Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing or implementing designs and details for the Clean Energy Incentive Program. The Clean Energy Incentive Program is voluntary. It is an option for States. States can choose whether or not to do it. It is not a mandate. The program provides incentives to develop renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The amendment is another example of some in the majority's obstruction to anything that the EPA or this administration does to attempt to address climate change. This program is designed to diversify energy supplies used by power generation and provide cleaner power generation to improve air quality. This amendment is a job creator. Let me highlight again, this program is designed to reward early investments in renewable energy generation and energy efficiency to reduce harmful emissions from electric-generated facilities. Many States have embraced this. Many States are voluntarily moving forward with this. But this amendment seeks to remove the barriers that we are trying to bring down in low-income communities so that they are able to invest in renewable energy, they are able to help low-income customers reduce their energy bills; and that is what we should be working forward with States and with consumers who want to reduce their energy bills and reduce the effects of climate change. I want to state again, State participation in this program is totally optional, so this amendment is another attempt by some in the majority to block any action to address climate change and to continue this Nation's dependency on Big Oil. There is no reason to block a voluntary program from moving forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would block the EPA from finalizing or implementing a proposed rule that establishes accidental release prevention requirements. Earlier this year, the EPA issued a proposed rule to amend its risk management program regulations response to a 2013 executive order on improving chemical safety. The proposed rule seeks to improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness to chemical hazards at regulated sources. This is an important regulation and its need was underscored in the tragedy like the one that occurred in 2013 in west Texas, where a massive explosion in a fertilizer plant killed 15 people and injured more than 160. This amendment would needlessly and recklessly block efforts to further improve chemical safety and security in coordination with owners and operators, and I strongly oppose that. 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. Chair, I believe I have the right to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the debate couldn't be clearer here right now. Either you believe that climate change is real and it presents a clear and present danger--if you read some of the reports from the Department of Defense, they are very concerned about what is going on in the world with food scarcity, with rising sea levels, with all kinds of potential things that could bring real security risks to our Nation. Do we as a country stand up and do something about it and bring other countries with us? My State is not going to be compelled by a foreign government. My State is part of the United States of America, where we will work together under leadership to do something about climate change. Or do we continue to deny that climate change is real? We ignore what the Department of Defense is saying, and the United States doesn't play a clear leadership role in moving forward and bringing people with us on this issue that affects today, tomorrow, future generations and what this planet will be like for our children. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as has been pointed out, this would block the EPA from regulating air pollution under section 115 of the Clean Air Act. Section 115 deals with international pollution and allows the United States to work with other countries in transboundary pollution issues. As we know, pollution doesn't stop at a border. It moves. And it is moving around the planet. This amendment is a transparent attempt to clearly stop the Paris climate change agreement reached in December 2015. The Paris climate agreement is a milestone in the global effort to combat climate change, something which my constituents feel is very clear, very present, and is a huge problem of which the United States should show leadership in. More than 190 nations have made commitments to limit their climate- damaging pollution, including all the largest developed and developing countries. Future U.S. administrations could use section 115 to help ensure that the United States does its part and to provide that other countries do their part too. The Perry amendment would prohibit the EPA and the White House from even developing a well-considered recommendation or whether or not to use this authority. Congress should not take a tool out of the toolbox for a future administration's climate change mitigation toolbox. This is a matter of global leadership. The United States needs to meet its Paris climate commitment and, subsequently, any commitment to act in the future. Congressman Perry's amendment and similar efforts to thwart the progress on climate change could--I would say ``would''--undermine our ability to achieve needed pollution reductions and hit our Paris targets. This amendment is the latest in a long line of Republican attacks on the Clean Air Act and the EPA's authority to respond to the urgent threat of climate change. A vote for this amendment is another vote, in my opinion, for those who deny climate change is real and to block action to curb the carbon pollution that is driving dangerous climate change. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity recently to be in China, and because of our administration and as the Chinese people and government saw, our bold leadership in standing up and saying that the United States was going to play its role in reducing the harmful effects of climate change, China came to the table for the first time ever and said: You know, we are going to do something about it too. Now, the gentleman keeps saying that the Senate never voted on it. This has never happened. Well, the Clean Air Act is a law and climate change is real. This is not 1972, 1973, when I graduated from high school back many years ago. The planet, the climate, the oceans, the ice shelves are all changing. The legacy that we leave for our children and for future generations will be: What does the United States, what does our country do? How do we stand up and show leadership? So this amendment clearly is an attempt to stop the Paris climate change agreement reached in 2015, something that I say with great pride my constituents in the State of Minnesota think is a good idea and something that we need to move forward on. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the Department of the Interior's ability to conduct damage assessments and inland oil spill preparedness by prohibiting the support of restoration work that is paid for by recovered settlement funds under the Superfund. In fiscal year 2017, the Department of the Interior will receive nearly $500 million from the Deepwater Horizon settlement. This amendment would prohibit the distribution of any of those funds to the impacted Gulf States. The Department's inability to distribute jointly recovered funds to its co-trustees would have a devastating affect on strong Federal, State, Tribal cooperation that the Interior Department has developed over the years, and could lead to a reduction of future joint restoration settlements and a splintering of cooperative restoration efforts among co-trustees, and that would be a travesty. The amendment could also create uncertainty about its impacts on authorities under CERCLA to retain recovered settlement funds and manage the $800 million previously recovered in past settlements. This is a reckless amendment with far-reaching impacts. If the Department of the Interior is unable to effectively administer its Natural Resource Damage Assessment program due to a change in its ability to use appropriated funds, it would likely have a significant effect on NOAA's own ability to effectively manage many of these cases, including the Deepwater Horizon. So I strongly oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would mandate that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management include specific areas in the Alaska region of the Outer Continental Shelf in its 2017-2022 lease schedule. This amendment would undermine the Bureau's fundamental mission to manage the development of offshore resources in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. The 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program was proposed in March of this year, and the public comment only closed a few weeks ago. The Bureau is required by law to consider the environmental impacts of the leasing decision. This includes a comprehensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. It is inappropriate to circumvent this process. Lease sales should be informed by sound science and by using the best data available. This amendment would violate multiple environmental statutes, including NEPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The amendment undermines the environmental protection that is required by law. