Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would cut $12 million from the Environmental Protection Agency program and shift $5 million to the Bureau of Land Management and $5 million to the Forest Service. Now, I know cutting the EPA is an easy target for many of my colleagues across here on the other side of the aisle, but I want to assure my colleagues and understand if this amendment were to be adopted, this account funds program is important to both sides of the aisle. For example, it includes permitting for construction projects across the country; toxic risk prevention, part of the successful brownfields program; pesticide licensing; indoor air quality; radiation. Quite frankly, the EPA's work goes beyond the political talking point of various regulations, and it is necessary to keep this valuable Agency able to do the functions it needs to do to protect public health. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an update on the Member that I am waiting for. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a valued Member of this body.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left?

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a thoughtful and valued member of the subcommittee.

Ms. McCOLLUM. The gentlewoman from Ohio has my commitment to work with the chairman to resolve it.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a colleague of mine on the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), a member of the subcommittee who is very valued.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would like to acknowledge and thank Ranking Member Lowey for her support and her mentorship as I start working on this very first appropriations bill on the House floor. I would like to thank my subcommittee chairman, Ken Calvert, for the effort he has put into this bill. I appreciate that even as Chairman Calvert grappled with an inadequate funding allocation, he carried out his work in an open and thoughtful manner. The chairman is to be commended for his diligence in holding 14 budget hearings, where we received testimony from nearly 150 witnesses. Let me also, along with the chairman, express my appreciation to the subcommittee staff on the minority and majority sides for their hard work during another difficult budget year. Unfortunately, the inadequate 302(b) allocation given to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations sets this bill up for failure. The majority's refusal to adopt a sufficient overall budget allocation for discretionary appropriations has led to a bill that severely underfunds investments and protections that are priorities for the American people. The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for FY 2016 is $246 million below the current year's enacted level. When added to the cuts of the past 5 years, this bill is more than $2 billion below the FY 2010 enacted level. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, this bill invests less than what was appropriated in 2005. But it gets worse. The rising emergency costs of combating wildland fires, court-ordered Native American contract support costs, and the majority's decision to abandon mandatory funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, otherwise known as PILT, means the remaining funding available for other critical public programs is far below the FY 2015 enacted. PILT has been mandatory spending in the past, and almost 2,000 counties use this compensation for lost tax revenue to provide vital services. PILT should not be in this discretionary bill. It should be returned to mandatory spending. The courts have ruled that Congress must pay full contract support costs to tribal nations. Contract support costs are true mandatory spending, and they should not be in this discretionary bill. Catastrophic wildland fires are natural disasters and, just as any other natural disaster, they should be treated as such emergency spending. Catastrophic wildland fires should not be subject to discretionary spending caps in this bill. Together, spending on these three activities consumes $5.4 billion, or 18 percent of the bill's budget allocation. It is time for the authorizing committees to stop ignoring this problem and responsibly address what are truly mandatory costs, because these costs are burning through our budget allocation. So what does that mean for the rest of the programs funded by H.R. 2822? After years of cuts and flat funding, it means we are going backwards and undermining efforts to preserve America's natural and cultural heritage, failing to meet our commitments to the social and economic well-being of Native Americans, and causing real and lasting harm to the environment. We received compelling testimony this year on the unmet needs in Indian Country, especially in the areas of education and health. Yet this bill's inadequate allocation means that many Native American programs receive far less funding than what the President requested and what Native Americans indeed deserve. This is unfortunate because, as the chairman pointed out, he and I share a deep bipartisan commitment to bettering the lives of Native Americans and to uphold our Federal trust and treaty obligations. Last year, attendance at our national parks was at a record high. With the upcoming centennial of the National Park Service in 2016, visitation is expected to increase. But what will visitors find when they come to the centennial celebration? Without additional funding, they will find historic hotels in Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks that have serious health, safety, and accessibility issues. They will find closed facilities at Yosemite due to 70-year-old sewer lines that are failing. And under the Republican spending plan, what visitors will not find are the hundreds of seasonal rangers that the Park Service needs to hire to restore staffing capacity to 2010 levels. Under H.R. 2822, less than 16 percent of the funds requested for the National Park Service's centennial are provided. By underfunding the Centennial Challenge, this bill misses the opportunity to allow the American public to support their parks through matching donations. The National Park's Civil Rights initiative fares only slightly better, with just 19 percent of the request funded. It is our responsibility to act now to preserve the stories and monuments of the civil rights movement. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is cut by more than 25 percent below the FY 2015-enacted level, continuing the pattern of shortchanging conservation. Wildlife programs are underfunded as well, with cuts or flat funding to programs that assist in the recovery of species or help to prevent their listing in the first place. Funding decisions such as these set up the Endangered Species Act to fail. However, the most significant and devastating cuts are again targeted at the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill cuts the EPA by $718 million from the FY 2015-enacted level, a 9 percent cut. This is on top of the nearly 20 percent cut the Agency has received over the past 4 years. The air every American breathes and the water every American family drinks are all at risk by the funding cuts and policy attacks in this bill. When the majority says it wants to rein in the EPA, what they are really doing is denying the protection of our air and water. The consequences of abandoning public health and environmental protection will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation. Why? Because this bill cuts the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Funds by more than half a billion dollars. The revolving funds are part of a partnership with our communities to build and repair infrastructure that protects America's drinking water and prevents sewage from contaminating our water. And when we invest in these water systems, we are also creating jobs in communities all across the country. Earlier this month, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior released their latest summer fire forecast, which showed that fire costs are likely to exceed FY 2015-enacted levels by nearly $300 million. Wildland fires burn up 12 percent, or $3.9 billion, of the bill's allocation. And without some relief, these numbers will only continue to grow. In just the past 3 years, we have had to make up a total of a billion-dollar shortfall that forced agencies to borrow funds from other accounts to pay for fire costs. We know the answer to this problem. Many of us are cosponsors of Mr. Simpson's bill, H.R. 167, to treat a portion of these wildfire costs as they are--disasters. Yet as problematic as the funding decisions in this bill are, what is even more troubling are the more than two dozen problem legislative riders and funding limitations contained in the bill, with seven of these being new this year. These provisions do not belong in the bill. These are proposals that should be moved through the authorizing committee, where open, transparent, and thoughtful debate can take place. The riders the majority have hung on this bill undermine our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, endanger public health and safety, and deny the impact that climate change is having on our planet. Several of these riders would require that Agency scientists and procedures be ignored, saying that they ``can't be trusted.'' Yet other provisions would overturn Federal court decisions and limit judicial review. As lawmakers, we create the legislation that guides our Nation, but my colleagues in the majority seem to need a reminder that we are only one of three branches of government. Clearly, we are the most important branch. But the other two branches have jobs to do as well. For a majority that complains about the Federal rulemaking process, it is surprising to see that the bill contains directives that certain Federal rules be issued. It would appear that the majority is okay with Federal rulemaking, but only as long as the rules are the ones they want. With the inadequate funding and special interest provisions, I share the administration's concerns about this bill. I will submit the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2822, which is eight pages and includes a veto threat. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2822--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (Rep. Rogers, R-KY) The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2822, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes. The bill drastically underfunds core Department of the Interior programs as well as the Environmental Protection Agency's operating budget, which supports nationwide protection of human health and our vital air, water and land resources. Funding levels in the bill would prevent investments that reduce future costs to taxpayers by facilitating increased energy development and maintaining facilities and infrastructure in national parks, refuges, forests, public lands, and Indian Country. They would make it harder for States and businesses to plan and execute changes that would decrease carbon pollution and address the challenges the Nation faces from climate change. They would also reduce support for partnerships and effective collaboration with States, local governments and private entities on efforts to restore and conserve natural resources. Further, the bill includes numerous highly problematic ideological provisions that have no place in funding legislation. These provisions threaten to undermine the ability of States and communities to address climate change and protect a resource that is essential to America's health--clean water, as well as the most basic protections