Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, if I may inquire how much time is remaining so I don't consume all the gentleman's time?

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will just be short and sweet. I support the gentleman from California's strong objection to this amendment and would encourage people not to vote for it. Let me conclude with this: an EPA law enforcement official deserves the right to come home to their families safe at night, and so they should have the tools that they need in order to do that.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, there are many of us here in Congress who want to build a better America, a stronger America, a healthier America. And there are many of us here who are willing to work and fight to move our country in that direction forward, which is the direction the American people want to go. For most Americans, for families and communities all across this country, protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink is an essential role of government. The American people expect Congress to protect the public's health from polluters who are all too willing to reap larger and larger profits as they pump poison into our air and water. We hear all too often the cries of ``burdensome regulation'' from those who defend the polluters. But rarely do we hear the cries of ``burdensome asthma'' or ``burdensome cancer'' from average Americans who all too often suffer in silence when they are sick because the air, water, or land they need has been poisoned. My Republican colleagues are very content to cut funding and place riders on the enforcement of environmental standards to make life easier for the polluters. But what about the families and the communities put at risk? What about the children who are at risk because avoiding environmental regulations to pump up profits is more important than public health? The role of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the public, to protect our health, to protect our water, to protect our air, to protect our land from polluters who are all too willing to cut corners, enabling them to reap larger profits. Investing in environmental regulation to protect the American people is a government function that is not burdensome. It is essential. We should all want to protect the public's health and the vital role that the Environmental Protection Agency plays on behalf of the American people, but this bill fails to protect the American people. It fails to protect the public's health, and it fails to provide the tools necessary to hold polluters accountable for poisoning our air, our water, and our land. If this bill ever finds its way to the President's desk, President Obama will veto it. Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill, and the investments we make together in this Interior-Environmental Appropriations bill speak to our values as a nation. We are the stewards of a bounty of resources, the inheritors of a nation of natural treasures; and there are 300 million Americans who depend on this Congress to ensure those resources, including our clean air and clean water, are protected. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, very sadly, this bill lets them down. So I will urge my colleagues at the end of the day to vote against final passage, and I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Palmer

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, once again, this amendment would serve no purpose but to erode the collective bargaining rights of civil service Federal employees, hard-working Americans. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment from the gentleman from Minnesota. Every worker is entitled to receive pay for the hours they work; however, there are employers that refuse to pay for overtime, make their employees work off the clock, or refuse to pay minimum wage. At the very least, we should take steps to ensure that these employers don't receive new Federal contracts. This amendment would ensure that lawbreaking contractors don't get rewarded for stealing from their employees. I support this amendment, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from California's opposition to this amendment. It has been used in my State and States all over to improve air quality, and, yes, pollutants have been cut. But as I just pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we still have a long way to go before we can turn to our children and say that we did everything we could to make sure that respiratory illness is decreased and that the air quality in this country is better. So I strongly oppose this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California for his opposition to it as well.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, they do not have the funding. Congress has not given them the funding in the listing program to do their job. Congress needs to be held accountable for the 300 listings not being able to be done every year because Congress has failed to give them the money to do the laws that Congress passed. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman on this issue because I think he raises some concerns which do need to be addressed. I would just kind of like to set the picture about what is currently going on right now. There are 407 units in the National Park system, and only 19 of them--19 of them--have elected to eliminate the sale of water in disposable plastic bottles. It is important to note that in the National Park system units, including these 19, visitors are still free to bring water in with them and use water in disposable plastic bottles. They are not banned from bringing in their own water. The use of these disposable water bottles has had a significant environmental impact on the National Park system units. That is why I would like to work with the gentleman and figure out what we need to do about waste reduction in our parks and if this was part of the Park's overall system on it, and the sugary drinks that the gentleman referred to, if those bottles are also a potential problem, or how do we educate and work with families and hikers and vacationers and visitors to our national parks about not leaving this waste out in the open. Another example, in Grand Canyon Park, disposable bottles compromise nearly 20 percent of the Grand Canyon's waste stream and 30 percent of the park's recyclables. So before eliminating bottle water sales, the National Park system units were required to undertake an extensive review process considering 14 different factors before seeking approval from the regional director. This extensive review process included rigorous impact analysis, including assessment of the effects on visitors' health and safety. Once approved, these park units are required to maintain an extensive public education program that provides readily available designed water bottle refilling stations. And in many places that I visited recently, I have seen both the ability to purchase as well as refill, at our national parks, water bottles. So as a leader in conservation, the National Park Service encourages recycling in the reduction of plastic disposable water bottles. My concern would be we wouldn't want your amendment--and I will speak for myself. I don't want to be part of undercutting any of those efforts to encourage recycling in the reduction of disposable water bottles. I would also be concerned that the park system eliminated water sales without having a viable alternative, as the gentleman pointed out, but that does not appear to be the case here. As I noted earlier, there is an extensive review process, and these park units are required to offer readily available free water refilling stations. Plus, people are still free to bring in water themselves. I would very much like to work with the gentleman and the chairman to see if there are any refinements or if there is anything that we need to know more about what the National Park system's policy on plastic water bottles is. But I do not support an outright prohibition on the National Park Service to be able to carry out a policy that encourages the reuse and the reduction of plastic water bottles in our parks and in our Nation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee amendment. It was very interesting to learn more about what your goals and objectives are, and I think it is very worthy of our consideration.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would be better able to comment on this amendment if the gentleman had shared a copy. In this day and age, I am glad we are allowed to bring an iPad on the floor. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Washington when he decided upon this amendment. Has it been in the last 20 minutes, or was it 2 hours ago? I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat, it has now been nearly 3 years since it was first reported. Coal companies were skirting Federal royalty payments by selling coal to sister companies in order to value exported coal at low domestic prices rather than the much higher prices these sister companies were selling the exported coal for in overseas markets. It is our job--it is our job--to see that coal is fairly priced and that the royalties due to Western States, tribes, and the Federal Government are paid. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would, once again, prevent Fish and Wildlife Service from enforcing the Endangered Species Act with respect to six different species of mussel and would restrict the Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any of the critical protections to preserve these species. This amendment is harmful and, in my opinion, misguided. Once a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, it is a role of Fish and Wildlife Service--is primarily permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities, the TAL that the gentleman referred to. Under this amendment, all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply, but developers and landowners would have no avenue to comply with them. There could be no TAL. The Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions. This means landowners and industry and other parties who might need to take any of these six species of mussels would be vulnerable to a citizens suit. Additionally, this amendment would halt Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, which has no effect on other Federal agencies that are funded outside of this bill. The Endangered Species Act mandates that all Federal departments and agencies conserve listed species and use their authorities in furthering the purpose of this act. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act stipulates that any Federal agency that carries out, permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes activities that may affect all listed species must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. This amendment would stop--stop--section 7 consultation requirements for Federal agencies; rather, it would prohibit Fish and Wildlife from completing these consultations. That means a bridge or a highway project permitted or funded through the Federal Highway Administration or power projects permitted by the Department of Energy would be vulnerable to delays and stoppages and other potential lawsuits. This amendment, in my opinion, is an all-out assault on the Endangered Species Act. In one fell swoop, it would block protections for six different species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered; but, regardless of one's position on the Endangered Species Act, it is just a bad amendment. The gentleman's amendment will create uncertainty for developers, landowners, leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits. I don't think that was the gentleman's original intention, but that is the effect it will have because it will block section 7 consultations, gumming up permitting processing across the Federal Government, delaying projects, and adversely impacting the economy. The amendment is bad for the environment. It is bad for the economy. It is bad for business. It is bad for the highways and energy projects. It is just bad for this bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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