Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

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.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would prohibit funds in the act from being used to pay attorney fees in excess of $125 per hour for the Endangered Species Act civil suits. Now, perhaps the gentleman is not aware that the Equal Access to Justice Act caps attorney fees at $125 per hour unless the court--the court--determines that an increase in the cost of living or special factors, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies the higher fee. So it would be the court that would determine that. But the fee is capped at $125 an hour. This is unnecessary and it is a redundant amendment. Attorney fees for the Endangered Species Act cases, as I said, are already capped at $125 per hour, unless special criteria are stipulated by the Equal Access Justice Court. This amendment would effectively change that implementation of the Equal Access Justice Act for one specific policy area: the Endangered Species Act. Again, higher attorney fees are only permitted in cases where specific criteria under the Endangered Species Act are met. At best, this amendment is redundant; at worst, it is a backdoor attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act protections and make access to justice a lot less equal. In closing, Mr. Chair, we don't need any extraneous, redundant provisions to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful legislative riders. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I understand that there is a concern with the listings; and I hear that very loud and clear from my colleagues. The problem with the way that these amendments have been drafted, particularly in line with this amendment, again, all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. Landowners would have no avenue to comply with because they wouldn't have a partner in the Fish and Wildlife because Fish and Wildlife would be barred from issuing any permits or any exemptions. Clearly, it means landowners, industries, and other parties who might need to take a lesser prairie chicken incidentally to their otherwise lawful activities will be vulnerable to a lawsuit. Additionally, this amendment will halt any innovation plan to conserve the lesser prairie chicken. The gentleman's amendment, by undermining collaborative efforts and, I believe, with an amendment that creates uncertainty for landowners making them vulnerable to lawsuits, should be an amendment that should be opposed. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this 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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment before us would strike the policy rider that prohibits the Bureau of Land Management from implementing a uniform national standard for hydraulic fracking on public lands, on Federal lands. Such standards are necessary to ensure the operations on public and tribal lands are safe and that they are conducted in an environmentally responsible way. This only affects Federal lands and tribal lands. Now, of the 32 States with the potential for oil and gas development on federally managed mineral resources, only slightly more than half of them have rules in place that even address hydraulic fracturing, and those that do have rules in place vary greatly in their requirements. As you can see, there is no consistency in the rules. There is no guarantee that there are good quality rules put in place. And we are talking about making sure that, on Federal leases, on Federal lands, that we have a national standard. The BLM continues to offer millions of public lands up for renewable energy production, and that is why it is absolutely critical that they have the confidence and the transparency and the safety and environmental protections that are put in place on these Federal lands. Prior to the issuance of a hydraulic fracturing rule, the BLM rules on oil and gas operation were updated over 30 years ago, 30 years ago. They had not kept pace with the significant technology advancements in hydraulic fracturing techniques and the tremendous increase of its use. As part of this implementation rule, the BLM office is in the process of meeting with their State counterparts--they are working with them-- undertaking a State-by-State comparison of regulatory requirements in order to identify opportunities for variances and to establish memorandums of understanding between the States that will realize efficiencies and allow for successful implementation of the rule. So we should be allowing BLM to coordinate with the States and ensure that hydraulic fracturing activities are being carried out safely and effectively when Federal leases are involved. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by my friend from Alaska would prohibit any Federal funds from being used to implement the administration's revised comprehensive conservation plan to better sustain and manage the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Chairman, attaching this rider to the Interior Appropriations bill would be a mistake. The coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is one of the few remaining places in our Nation that remains pristine and undisturbed. It provides critical protection for thousands of species-- caribou, polar bear, and gray wolves, just to name a few--and they desperately need this important habitat. Roughly 20 million acres managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are some of the best and last undisturbed natural areas in this Nation. I understand that the gentleman from Alaska feels strongly about this issue, and he has been a great advocate for his State for decades; but on this important issue, we deeply disagree. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Interior Department released an updated conservation plan to better manage the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the President took that opportunity to call on Congress to pass legislation designating the coastal plain as a wilderness, an even greater level of protection for this incredible area. The protected area encompasses a wide range of Arctic and subarctic ecosystems. There are unadulterated landforms, and there are native flora and fauna. The refuge has an incredible biological integrity, natural diversity, and environmental health. I understand that there are differences of opinion how to manage this land and that legislation designated in this area as wilderness may not get very far in this Congress. But I want to commend the President for his leadership on this issue, and I would hope that the legislative process could play out and that we not adopt this rider onto this bill because this issue is just far too important. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not point out one more obvious truth: the President will not sign a bill loaded up with antienvironmental riders just like this one. So we only make the path for the bill harder by including it. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment would reverse section 438 to block the EPA from making critical updates to its ozone standard. The amendment makes an already bad policy rider in this bill even worse. This amendment, however, would completely prohibit the EPA from updating the standard, short-circuiting both current law and the judicial process, while putting millions of Americans' health at risk. Ozone is the main component in smog, and it has been scientifically proven to aggravate lung disease, increase frequency and severity of asthma attacks, and reduce lung function. We hear about those opportunities all the time that we are given now when the ozone is too high in the air to stay inside. Young children shouldn't be out, and people with heart disease and lung disease should stay indoors. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review its ozone standard every 5 years to reflect the most up-to-date science on ozone and its impacts on public health. The EPA, in fact, is under a court order to issue its final rules by October of this year. The EPA's update to its ozone standard is based on strong scientific evidence, including over 1,000 scientific studies that show the harmful effect of ozone on human health and the need for higher standards. The EPA estimates the benefit of updated standards of 70 parts per billion will yield the health benefits of $13 billion each year. On its merits, this amendment is shortsighted and reactionary, and it is a backdoor amendment to completely gut the Clean Air Act. Prohibiting the EPA's ability to update ozone standards is reckless, and it is out of touch with what Americans want, and that is clear air. The EPA's update is firmly rooted in science and ensures health and protections for the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment will ensure that this important executive order is respected in such a way that it has my wholehearted support in protecting the liberty and religious rights of Native American Indians.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Grijalva amendment. As has been pointed out, BLM already has the authority to make vacant grazing allotments available for permittees on a discretionary basis where the permittee is adversely impacted by wildfire or drought, but unlike the discretionary basis on which the BLM currently makes these allotments, this rider would exempt the National Environmental Policy Act, a NEPA review. On page 127, line 25, it reads ``with respect to'' the National Forest System lands, ``shall''--not may--``shall make vacant,'' and so what the BLM currently can do is they can conduct a NEPA review in areas where they think they have concerns and they can ensure that the land, health standards, and resources are not going to be compromised because the BLM has a role to play in protecting these lands for grazing potential in the future so that they are not harmed or overgrazed. To me, it makes common sense that the rider should not exempt the BLM from a regulatory requirement to issue a decision and conduct an administrative review, which they currently can choose to do or choose not to do based on the information that they have. Any grazing that is mandated by this rider is likely also to find itself caught up by hearings and delays and appeals and judicial review. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike the unnecessary rider and to leave the discretion in place so it continues to be the National Forest System lands may be made vacant.

Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment clearly is a Republican attempt to cut funding from the Environmental Protection Agency. As an agency that protects the air we all breathe, protects the water we drink, the fish we eat, it means that the EPA works every day to protect the health of every American. This amendment is clearly an attack against the administration for work that they have been doing to enforce those protections. It is entirely counterproductive to complain about a lack of timely response from the EPA and then turn around and slash the very funding that allows the EPA Administrator and Agency staff to respond to our concerns. Crippling cuts to the office of congressional relations will not only make it more difficult for Members of Congress to get our questions answered--and those of our constituents--by slashing the office of intergovernmental agency affairs, this amendment would make it harder for State and local officials to gather the information they need to protect their communities. I don't really believe we want to tell the EPA that they should cut back on meeting and getting recommendations from local government advisory committees or tell our elected officials at a State level that they are going to have even a harder time getting a hold of someone at the EPA to help them form agreements to address their priority needs. Our States have a responsibility with the EPA for protecting public health and the environment, and this amendment would undermine those partnerships. This amendment would make it more difficult for the people's representatives at the Federal, State, and local level to reach out and get support and answers from the EPA in order to protect the health of their constituents. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these cuts, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the EPA's update is firmly rooted in science and ensures the health and protections for the American people. We have a responsibility to protect the millions of Americans affected by ozone pollution. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague. I rise to support the Lawrence amendment to strike the section prohibiting the new rule on the Federal jurisdiction of the waters of the United States. A few weeks ago, the Obama administration issued a final rule that clarifies the limits of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. It does this by reducing red tape and providing more certainty for the regulated community. Instead of confusion in case-by-case determinations about where waters are covered, the rule says physical, measurable boundaries for the first time about where clean water coverage begins and ends. The rule does not expand the waters covered. In fact, it will actually reduce the scope of waters protected by the Clean Water Act. Additionally, the rule does not create any new permitting requirements for agriculture. It maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions. The rule ensures that the waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more precisely defined and predictably measured, making permitting less costly, easier, and faster for business and industry. Prohibiting the EPA from implementing the rule will only perpetrate confusion in the jurisdiction of the water. This harmful rider should be struck; therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Lawrence amendment.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, it is a blanket block to the EPA from fully implementing and enforcing air toxic standards for boilers and incinerators. Among other things, there are boilers that burn natural gas, coal, wood, oil, and other fuel to produce steam, and the steam does produce electricity or provide heat, and incinerators burn waste to dispose of it. These boilers and incinerators have the potential of releasing very toxic pollutants such as mercury, lead, dioxin, and other pollutants that are linked to health effects. In 2011, after a robust public process, including three public hearings and responding to thousands of public comments, the EPA finalized standards to reduce toxic emissions for existing new boilers and commercial industrial solid waste incinerators and sewage sludge incinerators. Now, among other things, the rule requires emissions to just meet certain standards. It is a measurement of air pollution based on the degree of which light is blocked by the pollutant from the smokestack. The rule also allows the EPA to approve alternative opacity limits under certain circumstances, so there is flexibility within the rule. Now, the local paper mills in the representative State are exceeding or they are expected to exceed the standard in the EPA's final rule, so to better fit their circumstances, they want an alternate opinion. That is the issue that the EPA is looking at right now. The EPA is looking at this right now. They heard the concerns; they are looking at it. Strangely, this amendment would not really address that issue. Instead, it would block the EPA from ever approving an alternative limit or implementing or enforcing an alternative limit that had already been improved. I rise because this amendment, unfortunately, just does not make any sense to me that we would not keep the dialogue moving forward. The EPA has the responsibility of making sure that standards of emissions with mercury and lead and other toxic pollutants are not dangerous to public health, especially to children. We know statistically now that up to 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks, and 52 asthma attacks are all worked into reducing the emissions, to lower those numbers. We need to stand with the EPA air toxic standards and allow them to achieve their intended benefits and to work with industry where it makes sense, and we can have industry move forward but still protect the public health, just not scrap the parts that industry dislikes. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it would keep the EPA from doing what it is doing right now, and that is to work with industry, oddly enough, to create a win-win for industry and a win-win for public health. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the owner of PRO Pharmacy in South Saint Paul, Minnesota, Greg Schouweiler, along with his staff and customers, as this independent local business closes after decades of serving residents in my hometown and the surrounding community. In 1923, Gericke's Pharmacy was established, providing health care to local residents. In November 1975, Greg Schouweiler purchased this neighborhood drugstore at Marie and Fifth Avenue and continued to meet health care needs for families in South St. Paul for generations. Under Greg's ownership, for nearly 40 years, PRO Pharmacy truly grew into an important community resource, providing high-quality patient care and exceptional, friendly and dependable customer service to individuals and families. For the past five years, PRO Pharmacy was the only pharmacy in South Saint Paul, the sole independent pharmacy in the nearby area, and the sole pharmacy delivering prescriptions to patients in South Saint Paul, West Saint Paul, and Inver Grove Heights. PRO Pharmacy delivered between 400-500 prescriptions per day to Minnesota seniors and people with disabilities free of charge. This was an invaluable service for these customers and ensured that they received their prescriptions in a timely manner. During the past several years, it was an honor to work with PRO Pharmacy on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries to help them to continue to be able to get their prescriptions filled from their trusted neighborhood drugstore--PRO Pharmacy. On June 15, 2015, PRO Pharmacy closed for the last time. The courteous, high quality service they have provided for many years will be missed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to honor PRO Pharmacy in South Saint Paul, Minnesota after nearly four decades of putting customers first and serving the community.