for America's special places and the people and wildlife that rely on them. If the President were presented with H.R. 2822, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Enacting H.R. 2822 and adhering to the congressional Republican budget's overall spending limits for fiscal year (FY) 2016 would hurt our economy and shortchange investments in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was never intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to threaten such drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense funding that policymakers would be motivated to come to the table and reduce the deficit through smart, balanced reforms. The Republican framework would bring base discretionary funding for both non-defense and defense for FY 2016 to the lowest real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's Budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the Nation's most vulnerable children losing access to Head Start, millions fewer workers receiving job training and employment services, and drastic cuts to research awards and grants, along with other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class, and Americans working hard to reach the middle class. Sequestration funding levels would also put our national security at unnecessary risk, not only through pressures on defense spending, but also through pressures on State, USAID, Homeland Security, and other non-defense programs that help keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our economy and the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to defense without also fixing non-defense. The President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto H.R. 2822 and any other legislation that implements the current Republican budget framework, which blocks the investments needed for our economy to compete in the future. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to reverse sequestration for defense and non-defense priorities and offset the cost with commonsense spending and tax expenditure cuts, as Members of Congress from both parties have urged. The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee's version of the bill. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA Operating Budget. The Administration disagrees strongly with the bill's reduction to EPA's operating budget by $474 million, or 13 percent, compared to the FY 2016 Budget request. This reduced level of funding would significantly undermine implementation of the Clean Power Plan and the recently finalized Clean Water Rule. The Clean Power Plan is a flexible and practical approach to addressing the risks of climate change by reducing carbon pollution from the electric power sector, the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States. Climate change is not only an environmental challenge, it is also an economic, public health, and national security challenge. Unabated climate change is projected to hamper economic growth in the United States and put the health and well-being of the Nation at risk from extreme weather events, wildland fire, poor air quality, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers such as mosquitos and ticks. Failing to address climate change would also exacerbate poverty and contribute to environmental degradation in developing countries, potentially resulting in resource shortages, political instability, and conflict. Meanwhile, the bill also reduces funding to implement the recently finalized Clean Water Rule that would ensure waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more precisely defined and predictably determined. By delaying implementation of this rule, business and industry face a more costly, difficult, and slower permitting process. State Categorical Grants. The Administration opposes the $118 million reduction to State and Tribal Categorical grants compared to the FY 2016 Budget request. Often, States and Tribes implement environmental programs through delegated authorities. However, the bill reduces these grants to States and Tribes to carry out activities such as water quality permitting, air monitoring, and hazardous waste management programs. In addition, the bill reduces funding for brownfields projects by $35 million, or 32 percent, from the FY 2016 Budget request. This reduced level of funding severely limits opportunities for local communities to revitalize their contaminated lands to improve environmental quality and spark economic redevelopment. State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Administration objects to the funding levels provided for EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs. The bill reduces SRF funding by a combined $527 million from the FY 2016 Budget request, reducing necessary support to help communities finance water infrastructure improvements, resulting in approximately 200 fewer projects being funded nationally. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Limits for Power Plants. The Administration strongly objects to section 428 of the bill, which would prohibit the use of funds to propose, finalize, implement or enforce carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel-fired electric generating units that are the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States. The bill seeks to derail Administration efforts to address under section 111 of the Clean Air Act the urgent economic, public health, and national security impacts of unabated climate change. Failure to reduce the utility sector's carbon footprint places the Nation at risk from extreme weather events, wildland fire, poor air quality, global instability, accelerated environmental degradation, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers such as mosquitos and ticks. Clean Water Act (CWA). The Administration believes that the CWA provisions in the bill undermine efforts to protect America's clean water resources, which are critical to American families and businesses. The Administration strongly objects to section 422 of the bill in particular, which would disrupt the Administration's current efforts to clarify the scope of CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and create significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and guidance. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The Administration regards the SCC as an essential component of the environmental rulemaking process and opposes the Congress' interference with the Interagency Working Group's (IWG) development of the SCC. The Administration strongly objects to section 437 of the bill, which would force the IWG to revise the SCC using only the discount rates and ``domestic'' SCC values stated in Executive Order 12866 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4. This revision would ignore the trans-boundary movement of carbon, fail to capture key costs of carbon emissions, and disrupt dozens of upcoming rules that would use the SCC to monetize carbon reduction benefits. Limitations on Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Administration objects to section 435 of the bill, which would block the finalization, implementation, and enforcement of a rule to prohibit certain uses of climate super-pollutants known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Domestic action to reduce use of HFCs is consistent with U.S. advocacy for addressing HFCs on a global basis, such as through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol. National Ocean Policy. The Administration objects to section 425 of the bill, which prohibits any funding provided in the bill from being used to implement the marine planning components of the National Ocean Policy. This provision would prohibit the Department of the Interior (DOI) and EPA from participating in marine and coastal planning efforts, a process to better determine how the ocean, the Nation's coasts, and the Great Lakes are managed in an efficient manner. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) Financial Assurance. The Administration objects to section 427 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds to develop, propose, finalize, and implement financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA 108(b). On May 19, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered EPA to develop an expedited schedule for financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry and for three other industries. This provision would severely limit EPA's ability to develop these rules in a timely manner and abrogates EPA's responsibilities laid out in CERCLA 108(b). Classification of Forest Biomass Fuels as Carbon-Neutral. The Administration objects to the bill's representation of forest biomass as categorically ``carbon-neutral.'' This language conflicts with existing EPA policies on biogenic CO2 and interferes with the position of States that do not apply the same policies to forest biomass as other renewable fuels like solar or wind. This language stands in contradiction to a wide-ranging consensus on policies and best available science from EPA's own independent Science Advisory Board, numerous technical studies, many States, and various other stakeholders. e-Manifest. The Administration objects to the elimination of funding for e-Manifest development, EPA's system for electronically tracking the transport of hazardous waste. While the Administration acknowledges the concern about the pace of development of the e-Manifest, eliminating the requested $7 million in funding at this time would jeopardize EPA's ongoing progress to develop the system and begin operations in the coming years. Lead Test Kits. The Administration objects to section 426 of the bill that would disrupt EPA's current activities under the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting rule until EPA approves a commercially available ``improved'' lead paint test kit. This provision would undermine EPA's efforts to protect sensitive populations from exposure to lead, a known toxin to children and developing fetuses, during home renovation projects. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Topline. The Administration opposes the $159 million, or 5 percent, reduction to BIA as compared to the FY 2016 Budget request. This funding level would limit DOI's ability to make key investments in education and wrap-around services to support Native youth, eliminating all increases to post-secondary scholarships and $10 million for education program enhancement funds to allow Bureau of Indian Education to drive school improvement and reforms. The bill reduces funding for initiatives aimed at supporting tribal self-determination through the creation of a one-stop portal to facilitate access to Federal resources and funding to address data gaps in Indian Country, and the creation of an Office of Indian Affairs Policy, Program Evaluation, and Data to support effective, data-driven, tribal policy making and program implementation. In addition, this bill eliminates all increases to natural resources management on tribal lands, including funds to help tribal communities prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change. National Park Service (NPS) Centennial. The Administration opposes funding levels provided for the NPS Centennial. The bill fails to provide adequate funding to prepare for the Centennial in 2016, resulting in the delay of roughly 70 percent of line-item park construction projects and 36 percent of repair and rehabilitation projects, and forgoes millions in matching private donations. The bill also fails to provide funding for engaging youth and cultivating the next generation of conservation-minded individuals, including funding for transportation assistance to students from Title I schools. Onshore Inspection Fees. The bill does not include a proposal in the FY 2016 Budget request to institute a new onshore oil and gas inspection fee program. The proposal, which is similar to the program already in place for offshore operations, would cover the cost of inspection activities and reduce the net cost to taxpayers of operating the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) oil and gas program. Failure to adopt the new fees and associated funding would hamper the BLM's ability to protect human safety, conserve energy resources, facilitate the proper reporting of oil and gas production, and ensure environmental requirements are being followed in all phases of development. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. The Administration opposes the 15 percent reduction to State and Tribal Wildlife Grants compared to the FY 2016 Budget request. This important program allows States and Tribes, key partners in conservation, to strategically protect wildlife and conserve habitat in a way that complements Federal investments and yields better results for the public. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). The bill provides $452 million for PILT, which the Administration has proposed to fund through a separate mandatory appropriation in line with its previous congressional enactment. While the Administration appreciates the Committee's support for PILT, inclusion of these funds in the bill comes at the expense of all other programs funded by the bill. Carcieri Land into Trust. The bill fails to include the provision in the FY 2016 Budget request to clarify and reaffirm the Secretary of the Interior's authority to acquire land in trust under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). In Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 397 (2009), the Supreme Court held that the Secretary could acquire land in trust under the IRA only for tribes that were ``under Federal jurisdiction'' in 1934. A legislative solution would help achieve the goals of the IRA and tribal self-determination by clarifying that DOI's authority under the law applies to all tribes, whether recognized in 1934 or after. Such legislation would be consistent with the longstanding policy of assisting Tribes in establishing and protecting a land base sufficient to allow them to provide for the health, welfare, and safety of tribal members, and in treating all tribes equally for purposes of setting aside lands for tribal communities. Hydraulic Fracturing: Section 439 of the bill would block DOI from implementing, administering or enforcing the Bureau of Land Management's recently-finalized Hydraulic Fracturing rule. This would leave the agency reliant on 30-year old requirements and prevent it from taking key steps to improve the safety of oil and gas drilling activities and improve opportunities for BLM to coordinate standards and processes with States and Tribes to reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency. Stream Buffer Regulation. Section 423 would prohibit DOI's Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement from updating 30-year-old stream protection regulations to reflect modern science and technology and better protect people and the environment, provide industry more certainty, and address recent court decisions. Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting. Sections 421 and 424 would substantially impair the enforcement of a longstanding ban on the use of lead ammunition in the hunting of migratory waterfowl, and would complicate in other ways the overall implementation of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on public lands. Wildlife Trafficking. Section 120 would interfere with ongoing Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) actions to combat wildlife trafficking, curb the poaching of African Elephants, and restrict trade in ivory, which would impair U.S. leadership in the global fight against ivory poaching. Endangered Species Act Restrictions. Sections 117, 121, and 122 of the bill undercut the Endangered Species Act by limiting the ability of the FWS to properly protect, based on the best available science, a number of species, including the greater sage grouse, northern long-eared bat, and certain gray wolf populations. Language provisions, like those affecting the sage grouse, would only create additional uncertainty and undermine unprecedented efforts to conserve the sagebrush landscape and the Western way of life. Federal Acknowledgement of American Indian Tribes. Language under the heading ``Bureau of Indian Affairs, Administrative Provisions'' in the bill would block DOI from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing the Administration's proposed Federal acknowledgment rule, preventing DOI's effort to improve the regulations governing the process and criteria by which the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges an Indian Tribe. DOI and Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The Administration objects to the drastic reduction of $152 million, or 38 percent, to the requested discretionary funding for DOI and USDA LWCF programs. LWCF is a cornerstone of Federal conservation and recreation preservation efforts. This funding level would severely impede agency capacity to further protect our Nation's natural heritage. To date, the LWCF has contributed to the protection of key public lands, such as Rocky Mountain National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, and portions of the Appalachian Trail, among others, as well as State and local recreation projects and important cultural heritage sites. Wildland Fire Suppression. The Administration's cap adjustment for wildfire suppression was not included in this bill. Continued inaction on this proposal, which has bipartisan