Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman's remarks, this is not the place--as a rider on the environmental appropriations bill--to be having these thoughtful discussions. If that is what needs to take place, this is not the bill to be doing it on. I mean, we have an authorizing committee. They can hear things on it; and you can have a robust, full, transparent discussion and bring all the scientists in. Let me close with this: I would be really remiss if I did not remind my colleagues that the Endangered Species Act, in fact, did rescue the bald eagle. The bald eagle's recovery is an American success story because we were united in the belief that this was the symbol of our Nation and was worth protecting for the continuing benefit of future generations. It feels like we have lost sight of being able to do that today, especially with the lack of transparency and full debate that takes place with all these riders being offered on an authorization bill. Congress needs to give serious consideration of what kind of conservation legacy we are leaving for our children, and our children will want us to do a better job than just to put riders onto an appropriations bill. 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. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, again, would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing or enforcing the Endangered Species Act listing for any species that has not undergone a review. This amendment joins a growing list of anti-Endangered Species Act provisions. The amendment would block the listing of any species that does not receive status review by Fish and Wildlife Service every 5 years. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to do a 5-year review every 5 years after a species is listed. However, with over 1,500 domestic listed species, that would amount to over 300 status reviews every year. Why hasn't Fish and Wildlife done it? Well, it is because we-- Congress--do not provide Fish and Wildlife Service with enough resources to complete such a large task. Follow the law? They would love to. In fact, this bill that we are considering right now includes a 50 percent--a 50 percent--cut in the listing program. Now, how can they follow the law when Congress doesn't put any tools in the toolbox allowing them to do their job? I really have to wonder if this House is prepared to appropriate the millions of dollars that would be needed to meet the requirement of this amendment. Fish and Wildlife Service already follows a transparent, science- based listing process. This amendment only seeks to undermine the Endangered Species Act because there is not enough money in here that Congress provides Fish and Wildlife to do the job in the fashion that Congress has asked it to do. In order to list a species under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service follows a strict legal process known as a rulemaking procedure. The first step in assessing the status of the species is the Fish and Wildlife Service publishes a notice of reviews that identify the species that is believed to meet the definition of threatened or endangered. The species are candidates. Now, these notices of review then, the Fish and Wildlife Service goes out and seeks biological information to complete the status of the reviews for the candidate species; then the Fish and Wildlife Service publishes those notices in the Federal Register so the process is transparent to the public. As you can see, the Fish and Wildlife Service follows an open, transparent policy that adequately reviews the species prior to listing. This amendment would exploit a 5-year review backlog that has been caused in part by this Congress' unwillingness to provide adequate funding in order to attack the endangered species list. Let's be transparent about that. The Endangered Species Act exists to offer necessary protections to ensure species survival. Quite frankly, the majority of our constituents support that. Let's make sure that science and species management practices continue to dictate species listings, not Congress; and let's figure out a way to come together, as the gentleman said, to give Fish and Wildlife the tools that they need in order that they can follow the laws that Congress has requested them to follow and not do a smoke and mirror show about how Fish and Wildlife is refusing to follow the law. They can only do what they are able to do with the dollars that Congress appropriates to them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to be really clear. This bill now includes a 50 percent cut to the listing program. The listing program is money that Congress puts in it to do the reviews. Congress cut it by 50 percent. They can't just transfer money around. We have handcuffed and tied up the Fish and Wildlife Service by the amount of funding that Congress gives them to do their job. They don't wake up in the morning and say: We don't want to follow the law. They wake up in the morning, and they see how much Congress has appropriated them.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the discussion that the subcommittee chair and the author of the amendment might prove something better than what this amendment is currently in front of us, but what I have to work on is what is currently in front of me. Just over 2 weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration issued proposed fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks required by the Energy Independence and Security Act. This amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, and administering or enforcing this proposed rule or any future rules-- so this is where I am concerned about the way this amendment is moving forward--with respect to glider vehicles. These new standards were designed to improve fuel efficiency, cut carbon pollution, and reduce the impacts of climate change. To be specific, these standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by roughly 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel costs by $170 million, and reduce oil consumption up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime if a vehicle is sold under this program. Heavy trucks account for 5 percent of the vehicles on the road; yet they create 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions created by all transportation sectors. We know from my colleagues that this amendment does not actually suspend all aspects of the new rule. As it was pointed out, it simply carves out an exemption for one particular industry, an industry that produces what has been called, today, glider vehicles. As has been pointed out, glider vehicles are heavy-duty vehicles that replace older remanufactured engines on new truck chassis. These engines date back to 2001 or older, and they have emissions that are 20 to 40 times higher than today's clean diesel engines. In essence, this amendment would allow an entire segment of the truck manufacturing industry to simply avoid compliance with the new criteria pollutant standards that are in the rule. These are engines that will continue to emit greenhouse gases, slow down our progress, and reduce the impacts of climate change. In short, this amendment creates a loophole that you could drive a truck through by allowing dirty engines to continue to pollute our environment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the EPA is one of several government agencies that uses a special authority to hire Federal employees with specific scientific research credentials. In fact, when the Republicans were the majority party in 2006, they started this program. The EPA didn't start this program on its own. Congress started it in 2006 under a Republican majority. The National Institutes of Health uses title 42 money and authority to attract top-tier scientists in their fields to do important research. We have