Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, in closing, that is why I do not understand the redundancy, the duplicity--why we keep doing this over and over and over again. This bill already undoes a lot of what the regulation would do to protect the environment and to protect workers' safety. I read from the bill at page 69, line 4, section 124, and this is about drilling margins: ``None of the funds made available in this act or any other act for any fiscal year may be used to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any change to regulations and guidance.'' It goes on. This amendment would reverse the safety improvements that were developed following the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, something to which, I think, America said no more: no more loss of life, no impact like this on our environment. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank Chairman Calvert for the warm birthday wishes. But I would also like to thank the chairman and his staff for their open and collaborative approach, and the wonderful staff on the Democratic side who will be helping me this evening. This subcommittee has had a challenging portfolio of issues, and I commend the chairman's effort to find solutions in another yet difficult budget year. This year's subcommittee held 14 budget hearings, 4 which involved Native American Indians and Alaska Natives. The testimony provided by the 209 witnesses clearly articulated the serious need for programs and services under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the FY 2017 subcommittee allocation is $64 million less than last year's enacted level. This means the needs of many important programs that are vital to protecting our Nation's natural and cultural resources will not be met as they far outpace a stagnant allocation. Within this constrained top line number, difficult choices had to be made, and, sadly, the majority cut important programs that protect the American public and conserve our natural resources. The most significant programmatic cut is to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slashed by $164 million. This cut will impact the Agency's ability to protect human health and the health of our environment and to ensure clean air and clean water for our families and future generations. This year, the critical need for the EPA was unmistakable as our Nation watched a tragedy unfold in Flint, Michigan, by which children were poisoned by lead in their drinking water. So I find it difficult to reconcile the cuts recommended in this bill with the public health challenges that are faced by this country. Flint is a culmination of years of weakening the EPA through budget cuts and an overreliance on State agencies to manage Federal environmental laws. All of our communities deserve and expect their government to provide clean water and basic public health protections. Especially in light of Flint, I must strongly object to the majority's decision to reduce funding for clean water by $394 million, which is 28 percent below the 2016 enacted level. Clean water and safe drinking water go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. The residents of Flint were betrayed by their State government, and, to this day, they still do not have safe drinking water available from their taps. The levels provided in this bill for the State Revolving Funds are inadequate to deal with the decaying infrastructure in our Nation, no less the emergency in Flint, Michigan. In addition to the irresponsible cuts to the EPA, I am also troubled by the 30 percent reduction for the Endangered Species Listing. Reducing funding for this program opens the door for litigation, and it delays protecting and recovering vulnerable species. The bill also shortchanges the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which, since its inception, has protected conservation and recreation land in every State and has supported tens of thousands of State and local projects. Yet, despite its merits, this bill slashes the Land and Water Conservation Fund program by a third. Despite this bill's shortcomings in the environmental protection and resource conservation areas, I do, however, want to express how very proud I am of this subcommittee's nonpartisan approach in addressing the issues that are facing our Native American brothers and sisters. I am pleased that this bill recommends an increase of $343 million for programs that are critical to Indian Country. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out, even with this increase, the funding for Native American programs is still $172 million less than the administration's request. Native American and Alaska Native populations face substantial hardships, and when compared to the total population, they have poorer health, lower earnings, and higher rates of poverty. So we must continue to work together in our efforts to support these communities. That is why I applaud this bill for maintaining our commitment to provide Native American students with safe schools that are conducive to learning and for fully funding contract support costs so that tribes are not penalized for exercising their self- determination rights. Another bright spot in this bill is the continued support for the National Parks Centennial Initiative. The bill recommends $80 million for the Centennial, which will strengthen the foundation for visitor services and make essential infrastructure investments. I am also pleased that an additional $3 million is provided for the Civil Rights Initiative grant program and that funding is included for grants-in-aid to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I especially would like to thank the chairman for working with me to resurrect the Save America's Treasures program. This program funds and preserves nationally significant sites, structures, and artifacts. I am very proud that, in working together, we were able to restart this program, and I will work diligently with the chairman to make