support, would increase the likelihood of disruptive funding transfers for suppression and away from the very restoration and fire risk reduction programs that are meant to restore landscapes and reduce suppression costs and restore landscapes. Land Management Operations. The Administration opposes the $502 million, or 8 percent, reduction to operational funding to land management agencies, relative to the FY 2016 Budget request. This reduction would undermine support for the provision of basic public and business services that support the long-term health and resilience of national parks, forests, refuges, and other public lands. Water Rights on Federal Land. Section 434 prohibits agencies from conditioning land use authorizations on the transfer, relinquishment, or impairment of a water right, or on the acquisition of a water right in the name of the United States. This language is unnecessary for its intended purpose, and would preclude land management agencies from protecting the public interest. The provision would eliminate the ability of land management agencies to maintain sufficient water for other congressionally-designated purposes and ensure water rights are tied to the activities for which they were developed. These restrictions would also hamper cooperative work with land users to improve land conditions, such as range improvements, or conduct habitat mitigation activities as part of land use agreements. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service Land Management Improvements. The bill provides $357 million for capital improvement and maintenance of the national forest system, a 5 percent increase from the FY 2016 Budget request. While the Administration supports the capital improvement and maintenance of the Nation's public forests in order to increase its health, resilience, and accessibility, the increase in this bill comes at the expense of other needed priorities. Department of Health and Human Services Indian Health Service (IHS) Topline. The Administration strongly opposes the reduction to funding for Native American health care programs and facilities of the Indian Health Service (IHS) by $300 million, or 6 percent, below the FY 2016 Budget request. This would result in inadequate funding for the provision of health care to a population that is sicker and poorer compared to national averages. For example, compared to the FY 2016 Budget request, the bill reduces funding by nearly $50 million for Purchased and Referred Care, a program that supports health care not available in IHS and tribal facilities, which would exacerbate existing levels of denied care and waiting lists for services. Contract Support Costs. The Administration objects to the limitation in funding for tribal Contract Support Costs (CSC) for BIA and IHS. Specifically, the bill would limit funding for CSC that could perpetuate the funding issues described in the Supreme Court's Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter decision. The Congress should pursue a long-term solution for CSC appropriations, providing an increase in funding in FY 2016 as part of a transition to a new three-year mandatory funding stream in FY 2017, as proposed in the President's Budget. Other Provisions Smithsonian Institution. The bill reduces funding for the Smithsonian Institution by $116 million, or 12 percent, below the FY 2016 Budget request--a reduction that can be expected to reduce public access to the Smithsonian as well as increase safety concerns through delays in planned renovations. With over 30 million visits to Smithsonian facilities recorded in 2014, it is important to ensure the museums, galleries, National Zoological Park, and nine research facilities that make up the world's largest museum and research complex remain open, maintained, and available to the generations of Americans who make use of this unique institution each year. Specifically, the bill reductions would delay renovation for the National Air and Space Museum, where the museum has had to establish temporary covered walkways to protect the public from potential falling debris from its facade, and would reduce operating hours for the museums, including the new National Museum of African American History and Culture. Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). The Administration urges the Congress to fully fund the FY 2016 Budget requests for DOI and EPA to implement the DATA Act. This funding would support efforts to provide more transparent Federal spending data, such as updating information technology systems, changing business processes, and employing a uniform procurement instrument identifier. U.S. Digital Service Team. The Administration urges the Congress to fully fund the FY 2016 Budget requests for DOI and EPA to develop U.S. Digital Service teams. This funding would support managing the agency's digital services that have the greatest impact to citizens and businesses. Constitutional Concerns Several provisions in the bill raise separation of powers concerns. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our constituents to be good stewards of the environment, to be protectors of public health, and to be defenders of the public good. We can do better than what this bill offers. H.R. 2822 falls short of our responsibilities to present and future generations. As such, I cannot support the bill in its current form. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would cut $25 million from the Bureau of Land Management program and put the savings into the so-called spending reduction account. The gentleman pointed out that he plans on reducing that amount on law enforcement in the Bureau of Land Management. The employees who are out doing this work are already overstretched and find themselves sometimes in very dangerous positions. The BLM is the caretaker of our Nation's public lands. They protect one-eighth of the country. I think that we should make sure that BLM law enforcement is able to do their job, do their job safely, come home to their families, and protect America's resources. