Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. So the gentleman was talking about the Paris climate agreement, which the Trump administration withdrew from?

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 rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado is right. We have had this conversation in this Chamber, Mr. Chair, before. The Service does attempt to comply with the statutory mandate and to review the status of listed species every 5 years to determine whether or not it is classified as threatened or endangered. It is correct. The Service has a backlog in reviews due to funding limitations. This year it is a 17 percent listing reduction contained in this bill so that they have been working on the backlog. But the Service still has only been able to complete 100 to 120 reviews per year, which is half of what is needed. So in this bill, you and I might agree that there are things that could happen and that money isn't always the solution to a problem, but in this bill you might be surprised to know that it has cut another $3.4 million, so that only builds up the backlog all the more. That is not necessarily the fault of the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Chair. It is just the fact that the allocation that our subcommittee had to work with, tough choices had to be made. I know that the chairman was trying to balance a lot of things. The gentleman talked about the court and the environment. I would love to have a conversation with the gentleman more about that, because it is my understanding--and I want to make sure I have it correct before we go into depth about it because, as the gentleman knows, we have a good relationship, and I want to make sure that I am correct when I say things--that actually some of the things that have been happening in court have actually helped to reduce some of the costs that the gentleman is thinking about because it is in place. I will get the information, Mr. Chair, and share it with the gentleman later. But the fact is that this amendment would not remove species without review from the list of species protected by the ESA so that the ESA's prohibition, again, would still remain, and it still would be the ability of citizens to sue or force compliance even with what the gentleman is proposing. So funding cannot be used to enforce the ESA for species with late reviews; it is going to leave the species unprotected. Proposed language would prohibit the Service from working with the agencies. It would prohibit working with developers and landowners to comply, compliance to section 7 consultations or section 10 permits for Federal and private projects that could potentially affect the species. So as you can see, the other thing it doesn't do is the proposed language would not affect the ability of third parties to sue those agencies or landowners. So I agree with the gentleman that we need to do a better job of making sure that these reviews are done in a timely fashion. I agree that, when a species has attained a classification where it is no longer threatened or it is no longer endangered, it should come off. So I think we have a lot in common. But I think that the challenge with this amendment is that, without the funding, in order for the Service to do the job that it has to do, it just kind of puts the Service in a box in which we are saying you are not doing a good job and, therefore, we are going to start changing the way in which we proceed. So I, right now, have to oppose this amendment. But as I said, in the policy committee I think that there is room for some of us to come together and to make improvement, but legislating this rider for 1 year at a time on this appropriations bill doesn't allow us to have the deep, transparent, and open discussion that we need to have to resolve your issue. So at this time I oppose the amendment, and 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, clearly, what this amendment does--and it is different from the other amendment--is 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. It full-out restricts the Service from offering any critical protections to preserve the species. Once a species like this is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service is fairly permissive. They can help parties comply with the act as they carry out their other activities. The Service right now is reviewing and considering all the comments that they received during the public comment period, and a draft recovery plan is being worked through to develop a final recovery plan. But with this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to recover the species. All the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. So, in other words, we would stop them from moving forward, but they would still be under jurisdiction to comply. They wouldn't be able to comply by working with agencies and land developers and landowners to provide the ESA compliance. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or from offering exemptions. That means landowners, industry, and other parties who might need to take the Preble's meadow jumping mouse incidental to otherwise lawful activities, such as urban development, are vulnerable to third-party lawsuits. Another limitation that the Service would have would be undertaking the required status reviews of subspecies or initiating any rulemaking or downlisting or delisting species. So now we are talking about deep dives into what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife may or may not be impacted by doing or helping landowners or developers on an appropriations bill. Quite frankly, as I have been saying all night--and I understand people have the right to come here with these amendments--the Service has a responsibility to implement the Endangered Species Act. They are charged with fulfilling their legal requirements. When they don't fulfill their legal requirements, it makes them more vulnerable to lawsuits, which I know is not the goal of the author of this amendment, Mr. Chair. But when there are lawsuits incurred, it creates more costs for American taxpayers. The gentleman's amendment would just undermine the Service's ability to work collaboratively with States and local communities. It opens the Service up for lawsuits and it would create even more uncertainty for landowners and make them vulnerable, as I said, to lawsuits. I think we should be working to support the Fish and Wildlife efforts, not blocking the agency from doing its job and going back to what we discussed earlier, that is working through the committees of authorization, and then the authorizing committees having conversations with the Appropriations Committee on how they can achieve their goals, this being one of them. Because of those reasons, I do not support this amendment. I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward, but at this time I cannot support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. McCOLLUM. And then you said you were worried about the administration using section 115 of the Clean Air Act to impose regulations. It has been my experience, from my point of view, representing my constituents, we were disappointed about the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, and we haven't seen this administration be aggressive on clean air. So could you please explain to me your concerns about the Trump administration and section 115 of the Clean Air Act? Because, if they are doing things that you are concerned about, maybe I need to take a fresher look at what the Trump administration is doing, because I have seen them do nothing but block, cut back, and deny the ability to move forward on the clean air agreement. So I am confused to the point of your amendment. The Obama administration is gone, and the Trump administration has removed almost everything I care passionately about with clean air.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I understand clearly what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is trying to accomplish. I wish we could accomplish that goal. But with already a $240 million cut to the EPA and all of the challenges on the EPA--we just recently agreed on this floor by a voice vote to cut the EPA another $75 million. This would be another $33 million. So I hope that we can reach a place in the funding that the chairman and I have where we can address the serious concerns that you bring to the floor where you had success with programs. But, at the same time, I would be cutting opportunities for cleanup, especially with all of the disasters looming--forest fires, disasters, and cleanup I just had recently in my district that came out of the blue. The EPA wouldn't have money to respond. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

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. Chairman, I rise in opposition for two reasons. One, this, once again, is a substantial piece of policy work being done on an appropriations bills on the floor of the House. We have committees which can take things up, government oversight, and we have the Natural Resources Committee. There are many venues in which the gentleman could ask for a hearing and bring people to testify, if there are things that need to be done. Or just work through the Administrative Procedure Act, which has opportunities before it, if people feel that they are not being treated justly. But the other reason why I rise against this is, 25 years since the previous update has happened, technology has changed since then and industry practices have changed. Part of our responsibility--and I truly believe this in my heart--is to make sure that when we do leases, when we are to receive royalty payments, we need to be looking out for the U.S. taxpayer to make sure that they are fairly compensated for these leases. Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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 just want to point out that, as a State representative and, even now, as a Member of Congress, I will encounter people--and I was just at our State fair--over the years, people who have built homes in rural areas and are contributing to the schools and maybe have a soybean farm or a community that is built up over the years around farms. All of a sudden, a hog farm comes in and people are sick, they are unable to go to work, their children develop lung issues and all kinds of problems. They come to the State or they come to us as Members of Congress and say: What is going on here? The air is so polluted, it is making me and my family sick. I am losing my home. I am losing my investment. So I think that there is a role to have these discussions about what do we do, as a community, to make sure about people who live in some of these rural areas who all of a sudden find themselves, after decades of living in the same area, unable to open up their windows on a summer day. As I said, that is why I don't think this policy rider belongs in this bill. I think we need to have a thoughtful discussion on it and really hear out both sides on many of these agriculture issues, especially in rural communities. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I really think that we need to better utilize, in this Congress, in this institution, our policy committees. They should be the first call for help if there are questions, if there are concerns, if there are adjustments that need to be made, not the appropriations committee, where there has been no hearing on this. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.