Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

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, 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. 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. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Chair, Congress has enacted numerous laws that manage the ocean and coastal issues across 11 of the 15 Cabinet-level departments and four independent agencies across the Federal Government. As my colleague from Massachusetts pointed out, why wouldn't we want these folks to be working together? Clearly, what the President is trying to do is to just have an action that lets the independent bipartisan commission move forward, including the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which was appointed entirely by President George W. Bush. The National Ocean Policy is a means by which the Federal agencies can sort through all of the tangles of uncoordinated governance and can bring some common sense to the chaos. Wouldn't we want that? If my colleagues have a problem with what government can do on ocean management, then they have a problem with laws that are enacted by Congress, not with the National Ocean Policy or with the President's executive order, because what the President is doing through the National Ocean Policy is following a well-established Presidential tradition of using an executive order to supervise and guide agencies under the President's charge as they execute existing laws passed by Congress. Let us let this agency get to work. Let us find out how we could be more effective with our agencies working together.

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. 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.

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations through two different mechanisms. The first one would prevent the EPA from issuing regulations if supporting research data is withheld under the Freedom of Information Act. Second, it would withhold regulations if the Agency's Science Advisory Board does not provide the requested advice and information to Congress. I would just like to take a moment to address each one of these issues fully. Last year, for example, the EPA received 10,500 FOIA requests--Freedom of Information requests--or an average of 40 per workday. These requests required nearly $11 million--$11 million--in personnel costs to process; yet the EPA receives less than $1 million to collect fees for these requests. They get $11 million in personnel costs to process; yet they get less than $1 million to collect the fees for these requests. You can simply do the math. There are only nine allowable exemptions under the law that would prevent the EPA from complying with FOIA requests in the first place. These exemptions range from classified national defense, foreign relations information, to confidential business information and matters of personal privacy, things which we discuss in this room all the time. The amendment is simply another attempt to stop the EPA from issuing regulations, many of which are required by law and are designed to improve human health and the environment. Now, that was in regards to the first point about EPA issuing regulations on the Freedom of Information Act, lack of funding available to do it, and then they are following the laws with the nine exemptions. Now, with regard to the Science Advisory Board, let me remind my colleagues that these boards are comprised of nearly four dozen experts from academia. For example, there are academics from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, Texas; the Environmental Systems and Research Institute in Redlands, California; and from the University of Minnesota, my home State. Now, in my opinion, it is very disingenuous to suggest that this Advisory Board's subject matter of experts would withhold information to Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which simply puts two more roadblocks in the EPA regulations. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I understand that my colleagues have strong views about this, pro and con, about the listing and delisting; but this amendment is very, very problematic. For that reason, I can't support it. The gentleman from Idaho is correct. This has so many unintended consequences that I feel very strongly--very strongly--about not supporting this amendment for that reason. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. The headlines are, groundbreaking rule in Washington State on this dairy case. And it is, ``Dairy Pollution Threatens Washington Valley's Water.'' This was a big enough story, in fact, that it was even reprinted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It was the first time that the Federal Resources Conservation Recovery Act was used to consider ways in which land and water had to be protected. So, Mr. Chairman, just because I didn't have an opportunity to really delve into this and find out more about it--and what the amendment does is it just totally stops funds to be issued under this regulation to animal feeding operations--I am going to oppose it because it also includes large concentrated animal feeding operations. And I do come from a farming State, so I do know the difference between a small farm, a small hog farmer, and a lagoon, and large dairy farms and small dairy farms. So with that, I oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will just read into the Record from January 15, 2015, Spokane, Washington: A Federal judge has ruled that a large industrial dairy in eastern Washington has polluted drinking water through its application, storage, and management of manure in a case that could set precedents across the Nation. U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice of Spokane ruled Wednesday that the pollution posed an ``imminent and substantial endangerment'' to the environment and to people who drink the water. Rice wrote that he ``could come to no other conclusion than that the dairy's operations are contributing to the high levels of nitrate that are currently contaminating--and will continue to contaminate . . . the underlying groundwater.'' ``Any attempt to diminish the dairy's contribution to the nitrate contamination is disingenuous, at best,'' Rice wrote in the 111-page opinion, in which he granted partial summary judgment in favor of environmental groups that sued the dairy. These environmental groups are people who are looking out for their drinking water. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that this opportunity has been presented for us to have a discussion on the House floor and the National Park Service doing the right thing about the removal of this symbol of what has become racist hate speech. I thank the gentleman for bringing forward the amendment, and I rise in support of it.