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the generosity of yielding to me. I also support the Sewell amendment to increase funding for the President's civil rights initiative. I remain a strong supporter of the President's initial request for $50 million for the civil rights initiative. While the gentlewoman's amendment would increase funding by $7 million, we still have a long way to go to get the adequate funding for these very important sacred places, I might add, in our Nation's history, to protect them. I appreciate the majority's willingness to accept this amendment, and I thank the sponsor for offering it. I thank the gentleman, once again, for his kindness in yielding.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time and my water, we would love to have the gentleman there, and when the water is very hard, it freezes, and then the gentleman can try ice fishing, which is a great sport. Mr. Chair, I think the amendment is coming to the desk. Once more, I thank you very much for your patience, and I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the Parliamentarian's patience and the majority's patience while we get another copy of the amendment presented to the body for consideration. I thank everyone for their courtesy. Mr. Chairman, Minnesota is a great State, and we would like to have the gentleman from California there so the gentleman can see our great lakes and our great water. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the chairman is looking towards working more for putting dollars into Indian education, as Mr. Gosar's amendment did, and the bipartisan way in which this bill has been proceeding forward, and I yield to the chairman.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering with my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) uses the global war on terrorism funds for the Army operations and maintenance to provide $80 million in the same account for hard body armor for the Soldier Protection System Vital Torso Protection equipment program. Now, every warfighter deployed or scheduled to be deployed deserves to be provided with the most advanced and the lightest hard body armor. The amendment will ensure that the deployed soldiers are protected with the modern body armor they need. Presently, this bill provides no funds for the Army hard body armor. This amendment will also help to ensure that the industrial base producing the specialized boron carbide powder, fabricating ceramic plates, and producing finished hard body armor can stay in business and sustain production of the lifesaving soldier protection equipment. The body armor industry is in crisis, and that puts our troops at risk. Last year, the House and Senate appropriated $80 million to the Army for industrial preparedness body armor. All four congressional defense committees explicitly directed the Army to ensure that the industrial base is able to continue the development and manufacture of more advanced body armor. Despite this clear and explicit direction, the Army has completely ignored Congress. The Army's failure to sustain the body armor industrial base has put a vital industry at risk and is causing layoffs among very specialized employees, which puts the entire industry at risk. There is no doubt that our troops deserve modern, lightweight body armor that requires a strong, reliable, and fully capable industrial base. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, this $80 million is to provide body armor for the Soldier Protection System Vital Torso Protection equipment program. I ask for Members' support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, for more than a decade, this House has been committed to providing our troops with the body armor they need. Body armor is essential to our deployed troops. In order to provide our troops with modern, lightweight body armor, the Department requires a viable industrial base to produce the body armor and to continually work to improve it. The fiscal year 2015 NDAA Defense Appropriations bill sustaining the industrial base was prioritized; $80 million was appropriated to the Army to specifically sustain the industrial base for body armor. Those FY15 funds have not been obligated, and as a result, the industrial base for body armor is laying off workers and about to go out of business. The Army has ignored Congress' directions and put this industry at risk. The FY16 Defense Appropriations report makes a commitment to body armor, saying: The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to ensure that the body armor industrial base is able to continue to develop and manufacture more advanced body armor. Unfortunately, the supplier of boron carbide power to make armor plates will be out of business before this bill is enacted. Furthermore, this bill provides zero funds for the procurement of body armor, another blow to the industrial base. We all share a strong commitment to our troops, fully understanding how important body armor is to soldier protection. To the chairman and ranking member, I would like to work with you to ensure that the existing body armor industrial base is not driven out of business by the Army's inability to follow directions from Congress and mismanagement of this vital supply chain.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), my good friend, my colleague on this issue.