sure it is included in the final bill. Unfortunately, this bill neglects to act on many other opportunities to wisely invest taxpayers' dollars. I am frustrated that the majority has, effectively, left $1.2 billion on the table by not adopting the commonsense reforms that are championed in Chairman Simpson's wildfire disaster funding bill. Every member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies is a cosponsor of that bill--Democrat and Republican alike. Yet, once again, the majority has balked and cites committee jurisdiction. However, those jurisdictional issues did not hinder the majority's including dozens of harmful legislative riders. I must express my concern and disappointment with the 38 partisan riders in this bill. The number is outrageous, and, to me, the nature of the riders that are included panders to special interests at the expense of the public good. For example, the bill contains a provision that would reverse the safety improvements that were developed following the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Eleven lives were lost in that explosion. I must express my clear dismay that this bill puts the profits of big oil companies ahead of worker safety. The veto-bait provisions that seek to turn back protections for endangered species, to restrict control of greenhouse gas emissions, and to undermine clean water and clean air protections do not belong in this bill. I acknowledge and I appreciate the efforts that have been made to accommodate Democratic priorities in this bill. However, I still cannot support this bill as it is drafted. Despite my current opposition, it is my clear intention to continue working with Chairman Calvert through this year's appropriations process to produce a responsible bill that both parties can support. The gentleman has my word on that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. In 2009. We passed a law in 2014. The legislation that is in charge of this program now, in 2014, current law, is not in this bill anymore. It is in the Agriculture bill. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear. I think people who lose livestock to wolf predation should be reimbursed. I want to be very, very clear about that. I supported that as a State legislator, and I support it now. However, in 2014, this program for recouping farmers and ranchers is in the Agriculture bill. The Agriculture bill hasn't come to the floor yet. EPA has been cut enough. We aren't doing enough for clean drinking water. You have seen the cuts that have been on the floor to fund other programs today. We have funded this out of Fish and Wildlife, and now you are taking the funds for the Fish and Wildlife out of the Environmental Protection Agency. This belongs in the Agriculture bill. And so, in effect, what you are doing--because you continue to fund it out of the Interior bill, we are going to have a significant reduction to the EPA. The EPA was already reduced $164 million below 2016. These deep reductions impact the ability of the EPA to protect human health and the health of our environment. It jeopardizes our ability to ensure that there is clean air and clean water for families today and for future generations. I just cannot support reducing the EPA any longer. I will join you on an amendment to fund this out of where it belongs--from the 2014 Agriculture bill--but I cannot support it coming out of the EPA. It belongs in the Agriculture bill, where it is authorized. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as the gentleman pointed out, the wolf is an animal which exists in the great State of Minnesota, where I am from. This is not an issue that I am unfamiliar with, having worked on it in the State house when the Federal Government and the State were coming to fruition on how to protect this iconic American species. But this amendment is an attack on that species. The work of the Keystone species, as we both know, plays a vital role in keeping our ecosystem healthy. Deer populations, the gentleman and I, being familiar with that, know how important they are to the entire ecosystem. It is also an animal to my Native American brothers and sisters in Minnesota and the surrounding area that have a deep kinship and bond with. In fact, at a wolf roundtable I had, I heard directly from many tribal leaders that the protections that are afforded under the Endangered Species Act for gray wolves is the only way in which they have been able to keep wolf hunts away or out of the tribal reservation boundaries. I understand many of my colleagues have very strong feelings about listing and delisting and the way it affects their States, but currently, this is in the courts right now. We don't know how the courts are going to come down on its ruling, so I think we should not interfere in what is a court process. The Endangered Species Act also exists to offer necessary protections and ensures species survival, which the majority of my constituents and constituents all across the United States support. And this is the same law that helped successfully restore another iconic American system: the bald eagle. This amendment would restrict the Department of the Interior's ability to implement the Endangered Species Act. However, it does not alter the protection for the endangered wolves in the State. Regardless of one's position on species protections, the amendment is problematic. Its restrictions will ultimately hurt farmers, ranchers, landowners, and business owners because under this amendment the Fish and Wildlife Service would not be able to offer any exemptions or permits for incidental killings of wolves to landowners, ranchers, and other parties who might need them. Right now, the way the law stands, they can do that. If this amendment were to pass, they would not be able to do that. The prohibition against accidental kills or takes would remain, and it would still be legally enforceable. Constituents in these States would either have to stop any activity that led to the taking of wolves or they would be put in harm's way to lawsuits and heavy penalties. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman. I think we just disagree on the timing of this amendment and what this amendment would actually lead to have happen in our States and our communities. It is in the courts right now. The courts could very well rule in a way that you would be very pleased and very satisfied with, and I think we should let the court procedure take place. Simply put, in my opinion, this amendment is bad for wolves, bad for our ecosystem, bad for business, and my constituents think it would be a really bad thing to have move forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, without doing inspections, we have no way of knowing whether or not these are potentially endangered species. They are not. They would be exempted from the Lacey Act. That is why I am saying that this amendment is so radical in its nature of changing what current practice is. I am pretty confident that these are frozen seafood products. What we were looking to address in the report language in the discussions that we have had in the committee is, for example, sea urchins, which are highly perishable, and that you have to have a quick turnaround in working with Fish and Wildlife to make sure that those inspections are taking place like that so that the fishermen and -women aren't put at an economic disadvantage. I am very strongly in opposition to this amendment. I think the gentleman is going to go forward with it, but I really wish this could be tabled so that we could have a full discussion about what we are talking about. I think, with the best of intentions, the gentleman will go someplace, and I am not sure we will fully understand what the final product will be at the end. I oppose the amendment strongly. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, I think we both would agree that drinking water is critical and limited in some of our rural communities, and we need to work together to address real threats to those sacred and precious resources. We should be protecting those communities from irresponsible factory farms rather than shielding large corporations from liability when their actions do make people sick. I think we probably both agree on that. But your amendment isn't about drinking water. It is about RCRA. Your amendment prohibits the EPA from, maybe in the future, regulating an animal feed operation under RCRA, which is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Right now, the EPA does not regulate animal feeding operations, and the Agency has no immediate plans to develop or issue such regulations, so this amendment is unnecessary, and I strongly oppose it because it also gets involved in blocking the EPA Administrator from working on possibly anything else in the future that we might agree that would affect drinking water, which I don't think is part of this. So the fact that RCRA does not regulate animal feeding operations underneath this statute and the Agency has no immediate plans to do it, and the way that the defunding is happening, I just have to oppose this amendment at this time. Mr. Chair, if I could just say something about some of these amendments, I understand that sometimes people are fearful of what may or may not happen in the future, and so we have had many amendments that have either interjected before a court has ruled or interjected before a final rulemaking has taken place or interjected before all the public comment has been taken in consideration. I just think that the authorizing committee needs to be looking at what happens in public comment, and then if the Congress disagrees with a rule that comes out, that is when our role is most appropriate. I don't think we should have a role in predicting the future. I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, in reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that they are frozen. Therefore, they are not perishable as are the other ecoderms we had been speaking to. I would ask that Members oppose this amendment and consider any legislation produced from the House Natural Resources Committee as the appropriate vehicle to resolve this issue. I asked the gentleman a question about whether they are frozen seafood products or not. That seems to be in doubt. I have it under good information that they are. The gentleman is not sure. Therefore, I think it is really appropriate that this amendment be tabled, or voted down, until the proper committee has had a chance to review it, because what we are about to engage in here is a radical, radical change in what current law is. I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. That answers part of my question, because even if he was to be successful with his amendment in the way the amendments are going--I am kind of predicting that he might be on a voice vote--it would still be moving forward under the Department of Transportation. The standards that they are looking at are to help achieve greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. In my opinion, that is a good thing to do. The amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing its greenhouse gas rules by carving out this exemption for trailers. Now, the other reason why I am opposing the amendment, and I am being consistent with this, is the proposed regulation is still currently open for public comment. We don't know what the final comment is going to be. We don't know what is going to happen in the future, so I don't think we should be interfering with a rulemaking process on an appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, my primary reason for getting up and opposing the amendment is it blocks the EPA from finalizing regulations. The amendment would ensure that there are no public health or environmental standards tailored specifically to address the technologies and challenges associated with this most widely used method of uranium recovery. What the EPA is looking at doing is establishing