Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from implementing a uniform national standard for hydraulic fracking on public lands. This amendment would prohibit the BLM from implementing a uniform national standard for hydraulic fracking on public lands. Public lands only. Such a standard is necessary to ensure that operations on public and tribal lands are safe and environmentally responsible. Of the 32 States with potential for oil and gas development on federally managed mineral resources, only slightly more than half have rules in place to address hydraulic fracturing. And those that do have rules vary greatly in their requirements. So BLM continues to offer millions of acres of public land for conventional and renewable energy production, and it is critical that the public have confidence and transparency that effective State and environmental protections are in place. So, as I said before, there are 32 States, and half of them don't even have anything in place that BLM could use. BLM is looking to have an implementation of a rule in State offices, and they are in the process of meeting with their State counterparts, undertaking State-by- State comparisons and regulatory requirements. I believe what the gentleman has told me about Colorado; it looks like that would be best practices and something BLM would want to look at and maybe model under. So they are trying to establish memorandums of understanding. Unfortunately, what your amendment does is stop that from going forward. I think that, for right now, BLM needs to come up with a transparent standard so that when people are interacting with BLM State by State and when the taxpayers are looking at what BLM is doing, there is transparency, there is clarity, and there is uniformity. Unfortunately, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, while I would just like to point out that corporate interests and their advocates often claim that Davis-Bacon increases taxpayers costs, there isn't a study that proves that. In fact, a study of school construction costs in the Great Plains States shows that prevailing wage laws did not only not raise constructions costs, but also that repealing such wage laws hurt taxpayers and workers. After Kansas' prevailing wage law was repealed, wages fell 11 percent, training programs declined by 28 percent, and job site injuries rose 19 percent. Highway construction costs are actually higher when workers are paid less, according to an analysis of the Federal Highway Administration data by the Construction Labor Research Council. The studies showed that the cost to build 1 mile in States average $17.65 per hour, compared with low wages of $9.97 per hour, on average. Money was actually saved, on average, by higher productivity. Better productivity, better wages. In Wisconsin, a study of the State's prevailing wage laws shows that potential savings from wage cuts were never outweighed by the cost of income to communities. Annual costs of repealing the law has estimated between $123 million in lost income and net tax revenues to a loss of $6.8 million. In Missouri, a similar study showed a loss to the State of $380 million to $384 million. Cost overruns are more likely without prevailing wages. As a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, I urge my colleagues to oppose the King amendment and pay people in the community a prevailing wage under Davis-Bacon. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Once again, I thank the gentleman for being here because I think we have had some discussions about the work that needs to be done on the policy committees and some of the challenges that we have in this bill with our limited resources. As my grandmother would say, and maybe you had a grandparent who had a similar saying: You can't get water out of a rock. We keep asking the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, all kinds of wonderful people who get up every morning wanting to do the best job possible and protecting our natural resources, to do more and more and more and more with less. At some point, they just can't do any more because they don't have the full-time equivalents. They don't have the scientists that they can hire. They don't have the resource managers who can get out and work in the local community. They are hamstrung. So for only that reason, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. If they were fully funded and I could look them in the eye and say, ``You have all the tools in the toolbox; get the job done,'' I would be with you, sir. But they do not have all the tools in the toolbox, and this Congress has underfunded them repeatedly, and that is why we have the backlog. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, we have taken several votes on whether or not we should waive prevailing wage requirements that are contained in Davis-Bacon. In each and every instance, the Congress has rejected these efforts because there is strong bipartisan support for fair labor standards for construction contracts. Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple contract, and it is a fair one. What the Davis-Bacon Act does is it protects the government as well as workers in carrying out a policy of paying a decent wage on government contracts. Davis-Bacon simply requires workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. I want to stress this again--Federal construction projects to be paid no less than wages paid in communities for similar work. It requires every contractor for which the government is a party in excess of $2,000 contain a provision defining minimum wages paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics. This law has helped workers in all trades all over the Nation, and there is no need to abandon those workers today. I urge my colleagues to oppose the King amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know that I, at times, have shared his frustration with getting answers back from the administration. His amendment, I think, is going to get everybody's attention. Unfortunately, his amendment seeks to restrict the information provided from the EPA by just eliminating the funding for the Office of Congressional/Legislative Affairs. I use that office quite a bit. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't, but we have a dialogue going forward. In order to make educated and informed decisions on environmental legislation, I believe Congress should have all of the material available, including from the administration. What I am hearing from the gentleman is that they are not responding to him in an adequate fashion. I hear his passion in this and, at times, I have shared his frustration. I would suggest that we work together to figure out ways to improve communication dialogue and hold them accountable when they don't get it--put a bright spotlight on it--but I oppose eliminating it. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, there is an existing prohibition on lobbying. We have agreed with that. It applies to all Federal employees, and it has been in place since 1919. If a Federal employee breaks that, then a Federal employee needs to be held accountable. So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe we do not need an extraneous, redundant provision to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, maybe the gentleman is aware, or maybe perhaps you are not aware, that there is an existing prohibition on lobbying that applies to all Federal employees that has been in place since 1919. I can cite it for you. So, in my opinion, this is unnecessary and redundant. I would also remind my colleagues that Federal employees are not prohibited from providing information to Congress on legislation, policies, or programs. But there must be an open dialogue between legislative and executive branches to ensure laws are being implemented appropriately and that programs achieve their intended goals. We cannot, or we should not, operate in an information vacuum. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

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. Mr. Chair, I am surprised this amendment is being offered because there is already a rider in the bill that pretty much accomplishes what the gentleman's amendment would do. Let's be clear what this amendment does. It reverses the safety improvements that were developed following the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. It would delay or prevent the implementation of a rule that was developed directly from the recommendations of numerous investigations. There was a full investigation. These are the recommendations from it. The investigations were conducted by industry experts, and they determined the actual cause of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy and the impact on the Gulf of Mexico and on the surrounding States and on the local communities, as we heard Ms. Castor from Florida talk about earlier. Many of the requirements of this rule are not new. They were already in existence as industry standards, notice to lessees and guidance and equipment and operation requirements that were already part of the regulation. What the rule does is consolidates these requirements into one section and makes them enforceable--yes, enforceable. The Department of the Interior estimates that the regulation amendment blocks would prevent between $657 million and $4.4 billion of damage caused by well blowouts over 10 years. Most importantly, this estimate does not take into account the human element of these protections. I think we can all agree that you cannot put a price on human life. The Deepwater Horizon was a tragic event. Eleven lives were lost in that explosion. It is unconscionable that this amendment, once again, looks to put the profits of big oil companies ahead of workers' safety; so I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, investigations were conducted by industry experts, and they determined the actual causes of the catastrophe of the Deepwater. Many of the requirements of this rule are not new, and they already exist in industry standards. This rule has one goal for me, and that is to save lives. Eleven lives were lost in that explosion. We have learned from that event. It was a tragic event what happened with the Deepwater Horizon. We should do everything we can to put workers' safety ahead of Big Oil's profits.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Can you imagine a 30-year-old oil and gas production rule and not being able to update it? This amendment allows a 30-year-old rule to comply with today's technology to make sure that we are doing what is best practices in the industry and we can work with the industry to do proper oversight. As was pointed out, if this provision stays in place, States, tribes, and Federal taxpayers would lose royalty revenues. We should be doing everything we can with our public lands to make sure the taxpayer receives full value whenever there is a lease. I support this amendment, and I urge for its adoption. Just once again, imagine not being able to update 30-year-old rules and not being able to update current royalty rates. We need to do better by the American taxpayer; we need to strike this provision; we need to do the updates; we need to update 30-year-old regulations; and we need to make sure that the American taxpayer gets a fair return on its royalties.

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. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.