Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment, once again, indiscriminately cuts programs in this bill without any thought to the relative merit of the programs contained in the bill.

To just reiterate again, fewer patients would be seen at Indian Health Services, fewer safety inspectors would be ensuring that we don't have oil and gas accidents on public lands or the other areas which they oversee, deferred maintenance on our Nation's drinking water--we don't want another Flint--deferred maintenance on sanitation infrastructure.

One of the things that Members came up and asked me for, by and large, to make sure that we took a hard look to see what we could do to make sure that we protected our Nation's drinking water, and we moved on what we could do with our sanitation infrastructure.

The National Estuary Program by the President was zeroed out; the USGS science was cut; school construction for Native American children, the future of their communities, the future of our shared Nation, zeroed out; the arts, the humanities, zeroed out; and the EPA cut by 31 percent, the agency that is in charge of making sure we have clean air and clean water.

More generally, investments in our environmental infrastructure and our public lands would be halted and the associated jobs would be lost.

This legislation in front of us today that we are talking about creates lots of good jobs, lots of good-paying construction jobs that are important to the health of our communities.

This amendment would not encourage agencies to do more with less. They would simply force the agencies and our constituents to do less with less, and they have been doing that for too long.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chair, am I correct that the author of the amendment has yielded back his time?

Mr. Chair, first, I would just like to address some of the comments that the gentleman made.

I have the honor and privilege of serving on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee as vice chair with Chairman Visclosky, and I take great pride in the bipartisan work, the nonpartisan work that we do to make sure that our military is strong and our intelligence agencies have the tools they need to keep America safe.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add that for the record, because there was, I think, some confusion as to where I and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle, when it came to defense, what our positions were. Our positions are making sure our servicemen and -women have what they need to fulfill their mission and come home safely.

But going back to the comments about this amendment, we need to

stand together. We need to stand together to oppose this amendment, because it will harm the American people.

There will be less clean water to drink, our air will be not as well protected, people will go without healthcare, and our communities will suffer.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I would like to clear up a little bit of information.

There was a time a short while ago where the National Academy of Sciences asked the EPA, under the IRIS program, to tighten up their process. It needed fixing. It needed adjusting.

The Agency reacted. They got an A-plus rating from the scientists now. So the fine-tuning that was unnecessary to make this good program even greater happened.

But what this amendment would do is it would prohibit the EPA from funding the Integrated Risk Information System. Now, the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, is an electronic base containing information on human health effects that may result from exposure to various chemicals in the environment.

This was developed by the EPA's staff with consistent information to uniform risk assessments and regulatory decisionmaking with respect to health effects from exposures to chemicals found in the environment.

There is a chemical right now that has captured the attention of people all across the United States, in fact, across the world, and it is PFOS.

We need now, more than ever, to be laser focused, working with IRIS to do everything we can to get the data and the information so we know the health effects from being exposed to these chemicals for both military and civilian people all across the United States. It is a very serious problem, and IRIS' program review process is widely considered to be a gold standard when it comes to accessing chemical toxicity.

Now, it is based on extensive scientific literature; it is peer- reviewed; and IRIS' toxicity assessments are relied upon by programs at the EPA and across the Federal Government, by States, and it is because of the high quality of the assessments.

Because these assessments assess risk across a variety of exposure paths, assessments can inform regulatory decisionmaking across all media offices in the EPA. So they can look at it holistically and be making very informed decisions.

It is no surprise, Mr. Chair, that the chemical industry has long sought to undermine the IRIS program. From their point of view, the less the public knows about the risk from toxic chemicals, the more money the chemical industry can make. We ought to be looking out for the safety and welfare of the American people, not the bottom line polluters who profit from pollution.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from California for bringing it forward.

This bill provides substantial funding to prevent and suppress wildfires. For the first time, this bill includes $2.25 billion in cap adjusted fire suppression funding, for a total of $5.2 billion for wildland fire management.

Forest Service research and development is increased by $10 million to advance the understanding of wildland fires and climate adaptation.

While the administration proposed to eliminate the Joint Fire Science Program, this bill includes funding at the fiscal year 2019 enacted level of $6 million.