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), and I rise in full support of her amendment, but I join Ranking Member Peterson in his opposition of the bill before us. Although reauthorization of the Commodity Exchange Act is an important endeavor, this legislation rolls back critical Dodd-Frank reforms and places unnecessary restrictions on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The changes proposed in this underlying bill would stifle the Commission's capacities to respond to a rapidly changing market and would add unneeded layers of government bureaucracy. The underlying bill, H.R. 2289, threatens the financial stability of hard-working Americans by encouraging the same type of risky behavior that led to the recession just 7 years ago. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Moore amendment. However, I urge my colleagues to use great caution and join me in voting against the underlying bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Joe Dowling, who is retiring in June from the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, Minnesota after serving 20 distinguished years as Artistic Director. During Mr. Dowling's impressive tenure, he has directed more than 50 shows and reinforced the foundation for this world-class Minnesota cultural cornerstone. Mr. Dowling joined the Guthrie as Artistic Director in 1995, bringing his ceaseless creativity and tireless dedication to the arts after leading other theater companies in his native Ireland. Among Mr. Dowling's many achievements is the development of training programs like the University of Minnesota/Guthrie Theater B.F.A. Actor Training Program and A Guthrie Experience for Actors in Training. He also solidified a partnership with The Acting Company of New York and created the WorldStage Series, two programs that allow local talent to tour the U.S. and in turn welcome internationally renowned theater programs to Minnesota. He has also shared his vision and talents on Broadway and at other prominent venues throughout the United States and Europe. Perhaps Mr. Dowling's deepest legacy is the success of a $125 million capital campaign and construction of a new theater home which was completed in 2006. Designed by French architect Jean Nouvel, the theater is an architectural gem. At 285,000 square feet, the new Guthrie includes public gathering spaces and restaurants, and a 178- foot ``endless bridge'' that highlights a spectacular, soaring view of the mighty Mississippi River. At the heart of the new Guthrie are three unique theaters offering special performance spaces and viewing perspectives. The Dowling Studio in particular is an intimate 200- person black box theater that has welcomed 33 local acting companies and stands as a testament to its namesake's commitment to developing and showcasing the Twin Cities arts community. In a metropolitan area that boasts more theater seats per capita than anywhere else in the U.S. outside of New York, Minnesotans take great pride in our thriving, high quality performing arts community. Experiencing a performance at the Guthrie is a particular joy, and I attend shows there whenever I can. I am clearly not alone, because under Dowling's leadership, the Guthrie entertains, enriches and enlightens 400,000 patrons each year. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to honor Mr. Dowling and his many contributions to the rich cultural landscape in Minnesota as the Guthrie Theater's Artistic Director as well as his lifetime of commitment to the arts.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Joe Dowling, who is retiring in June from the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, Minnesota after serving 20 distinguished years as Artistic Director. During Mr. Dowling's impressive tenure, he has directed more than 50 shows and reinforced the foundation for this world-class Minnesota cultural cornerstone. Mr. Dowling joined the Guthrie as Artistic Director in 1995, bringing his ceaseless creativity and tireless dedication to the arts after leading other theater companies in his native Ireland. Among Mr. Dowling's many achievements is the development of training programs like the University of Minnesota/Guthrie Theater B.F.A. Actor Training Program and A Guthrie Experience for Actors in Training. He also solidified a partnership with The Acting Company of New York and created the WorldStage Series, two programs that allow local talent to tour the U.S. and in turn welcomes internationally renowned theater programs to Minnesota. He has also shared his vision and talents on Broadway and at other prominent venues throughout the United States and Europe. Perhaps Mr. Dowling's deepest legacy is the success of a $125 million capital campaign and construction of a new theater home which was completed in 2006. Designed by French architect Jean Nouvel, the theater is an architectural gem. At 285,000 square feet, the new Guthrie includes public gathering spaces and restaurants, and a 178- foot ``endless bridge'' that highlights a spectacular, soaring view of the mighty Mississippi River. The heart of the new Guthrie are three unique theaters offering special performance spaces and viewing perspectives. The Dowling Studio in particular is an intimate 200 person black box theater that has welcomed 33 local acting companies and stands as a testament to its namesake's commitment to developing and showcasing the Twin Cities arts community. In a metropolitan area that boasts more theater seats per capita than anywhere else in the U.S. outside of New York, Minnesotans take great pride in our thriving, high quality performing arts community. Experiencing a performance at the Guthrie is a particular joy, and I attend shows there whenever I can. I am clearly not alone, because under Dowling's leadership, the Guthrie entertains, enriches and enlightens 400,000 patrons each year. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to honor Mr. Dowling and his many contributions to the rich cultural landscape in Minnesota as the Guthrie Theater as Artistic Director as well and his lifetime of commitment to the arts.