Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment that takes more money away from an already starved Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's main operating account is already cut by $240 million. The EPA plays a critical role in keeping Americans safe both during natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey and on a day-to-day basis. I know this because the EPA, right now, is cleaning up a toxic waste site that has been recently discovered in my congressional district. Unfortunately, the very air we breathe and the water we drink is endangered by the funding and policy decisions that are made in this bill, and their consequences will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation. Now, this amendment would increase funding for the National Park Service, something I do support. I have just been to Glacier National Park, where I saw their backlog, and I agree wholeheartedly that we should be investing in our parks, but it cannot be done at the expense of our public health. Republicans have chosen to put forward an omnibus bill that leaves nearly $5 billion of nondiscretionary funds on the table. So rather than gutting the EPA farther, we should be using all the resources available to us and working on a bipartisan budget agreement. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose an amendment that takes more money away from the EPA. As I mentioned before, this bill already severely cuts the EPA's main operating account by $240 million. The air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the policy decisions that are being made in this bill. The consequences will be felt in communities across the Nation. I understand, for many, cutting the EPA is an easy target, but I want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would actually be cutting, if adopted. This account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the country, toxic risk prevention, parts of the successful Brownfields Program, and pesticide licensing. So I understand that the money would direct more funding to States in Appalachia. Appalachia is suffering. They are suffering from the raging environmental harm caused by coal mining. But, unfortunately, I cannot support any deeper cuts to the EPA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the challenges that the gentleman is suffering in his State and throughout Appalachia, but I cannot support any more deeper cuts to the EPA, so I must oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Langevin

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. The rider that we are talking about here gives an unprecedented amount of power to the EPA. It puts the agency above the law, letting it get away with no public comment on its proposals, no economic analysis on the cost and benefit of repeal, no justification for repeal, and not having to defend repeal against court challenges. As the Congressman pointed out, for some, this rider might serve a purpose this time. But what about in the future? What do we really want to say? That it is okay for the executive branch to circumvent laws we create and that there is no accountability in our courts? This rider removes the checks and balances that are essential to a functioning democracy, so I support the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops the Department of the Interior from entering into cooperative agreements and providing financial assistance for the purpose of protecting natural, cultural, and historic resources in several counties in southeast Colorado. This amendment restricts the expansion of Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Heritage Corridors, Natural Heritage canalways, national heritage tour routes, and national historic districts and cultural heritage corridors. All of these preservation partnerships are important tools that enable the Federal Government to work with private partners to preserve and protect our Nation's shared heritage. Unfortunately, this amendment takes those options off the table for the people in southeastern Colorado. It is my understanding that the sponsor aims to preemptively prevent expansion of a Federal footprint in his district, but I would like, Mr. Chairman, to remind us that the sponsor of the Preserve America Executive Order was issued by President George W. Bush, a Republican, and it emphasizes public-private partnerships that limit, not expand, Federal ownership. I have worked on some of these corridors. We always make sure that it is a partnership and it is not the Federal Government coming in and taking over land. It is a partnership that the community comes to the Federal Government and asks for. So, if there are specific concerns that you have about the Federal management in this region, I believe the sponsor should work with the authorizing committee to make sure that they are addressed and not use the appropriations process to wall off a section of the country from partnering with the Federal Government to preserve its historical and cultural natural resources. These discussions that take place at a local level with sometimes the business community, sometimes it is schools, sometimes it is churches, that come together to talk about what can we do to preserve our cultural history or what can we do to preserve something is driven by local control. I have never attended a meeting, once, where it was driven by Federal control. The Federal Government has asked to come in to be a partner. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, while there is nothing more I would like to do, I think any of us would all like to do, than to provide more resources for the clean water SRF, it can't be done by reducing the EPA's environmental programs in management. This administration has clearly shown that they do not regard the EPA's work as a priority, which means that they have a blatant disregard for public health and the health of our environment. The EPM account includes funding for programs like brownfields enforcement, environmental justice, geographic programs, and lot of other critical programs, some of which I gave examples of this evening, which would suffer with a $250 million reduction. This amendment illustrates, because I agree with the gentleman, I wish we had more money to put in that account, what happens when we don't have adequate 302(b) allocations. To overuse a common phrase, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is not making us whole. So it is with great reluctance that I oppose this amendment, but oppose it I must because the cuts that have already been made this evening to the brownfields enforcement, the environmental justice programs, and a myriad of other programs which are critical to the health and well- being of our communities, and they are out there working every day on it, is something I can just not support. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the very employees that the gentleman was talking about that get in a car, they drive to check out the sewer waste plants to make sure that they are operating. They are making sure that the water is clean. They are doing their job. Tonight we have cut this account already by 16 percent. That means we are cutting programs. We have cut brownfields enforcement, environmental justice, geographic programs, programs that support the very account you and I would like to see more money go into. I just urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this account has already been cut by $240 million below the 2017 enacted level, another $108 million tonight on the floor, but at least those dollars were going back into something, in my opinion, meaningful. This is just taking money away from the EPA, which is underfunded, which is undersourced, and being asked to do more for less at a time when, as I pointed out, we don't even know until there is an opportunity for the waters to subside what we are going to find at the Superfund sites from Harvey. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I can't support an amendment taking money from an underfunded agency, reducing our bottom line, when it is already $824 million below the FY17 enacted level. Let me give you two examples of why I think the gentleman's amendment should not be supported. One is I have been talking to EPA officials because we have a surprise toxic dump site that is as close to a residential area as I am from the Chairman. Barrels. The owner just walked away. Too much for the city of St. Paul to handle. Too toxic. Too dangerous. The State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, had to call in the EPA for help. It is costing us as taxpayers millions of dollars to clean that up because the businessowner just walked away. Nothing that the EPA can do but clean it up, and clean it up they are, and the neighbors are ecstatic that the Federal Government is there to help them. The EPA, by taking more money away from it and putting it in the spending reduction account at a time when I know that the EPA regions all across this country are sending men and women down to help cities and counties and communities out with the disaster that Harvey has created, this is all money that is being spent right now in an agency that is $824 million below 2017. I think it is important that we protect the air that we breathe and the water that we drink, and the consequences of further cuts to the EPA, I believe, will be felt in communities like mine, like Houston, like maybe what we will be hearing in Florida--we haven't had the assessment yet in the Virgin Islands--all across this Nation. That, to me, is just irresponsible. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from requiring agricultural sources to report air emissions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Liability Act. The purpose of this amendment is to circumvent a 2017 court decision that invalidated an EPA rule which exempted agricultural sources from such reporting. Policy riders like this do not belong in the appropriations bills. The EPA should either accept the court's decision or they should appeal the decision. At a minimum, something that is this impactive with court policy does not belong as a rider on an appropriations bill. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to what the gentleman from Alaska had to say, and the bulk of my objection, Mr. Chairman, is that this is better addressed in the Policy Committee than on the Appropriations Committee as a rider. BLM does many outreach activities, including public meetings and interactions with individual miners, and is working with industry to incorporate best management practices in new science-based reclamation techniques. In the course of the reclamation activities, it has been necessary to increase the annual cost to miners to recover these streams and restore ecostream function. This amendment would prohibit the cost of reclaiming these areas to placer miners who are profiting from mineral extractions on BLM managed land. I do hear the gentleman talking about not all business is the same shape or size, so I really think that we should work through the Policy Committee. For that reason, I object to this amendment, and I would encourage the gentleman from Alaska to work through the Policy Committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said, I rise in opposition to this amendment, as clearly this amendment would prohibit BLM from regulating flaring, venting, and leaking of methane from Federal onshore oil and gas operations. In 2016, the BLM finalized its rule which updated regulations that were almost over 30 years old. We have learned a lot about how we have to be more diligent about capturing energy and making America more energy secure, because this rule would prevent the waste of an estimated 65 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year and save taxpayers $330 million annually. BLM has a responsibility to the taxpayers, and that means capturing what is flared off, what is burnt off, which is potential energy. We have developed technologies in the past 30 years to capture this and make it work even more effectively for the taxpayers when we lease out these leases and royalties. Just for a fact, I share that the Bakken oil field, when it was at its height, flared more--I am from the Twin Cities--flared more and brighter than the metropolitan area in St. Paul and Minneapolis. That is how bright the flare was that the satellites captured at night. That was burning energy, energy consumption that should have been captured because we owe it to future generations to get it right when it comes to our energy production. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is bad for public health, it shortchanges the American taxpayers, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I don't think we are going to change each other's minds on this because the bottom line is, and I have been consistent with this, this belongs in the Policy Committee. This only would change something for a year. You would have to come back year after year after year. If there is something where we can find common ground on, we can find it in the Policy Committee. We can't find it on an Appropriations Committee where it expires every year. I ride the elevator with the gentleman, Mr. Chair, and I am sure he is going to enlighten me some more. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, there might be some very legitimate points that can be worked on out of these stripper wells that are at the end of their life, and we might find some common ground on some of your issues, but this is the appropriations bills and this isn't the place to do it. It should be done in the Policy Committee. Mr. Chair, we should be going to the Policy Committee, and we should be asking the Policy Committee to take up and have hearings on these issues that are very important to some of the Members here in this House. So when I look at this amendment on an Appropriations Committee bill, what it says to me is that it is continuing the administration's agenda that favors oil and gas industry ahead of other uses of our public lands. It says to me that the administration has rolled back and abolished a lot of rules that have been made over many years that are contained and outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes a consideration of public and travel comments so you can go and register your comment and your concern on it. The whole point of the site security rule is to protect against the theft of oil and to make sure that the oil and gas production is properly accounted for. So this rule that we are talking about today also streamlines the process for companies to get new measurement technologies to make sure that they are using the most innovative technology. I think, after 25 years, most businesses, most people who want to make sure that they are paying for product, want to make sure that it is being measured and accounted for right. This rule was also recommended by the GAO and the Department of the Interior's IG, the Royalty Policy Committee regarding the BLM's production of verification efforts. And those are things that, quite often, we do to safeguard and to protect to make sure that the taxpayer, when involved on public lands, is receiving fair value for the royalty. So there is a rulemaking process that is comprehensive. There is a rulemaking process that is transparent. And there is also a way to change the rule that is comprehensive, transparent, and allows the public to have their voice, and that is to address these issues in the Policy Committee. So the main reason--and I want to be really clear about this--for opposing many of these amendments is they are properly done in the Policy Committee, a committee which I served on when I first came here. Mr. Chair, I think that is where these amendments need to start being direct so that we can do the real work and make sure that when Members come to the floor, that they know that we have had a full vetting and full transparency. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate what my chairman of the subcommittee is saying in helping Members here, but we have a lot of work to do just doing the oversight on how money is spent and appropriated to make sure that we are doing our due diligence when we appropriate funds, that they are used in the way that this Congress has asked for them to be used. There is a Policy Committee to look at what is happening with policy and to make sure that we move policy forward. Mr. Chair, sometimes when amendments like this come to the floor, I just think we are failing totally as a Congress to do our due diligence in the Policy Committee, and then there is so much time spent on policy in the Appropriations Committee, we fail to do our due diligence on what has to happen for oversight for the tax dollars that we do appropriate in these bills. It is my hope that the Policy Committee will step up, speak out, and start requesting that these bills be heard in the committee of jurisdiction and not just put on as riders on our bills. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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