been listening to many hours this evening of many of my Republican colleagues criticizing the EPA's scientific conclusions. So now it amazes me that the gentleman wants to reduce the Agency's ability to hire the top scientists. Further, the National Academy of Sciences has favorably reported to the committee that the EPA is effectively utilizing its title 42 authority. If a scientist retires or moves on, the Agency would no longer be able to attract a suitable replacement if this amendment were to pass. For those who think the EPA doesn't have adequate scientific basis for its regulations, they should be with me, and they should clearly vote against this amendment. We should be doing more to ensure that our environmental policies are being set by the best and the brightest. This amendment would ensure that the EPA can't recruit new scientists using its limited title 42 authority, which was given to them, to the EPA, in 2006 by a Republican Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the Equal Access to Justice Act is the law of the land. Within limits, it does allow for the Federal payment of legal fees to individuals and small businesses and nonprofits that are the prevailing parties in actions against Federal agencies unless the agency is able to show that the action was substantially justified or a special circumstance existed to make the award unjust. This law helps to deter government misconduct, and it encourages all parties, not just those with resources, to hire legal counsel to assert their rights. I know that my colleagues, including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, will agree with me that the ability to challenge Federal actions is the most important tool for ensuring government accountability. The Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Endangered Species Act are also the law of the land, and these laws have contributed greatly to the protection and improvement of public health in this country. A study by a nonpartisan environmental law institute found that the Equal Access to Justice Act has been cost-effective and only applies to meritorious litigation, and existing legal safeguards and the independent discretion of Federal judges will continue to ensure its prudent application. There are safeguards in place so that this can't be misused. Moreover, the claim that large environmental groups are getting rich on attorneys' fees is not supported by available evidence. The 2011 GAO study, which was just referenced and was at the request of the House Republicans, brought cases against the EPA. They found that most of those suits were brought by trade associations and private companies and that attorneys' fees were only awarded about 8 percent of the time; and among the environmental plaintiffs, the majority of those cases were brought by local groups rather than by national groups. It is completely unfair to target these important environmental safeguards for removal from the protection of the Equal Access to Justice Act. More importantly, this amendment would have serious consequences for public health. In order for our Nation's environmental safeguards to work properly and ensure the protection of public health, citizens, including those with limited means, must have the ability to challenge Federal actions. This amendment is clearly designed to make it more difficult for regular citizens to ensure the accountability of the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the Equal Access to Justice Act is the law of the land. It allows for the Federal payment of legal fees, within limits, to individuals and small businesses and nonprofits which are the prevailing parties in actions against the Federal Government. Again, we should be mindful of the 2011 GAO study that said, in cases brought against the EPA, it found that most suits were brought by trade associations and private companies and that attorneys' fees were only awarded in about 8 percent of the cases. Citizens need to be able to hold their government accountable. They need to be able to petition their government, and that means a citizen with limited means. If that citizen wins and if the judge decides that it is just to award the costs, then that is the law of the land, which I support. Private citizens, regular citizens--citizens without means-- can ensure that there is full accountability of the Federal Government to them. I urge my colleagues to defeat this 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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey have been using unmanned aircraft to complement conventional satellite-based remote sensing. Using remote sensing via unmanned aircraft did make sense. It allows for the rapid collection of data and allows for the Department to get a closer look at natural disasters as they develop. The Department and the USGS are using unmanned aircraft to monitor the spread of wildfires, monitor riverbank erosion, detect and locate coal steam fires, conduct waterfall surveys, and inspect abandoned mines. It is clearly evident to everyone that this technology offers a real public safety benefit. So it makes no sense to hamstring the Department when the technology can save lives and the survey can monitor dangerous natural events. Now, the way that the amendment is written--and I am all for the private sector being able to do things, and that is in your new amendment, that the private sector is not affected by this amendment-- if the private sector currently isn't operating in this space looking at abandoned mines or looking at wildfires and we need to do something right away, your amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from using equipment it would have and be able to launch up and look at something in real time. I don't think that was the total intention of your amendment. But because even though you worked in the redraft to make sure that you protected contractors--and I am glad you did that--I don't know where that leaves us in times of emergency when there isn't a contractor available, because you haven't allowed prohibition. For that reason, Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), a valued Member of this body.

Ms. McCOLLUM. The gentleman's amendment would cut $2 million from the Office of Policy and Program and put the savings into the so-called spending reduction account. If enacted, this would cut an already barebones bill that is plagued by policy riders and further erode our environment. I am concerned that this cut could have great influence on what the policy division does in its relationship in working with States and divisions within States, community assistance, and its research division. I would also point out to my colleagues that the spending reduction account has never been enacted into law in the 4 years it has been proposed, so there really isn't an account I know of that has been authorized where this fund could go. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to keep the Office of Policy able to do its work that impacts on our States and local community. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this bill already is $246 million below the FY 2015-enacted level. This amendment only causes further damage. Let's look at what has been happening over the past decade. As the funding has decreased, we know from committee hearings that the demands on the BLM have increased. There are more oil and gas leases to manage to make sure that they are properly protected. These issues that we deal with in the Bureau of Land Management, also with law enforcement, is working directly with the public sometimes who are out recreating and accessing these lands. I would just like, once again, to reiterate my strong opposition to cutting law enforcement for BLM. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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