and a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsible governance. Sending scientists on a wild-goose chase so that Mr. Pruitt, Rick Perry, the energy secretary, who has endorsed this approach, and President Trump can avoid acknowledging and acting on the reality of climate change is simply unjustifiable. And truly, it ignores and distracts from the real imperative: developing solutions that create good jobs, grow our economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. Policy should always be rooted in unbiased science. The E.P.A. is too important to treat like a reality TV show. People's lives and our country's resources are at stake. Mr. Pruitt should respect his duty to the agency's mission, end the red team and call on his agency's scientists to educate him. No doubt they're willing and eager to impart the knowledge they've dedicated their lives to understanding. If this project goes forward, it should be treated for what it is: a shameful attempt to confuse the public into accepting the false premise that there is no need to regulate fossil fuels.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

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

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, once again, I would like to point out that the rule will prevent the waste of an estimated 65 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year and save the taxpayers $330 million annually, and that is energy that could be put to work here in the United States. The public health risks, including more heat waves and drought, as I talked about, the climate change, the health and welfare of our current and future generations must be taken into account. We must take action; we must do something about this. This is a step backwards to adopt this amendment, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to work to protect our planet. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this amendment is a harmful rider. It has no place on an appropriation bill. This is a big policy discussion that we are talking about that impacts every man, woman, and child here in the United States, and, I might add, I believe, around the world, the amendment that would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of carbon as part of its rulemaking. The social cost of carbon is an estimate of economic damages associated with small increases of carbon dioxide in emissions in a given year, and it does represent the best scientific information available for incorporating the impacts of carbon pollution into regulatory analysis. Weakening or eliminating the use of the social cost of carbon as a tool for Federal agencies would ignore the sobering costs of health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts. Madam Chair, last night we had many amendments reducing the ability of the EPA to take into account the public health. I believe we have a responsibility to make sure that we are not only the watchdogs and stewards for making sure that our public lands are used in appropriate and effective ways, but we also have a responsibility to use science to make sure that we are doing our due diligence to protect the health of the American people. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time until closing.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, once again, I know that the gentleman who brought the amendment would like to have an active debate and like to see some movement on this issue, but by doing it on an appropriations rule this way, where we don't have a full transparent discussion, we don't have the scientific community coming in, the health community, and the industry that he would like to see testify, we find ourselves doing these stopgap riders on appropriations bills that only work for the year of the appropriation. It is a way in which we are not using our power as legislators effectively to have change. So these riders are best done in the policy committee, not on the appropriations bill. In closing, I would like to just clearly say that I support science and I believe we should not abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, and, therefore, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would encourage a ``no'' vote. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I rise to support the chairman of the subcommittee. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle clearly rejected President Trump's budget. Hurricanes Harvey and, now, Irma have highlighted the need for a strong EPA to ensure Americans have clean air, clean water, and help to prevent exposures to toxic chemicals. They are doing that right now on the ground. They are leaving from other places around this country. They are leaving their homes, and they are going there to be first responders when it comes to toxic cleanup. As has been pointed out, the EPA was cut coming into this floor action by $240 million, and it was cut another 17 percent last night. In fact, since 2010, the EPA has already been reduced by $2.2 billion and has 2,000 fewer staff. The EPA never knows when it is going to be called on. Madam Chair, just a couple weeks ago we got a call about a businessowner who abandoned a plating company, left chemical barrels literally disintegrating before the eyes of the St. Paul Fire Department. The EPA was there to help.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, once again, I rise to object to this. The Equal Access to Justice Act already caps the hourly rate--it already caps it--and requires that the parties be paid a prevailing wage. Madam Chair, I believe we do not need this redundant provision to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders. Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to reject the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment would block the EPA from regulating methane emissions from sources in the oil and gas sector. Late last night, we had a discussion about whether or not methane from flare-ups should be captured and saved as energy and used as energy. Although this amendment is different, I think it begs the question as to why we aren't making sure that we are capturing every ounce of energy that is produced in this country and reusing it. But back to the gentleman's amendment today. Methane, I want to point out, is a primary component of natural gas. It is a potent greenhouse gas, with global warming potential more than 25 times greater than carbon dioxide. In 2013, nearly one-third of methane emissions in the United States came from oil and gas production, producing transmission and distribution. There is no doubt at all that methane contributes to the increased levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, which contribute to the long-lasting changes in our climate, such as rising global temperatures, sea level change, in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in the ecosystem's habits and species diversity. But more important, I think public health is at risk, including more heat waves and drought. That means worsening smog, increasing intensity of extreme weather like we are seeing again this weekend, increasing the range of ticks and mosquitos, which can spread disease, such as Lyme, West Nile virus, and Zika. Madam Chair, I would just ask the majority to stop this assault on the environment and let us work together not only to capture all the energy possible, but work together to reduce the climate change that our planet and the United States, this weekend, is experiencing. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. The EPA was there to work with the city when the fire department found out what a danger it was. When the county wasn't able to handle such an extreme toxic cleanup, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was able to call on EPA Region 5. They knew the people. They had worked together on other projects, and they gave comfort and aid to homeowners that this toxic waste site that people didn't even know existed from as close as you and I are to each other, sir, was in their backyard. The EPA does a lot of work. We are asking them to do it on a shorter budget. This would make it impossible for them to do their work at all. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his support of the EPA, although sometimes we disagree at what level.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, the gentleman's agreement is an extraneous amendment that puts the same parameters on attorneys' fees under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that are already in place for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. In other words, the attorneys' fees are already set for this. The Equal Access to Justice Act caps the hourly rate and requires that the parties be the prevailing party--so the fees are capped. Maybe the gentleman is not aware that the Equal Access to Justice Act, as I said, caps the hourly rate for attorneys' fees unless the court--this is up to the court--unless the court determines an increase in the cost of living--a special factor, such as limited availability for a qualified attorney for the proceedings involved--justifies a higher fee. So the court would look at this very, very carefully, take everything into account, and then only when the court would see a need to make sure that we have paid an attorney fairly for their time. So the gentleman's amendment is already codified and is not needed. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I also rise in support of this amendment. It is nice to be able to support something today. And I really would caution that, although they didn't talk about closing regional offices, Madam Chair, they did talk about moving and rearranging. Congress needs to be involved. I have a Superfund site being cleaned up right now by EPA Region 5.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Calvert of California

Ms. McCOLLUM

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