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop the EPA from requiring farms to submit a plan on how they will prevent oil from entering navigable waters. I come from Minnesota; so, this seems like a pretty commonsense requirement to me. If a facility has large amounts of oil, it should tell the agency responsible for an inland oil spill cleanup how it will prevent an environmental disaster. Why shouldn't the holder of gallons of oil have a plan even if it is an agriculture business? It should have a plan. And there are criteria to make sure that a facility truly should be subject to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule. It has to meet three criteria. It must be nontransported. It must have an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons or a completely buried storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons. We are talking about a lot of oil. The third point is that there must be a reasonable expectation that, if something were to go wrong and if there were a discharge, it would go into navigable waters of the United States or of adjoining shorelines. In other words, if there is an accident and if there is water nearby, you would need to have a plan in place so that not only would oil not seep in and ruin your land, but that it would not flow into waters past the boundaries of your water and just keep polluting. The preparation of the SPCC plan is the responsibility of a facility owner or operator or it can be prepared by an engineer or a consultant, but it must be certified by a registered professional engineer. Let's just think about it. You have 42,000 gallons of oil stored underground, and you have 1,320 gallons of oil above. All this does is say you need to have an emergency plan if, when that accident would occur--and it can occur--there would be the possibility of having that oil go into navigable waters and spread onto other property owners' land or State land or Federal land. I think these sound like reasonable requirements. It is a small step to help work with the farmer to prevent an environmental disaster that would most likely end up being cleaned up with taxpayers' funds. I always think you should hope for the best, but you always need to have a plan just in case something goes wrong. This rule requirement makes sure that these facilities that meet these criteria have a plan in place. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment is yet another attack on a vulnerable icon American species, the gray wolf. The gray wolf is a keystone species that plays a vital role in keeping our ecosystems healthy. It is also an animal that many Native American cultures feel a kinship bond with. I heard from many tribal leaders that the protections afforded under the Endangered Species Act for gray wolves are the only way that they have been able to keep wolf hunts out of their tribal reservation boundaries. Now, I understand many of my colleagues have very strong views about listings and delistings affecting their States, but the Endangered Species Act exists to offer necessary protections and ensure a species' survival, which the majority of our constituents strongly support. This is the same law that successfully restored another iconic American species, the bald eagle. This amendment restricts the Department of the Interior's ability to implement the Endangered Species Act. However, it does not alter the protections for the endangered wolves in these States. Regardless of one's position on species protection, the amendment is very problematic. The restrictions will ultimately hurt farmers, ranchers, landowners and businessowners. Here is why: under this amendment, the Fish and Wildlife Service would not be able to offer exemptions or permits for incidental killings of wolves to landowners, ranchers, and other parties who might be in need of them; however, the prohibition against accidental kills or takes would still remain and would still be legally enforceable. Thus, this constitutes that States would either have to stop any activity--any activity--that led to the taking of a wolf, or they would be vulnerable to a lawsuit or heavy penalties. Simply put, this amendment is bad for wolves; it is bad for our ecosystem; it is bad for business, and it is bad for our constituents.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again reiterate there are only nine allowable exemptions under this law that would prevent the EPA from complying with FOIA requests. These exemptions range from classified national defense, foreign relations information, confidential business information, and matters of personal privacy. Once again, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which simply works to put roadblocks in front of the EPA ever being able to issue a regulation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing threatened species listing of the lesser prairie chicken under the Endangered Species Act and would restrict the Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any critical protections to preserve the species. This amendment is harmful and misguided and maybe a little scrambled, as in some eggs. Once the species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the role of Fish and Wildlife is primarily permissive, helping parties comply with the act as they carry out their activities. Under this amendment, all the Endangered Species Act prohibitions would still apply. They would still apply, the Endangered Species Act prohibitions, but landowners would have no avenue to comply with them. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be barred from issuing permits or exemptions. This means landowners, industry, and other parties who might need to take the lesser prairie chicken incidentally to do their otherwise lawful activities, such as oil and gas development, would be vulnerable to a citizens lawsuit. Additionally, this amendment would halt an innovative plan to conserve the lesser prairie chicken. In 2014, Fish and Wildlife, in partnership with States and local stakeholders, began the implementation of a lesser prairie chicken rangewide conservation plan. That encouraged participants to gain in proactive and voluntary conservation activities, promoting lesser prairie chicken conservation. The plan describes a locally controlled and an innovative approach for maintaining the State's authority to conserve the species and allows for economic development to continue in a seamless manner. It sounds like a win-win to me, with Fish and Wildlife partnering with local partners and with the State. This plan prevents significant regulatory delays in obtaining taking permits, disruption to economic activities vital to the State and national interests, and little incentive for conservation habitat on prairie lands. Sadly, the gentleman's amendment would undermine this plan that local folks and the State came up with to be more collaborative in a conservation effort. This amendment would create uncertainty for landowners, making them vulnerable, as I said earlier, to lawsuits. We should be supporting the Fish and Wildlife Service in its efforts to work with local community leaders and to work with the States, not blocking the agency for doing their job. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Fish and Wildlife Service from treating the Preble's meadow jumping mouse as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and would restrict, again, the Fish and Wildlife Service from offering any of the critical protections to preserve the species. This amendment is in addition to a growing list of anti-Endangered Species Act provisions, and it makes one wonder if--for the number of people here who are opposing the work that Fish and Wildlife is doing under the Endangered Species Act--if the intent isn't just to do away with the entire act. Last year, Fish and Wildlife reviewed two petitions to delist the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and determined that protections under the Endangered Species were still necessary. Voting for this amendment might undo a lot of work that was done that is well on its way to having this mouse removed from the endangered species list because this amendment ignores the determination and short-circuits the statutory process informed by science. I would certainly think that a rider on this bill is not the place to have a robust debate about how close we are maybe with Fish and Wildlife being able to delist this mouse and, by putting this language in the bill, that it undoes a lot of potentially good work. It throws out, with this amendment, the carefully science-based work, as I said, that the Fish and Wildlife Service has worked towards and chips away at the very foundation of the Endangered Species Act, which makes me wonder, as I said earlier, if the intent of many of the amendments being offered is not only to chip away but to do away with the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.