Hazardous fuels is $27 million more.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that we only have the fire cap adjusted funds for 2 years. We must ensure that any budget agreement includes the fire cap adjusted funds in future budget years. These critical funds will allow the Forest Service to fight wildland fires without borrowing from nonfire programs.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's efforts to reduce the risk of

catastrophic wildfires, and I support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment from the gentlewoman from Washington to block the Trump administration from trying to weaken Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants.

Power plants across the country, as has been pointed out, have already complied with the rule. In fact, they have been doing it since 2012, and it has given huge health benefits.

The power sector opposes what the Trump EPA is trying to do, unions oppose what the Trump EPA is trying to do, and so do States and public health communities.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this amendment forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on amendments en bloc No. 5 offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) be withdrawn to the end that the question be put de novo.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise along with Mr. Joyce to thank our staff on both sides of the aisle and also our personal offices for all of the work they have done.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, we had the same discussion yesterday. Once again, these are offshore leases that are part of the American public's domain, not the State of South Carolina or California or Massachusetts or Florida. I understand that application.

But, once again, we also have heard that we want to have responsible renewable energy, so we are actually predisposing no seismic aspect. Well, how do you actually look at moorings in regard to subsurface anchors if you didn't use seismic activity? That is contradicting all the way around the aspect here.

Once again, this just shows that we want nothing of the sort: no seismic, no wind, no solar, no oil and gas. That is unbelievable.

If this is the kind of attitude that we want going forward, those in Arizona and the Western States that have public lands ought to be getting a lot more say in those applications.

And when we start looking at it, maybe what we ought to do, if we are talking about oil spills, one of the worst ways to actually import oil is through boats. So maybe we ought to disallow ships, because a ship that has an accident is one oil spill away from anywhere.

So this just begs my indifference in regards to what the heck we are trying to do here. It is looking at our assets. We have a due diligence to the American people to look at those assets for public assets.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I have been sitting on the floor. I sat in the House Committee on Natural Resources yesterday and heard this assault on oil and gas. So I want to remind everybody that the only mechanism to fund LWCF is actually these funds from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas.

It is amazing. It is absolutely amazing that we have this rhetorical conversation on the House floor.

So we are against adding any access to know what the resource actually is by seismic. We are responsible on behalf of these resources to the American public. Yes, the American public actually owns these jurisdictions. And what we are doing is we are leveraging as that opportunity to fund LWCF.

Be careful, Will Robinson, what you are asking for.

Those responsible applications, we heard it over and over from the gentleman from Louisiana. Once again, these are an asset of the American people, not South Carolina, not Florida, not California, not Massachusetts. So responsible applications here, we have got to be taking in good stewardship.

So with that in mind, I caution everybody that LWCF is the only mechanism for funding. The only mechanism for funding is these Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases.

These are responsible aspects, and they actually know what the resources are. You are going to need seismic, if you are going to look at alternative energy aspects, particularly wind, in regards to permanent moorings.

So from that standpoint, I just offer a cautionary plea. Be careful what you ask for. You may end up having no funding at all.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chair, we don't need a moratorium off the coast of California. We actually need a resurgence in domestic energy development offshore.

I heard from the gentleman that the last oil spill was in 1969. Let's see, it is 2019. Fifty years later, technology has been much different.

While the local demand for oil in California has dropped over the last 40 years, foreign dependence has increased from 5 percent to 57 percent.

In 2018, California imported 135 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia alone. According to the national offshore energy industry, leasing in the 240 million acres of currently off-limits areas would support an additional 165,000 jobs and inject $15 billion in annual contributions to the economy.

There are already 23 active oil platforms in Federal waters adjacent to California. Once again, let me repeat, there are 23 active oil platforms in Federal waters adjacent to California. These platforms produced nearly 17,000 barrels of oil per day in 2016 and

brought in $32.8 million in total royalties in fiscal year 2016. In a State that is importing 57.5 percent of its refined oil from foreign nations, it is imperative that we take the opportunity to utilize domestic energy supply.

Once again, let's highlight that: 57.5 percent is from overseas, which is much dirtier than what we produce here. If we are concerned about climate change and emissions, we ought to be importing less and looking at what we actually do.