requirements for leaching, which is a mining process in which boreholes are drilled into a deposit of uranium, and liquid solution is injected into the holes to absolve the uranium deposits to make sure that the aquifers are protected. I believe that the EPA should be looking at standards that will establish requirements to ensure that groundwater is restored to pre- mine levels, that restoration is stable before a site is abandoned, and that these rules should be, moving forward, being finalized. To the gentlewoman from Wyoming--and I don't say this on the floor very often, and I think she knows this--who I consider a dear friend and I will miss upon her not running for reelection, I am concerned when I hear my colleagues say that they are not hearing back from people in a timely fashion. So I am going to be looking into that. But right now, at this particular time, because we are in the process of finalizing regulations and we don't know what they are going to look like as of right now, I have to oppose this 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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Fish and Wildlife from implementing or enforcing a threatened species listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act. On April 11, 2016, the service announced the availability of a draft recovery plan for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse which the public could review and comment on until June 10, 2016. Now the service is currently reviewing and considering all the comments that they received, so nothing is final yet. So this is premature. You are predicting an outcome that I don't know whether or not you would agree with. So under this amendment, the service would not be able to continue to recover this species because the Endangered Species Act would still apply. The service would not be able to work with agencies. It would not be able to work with developers. It would not be able to work with landowners in order to abide ESA compliance. Additionally, the amendment will also limit the service from undertaking required status reviews of the subspecies from being able to implement any rulemaking down-listing or delisting the species if they thought it was appropriate after they were done with their review. Sadly, 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, and the amendment would create uncertainty for landowners and also make them vulnerable to lawsuits. So I think we should be supporting Fish and Wildlife to finish doing the job that it started and not blocking it from doing the job it is currently getting ready to do when it comes to this species. So because nothing is final yet, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for an interesting discussion, but here is the challenge I see: 32 States with the potential of oil and gas development on federally managed lands, only slightly more than half have rules in place. So then, if the Federal Government is considering possible development on its own land and it is in a State that doesn't have a rule, they need to have a rule. They need to have transparency. They need to have accountability to the taxpayer, to our constituents. So they are trying to form rules and regulations, and I am hopeful that BLM--and I will make some inquiries--is in the process of meeting with their State counterparts and taking best practices to develop rules, to develop transparency, to develop accountability in the States where no rules exist. At this current time, I really have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. 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, Fish and Wildlife inspections serve an important role for ensuring sustainability in regularly harvested species, which is essential to preserving the economic interests of the industry as well as the ocean ecosystems. The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee has been discussing the perishability of ecoderms for many years. Yet it has not had any other in-depth discussions about any other species. I know the authorizing committee has been looking at this issue, and I would suggest that they are the proper committee to address any changes to permanent requirements that are requested in this amendment--permanent requirements. Unlike the ecoderms, it is my understanding that these species are frozen seafood products instead of fresh. Is it true they are frozen seafood products instead of fresh? I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas so he may answer that question.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the service attempts to comply with the statutory mandate to review the status of listed species every 5 years to determine whether or not the classifications of threatened or endangered are still appropriate, and you gave some eloquent answers. However, the service has a backlog of such reviews due to the funding limitation, such as the 30 percent listing reduction contained in this bill--$3 million less than they had last year. This has been cumulative time and time again. So if you don't have the resources, if you don't have the staff, if you don't have the wherewithal to get out in the field and do the job, a backlog occurs. The reason why, that they are behind with the backlog on this, is because they don't have the resources to do their job. And whose responsibility is that? It is Congress' responsibility to make sure that they have the funding necessary to get up, go to work in the morning, and get rid of this backlog and do their job. We have a responsibility to put the tools in the toolbox for them to be able to do their job properly; and this Congress, and this piece of legislation, fails to give them the tools in the toolbox, and so the backlog will continue. So I oppose the gentleman's amendment because it is not U.S. Fish and Wildlife's lack of wanting to do their job. It is their lack of ability, through the lack of funding, to do the job the way that they would like to do it. I reserve the balance of my time.