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I would just like to point out that the Mexican wolf is the most endangered subspecies of all wolves in the world. The population is now estimated at approximately 97 wolves in the wild. So I believe we should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service in its efforts to manage this imperiled species, not blocking the agency from doing its job. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the Endangered Species listing of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act, and it would restrict the Service from offering any critical protections to preserve the species. I heard clearly what my good friend said, and having a grandfather who is a rancher in Montana, I hear what she is saying. However, once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife Service is primarily permissive--it is permissive--in helping parties to comply with the act as they carry out their activities. The majority of the habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is on Federal land, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with the Forest Service to develop a conservation measure that will protect the mouse while, clearly, allowing livestock raising on Forest Service lands and ensuring adequate water for the cattle, which they should do. Since the Endangered Species listing, members of the livestock community have voiced concerns about the impacts to people who recreate and make their livelihoods on Forest Service lands which result from addressing the needs of the meadow jumping mouse. The Fish and Wildlife Service listened clearly to these concerns, and they have established three working groups to address these concerns. They have come up with creative solutions, like establishing the cattle lanes, which I am sure the gentlewoman was referring to, to make sure the cattle can maintain access to the water while protecting the vegetation that is necessary for the survival of the meadow jumping mouse. Under this amendment, the Service would not be able to continue to recover the species, though all of the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. The Service would not be able to work collaboratively with these stakeholders to provide ESA compliance. The Service has a statutory requirement to implement the Endangered Species Act. Defunding the agency's ability to fulfill this legal requirement makes everyone more vulnerable to losses, which is an unnecessary cause for the American taxpayer. Additionally, this amendment limits the Service from undertaking required status reviews of the subspecies or from initiating any rulemaking to down list or to delist a species as is appropriate. I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service, with the working groups, can come up with a creative solution. We should also allow Fish and Wildlife to be able to down list or to delist the species. If what the gentlewoman is reporting is true, her amendment would not give them the ability to do that. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, last year I rose in opposition to this amendment because it failed to account for the Department's need to utilize unmanned systems in times of emergency. Let me give you a couple of examples. We had a conversation. I was hoping that when I saw the amendment this year, you might have made some accommodations for this. Use of remote sensing via unmanned aircraft makes sense. It allows for rapid collection of data and allows for the Department to get a closer look at natural disasters. The Department and the USGS are using unmanned aircraft to monitor the spread of wildfires, as the chairman pointed out, monitor river bank erosion, detect and locate coal seam fires, conduct waterfowl surveys, and inspect abandoned mines. I think the chairman said it best, we need to have the authorizing committee look at this because, I think the gentleman would agree, there are times when good things can be done; but this amendment, unfortunately, doesn't allow that to happen. I thank Chairman Calvert for yielding me the time.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I understand and I hear clearly what the gentleman was saying that the plan needs to be updated, refreshed, and people need to be involved in it. I would be happy to work with the gentleman to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife Service lives up to its responsibilities in doing that, but I strongly oppose this amendment. The Mexican wolf is the most endangered subspecies of wolf in the world. The population is now estimated at approximately 97 wolves in the wild. Biologists believe that, when the Mexican wolf population returns to a healthy number, that it will restore balance to the Southwest ecosystem by keeping deer, elk, and other prey populations strong by preventing overpopulation and overgrazing of habitat. The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone, for example, demonstrates how top predators like wolves maintain the balance of nature. Elk in Yellowstone are now more wary and avoid standing in the open near streams. Willows and aspens have come back and, with them, birds and beavers. With the beavers came the ponds and more fish. The presence of wolves has also led to fewer coyotes, which boosted the population of pronghorn, antelope, and fox. I have been in Yellowstone, and I have been out there and have seen the stream recovery and all of these things that I just spoken of. I have actually seen this recovery happen. In the Southwest, scientists expect similar benefits to wildlife, sportsmen, and to everyone who enjoys the outdoors. This amendment would prohibit the Service from managing wolves in the wild, including the capture and removal of problem wolves and assisting livestock producers to manage wolf-livestock conflicts, such as using radio collars and hazardous techniques. So I oppose the gentleman's amendment because it would undermine the Service's ability to work collaboratively with local communities and ranchers. And I hear you clearly say that they need to do a better job with that, and I agree that we need to do the best job we can. We need to be able to make sure that the ESA compliance to protect private citizens from taking violations under section 9 of the ESA, a third party could sue them. So, by your amendment, you expose citizens from take violations under section 9 of the ESA, and the third party then, in fact, could be sued. It would prohibit any efforts to prevent conflicts with wolves or update the recovery plan, as I agree, probably needs to be updated. So it is clear, as you can see, I think we should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service in its efforts to manage this imperiled species and not block the agency from doing its job. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the fuel standards for the trailers that they are studying were jointly proposed by the EPA and the Department of Transportation. Does the gentleman have a rider in anything from the Department of Transportation to prohibit their funding?

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