Last but not least, I would like to remind everybody that we just had a conversation on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is funded exclusively by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas. Once again, the people who don't want this for their States, maybe they should turn down LWCF funding because it seems contradictory to the conversation.

Once again, I remind my colleagues that Federal waters belong to the U.S. people, not the States of California, Florida, South Carolina, or Massachusetts. We have a due diligence to look at the management of those resources.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, yes, I am landlocked by California, but you know the old adage. I am waiting for oceanfront property in Arizona, as the song goes.

Once again, let's take a look at this. When we start talking about offshore assets for the Outer Continental Shelf, there is less jurisdiction with regard to that versus what we do on-shore. If we are giving this type of leverage to States with offshore assets, we ought to be giving those States like Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana more jurisdictions because the law is better on their side than it is with those on offshore.

Once again, I find it interesting that we have a dichotomy here. We are all for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but we are unwilling to look at the resources it takes and where they are derived from to make sure that that is permanently, in perpetuity, funded.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the EPA's announcement in late December intended to revise the cost-benefit findings behind the MATS aspects and benefits. The Obama-era EPA's own estimate of the cost implementing MATS exceeded its estimate of benefits by 1,233 to 2,400 times, an absurdity papered over by the accounting trick of double counting as co-benefits reductions in non-mercury emissions as though these reductions were already achieved under other regulations.

The financial costs of this implementation are between $4 to $5 million annually--no, I am sorry--$9.5 billion annually.

Once again, the rule hasn't even been put out yet.

Don't you think we ought to be waiting to find out what the actual rule is before we say no go?

Because we don't even know where it goes.

We also want to take a look at catastrophic wildfires. Catastrophic wildfires are the largest aspect in regard to contaminants into the air as we witnessed in hazardous breathing times, particularly in Montana and California. So from that standpoint, I urge a ``no'' vote against this one because it is premature to actually what the rule is coming out.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my straightforward, commonsense amendment to the Interior-Environment appropriations bill that would prevent BOEM from issuing permits for seismic exploration in the Atlantic Ocean.

South Carolinians have made it explicitly clear where we stand on this issue. Far too much is at stake in our State. South Carolina's tourism economy is worth $22.6 billion a year, and two-thirds of that comes from the coast.

While folks may disagree about the amount of oil deposits that exist in the Atlantic Ocean, most would agree that the amount of oil off the coast of South Carolina is minimal and far less than the amount of revenue that the State brings in from tourism, recreation, and commercial fishing.

Put simply, the people of the Lowcountry understand that the risk isn't worth the reward. Or, as may grandmother said: ``The juice ain't worth the squeeze.''

Our beaches, our economy are not for sale.

And it is not just South Carolina that feels this way. It is Florida. It is Virginia. It is New Hampshire. It is North Carolina. It is Pennsylvania. It is New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. From coast to coast, communities have made it clear that they do not want to put the marine ecosystems and their coastal livelihoods at risk, which is why so many of my colleagues from all over the country have joined me in sponsoring this amendment.

Seismic exploration is incredibly dangerous in its own right. Seismic air guns create an underwater blast louder than all but military-grade explosives. Companies fire air guns as often as every 10 seconds for days, weeks, to months on end. This can have impacts across the entire ecosystem, from marine mammals to fish to plankton.

But beyond that, seismic exploration is a major step towards this administration's ultimate goal of seeing drilling rigs up and down the Atlantic coast. High-ranking officials have said it clear as day: The only reason they are working so hard on these seismic permits is so they can open up the Atlantic to drilling by the highest bidder.

Drilling in the Atlantic would put the health of our ocean and our coastal economy at risk, and it is a massive investment in a future of dirty and dangerous offshore drilling that an overwhelming majority of people from both parties all along the Atlantic Coast oppose. I stand with them in opposition to both seismic testing and oil drilling. Far too much is at stake.

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

Mr. Chair, respectfully, I would disagree with Mr. Gosar. South Carolinians have the opportunity to say what goes on off of South Carolina's coast. Voters have made it very clear on this issue.

This is not Democrat or a Republican issue. This is an issue that has been supported by Republican Governor McMaster, who has made it clear that he opposes offshore drilling.

I would ask that my conservative Members of this body, that that conservative idealogy also translates to conserving our natural resources, and for that idea of federalism to extend to offshore drilling so that States have a say. And States have spoken in South Carolina, and other States as well.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues, again, especially my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, who have supported this amendment and who have supported H.R. 1941, as well. I thank my colleagues, my conservatives, who support conservation.

Mr. Chair, I would urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this bipartisan commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I want to recognize the great work of Chairwoman McCollum in finding ways to increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The chairwoman and members of the committee have shown a strong commitment to this important program, and I applaud their efforts.

One of the first things that Congress did was pass into law the bipartisan lands package, which permanently authorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This demonstrated what we can achieve when we work together on behalf of our constituents.

LWCF not only promotes access to our public lands, but helps ensure all Americans can utilize these publicly owned resources. It is important that we build off that bipartisan work by making sure that this important program receives the funding it deserves in our final spending bill.

LWCF provides hundreds of millions of dollars to States that are challenged with coastal erosion, loss of open space, and trying to balance a need to protect species habitat with urban growth demands.

It also supports our States and communities by funding stateside programs that promote recreation, responsible community development, and provide opportunities to get Americans outdoors.

When LWCF was created, it was agreed that funding from oil and gas development would be used to achieve conservation objectives across the country. This program balances resource development with conservation and opens access to our public lands for hunters, anglers, and back country users.

I strongly support LWCF, and I appreciate the efforts my colleagues have made to secure the future of this program. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of my amendment, as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlemen from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), my esteemed colleague.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their commitment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and for joining me in offering this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Chair, I would urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, if I heard right, the previous two amendments were criticized for being overly broad and indiscriminate in the ways that they attacked spending in this particular underlying legislation. Well, I am laser focused. I am laser focused with my amendment.

My amendment would restrict funds from going to the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS. That program is supposed to be developing impartial science-based toxicity assessments on chemicals for uniform use within EPA, and if that is what they were doing, I would not be standing before you today. But as I came to know all too well as I worked with former Chairman Lamar Smith and while serving as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment in the last Congress, the reality is different.

Over the past decade, IRIS has been repeatedly criticized by the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office for its lack of transparency and improper use of scientific methods, which have led to some significantly flawed risk assessments over the years. In fact, GAO first added IRIS to its list of government programs that are highly vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in 2009. In the decades since, IRIS has made very few steps towards significant improvement.

I strongly believe that instead of allowing a flawed and poorly managed agency like IRIS to continue to operate, we should return chemical assessments to the relevant program offices within the EPA itself.

In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to achieve the reforms I have outlined. That bill was reported out of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee last fall. I have reintroduced that bill again in this session, but it is laying in the Science Committee without further action.

I believe that until there is a root-and-branch reform of the chemical assessments process at the EPA, we simply cannot allow IRIS to spread misinformation to the public as it is doing now

I urge all Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify for those in the Chamber who may not be aware, IRIS is an information-collecting entity, not a regulator. If IRIS were eliminated, EPA would still maintain an office of research and development, which would perform chemical assessments in coordination with a specialized program office within the Agency. What will compromise public safety is a poorly run government office spreading misinformation.

I also want to point out that both the nonpartisan NAS and GAO have repeatedly criticized IRIS over the past 10 years. Even the few NAS and GAO recognitions of improvements to IRIS over the years have been strongly tempered by caveats that far more work needs to be done.

For instance, the 2018 NAS report, which has been cited, suggests that IRIS still has not produced a basic handbook to guide its operations, even though that recommendation was made more than 4 years ago. This agency has been in existence since 1986 without a handbook, a basic handbook.

Just to add a little bit more color to this debate, here is an example of how absurd IRIS risk assessments can be. It sets the risk value of the chemical ethylene oxide, which is often used to sterilize medical equipment, at 100 parts quadrillion. That is a 1 with 15 zeros behind it. That value is 19,000 times less than the naturally occurring level of ethylene oxide in the human body. For perspective, OSHA sets the risk level for ethylene oxide at one point per million, which is a vastly higher threshold than IRIS itself.

I can speak similarly about flawed IRIS risk assessments related to formaldehyde or acetone, a substance found naturally in breast milk.

To sum up, absurdly assessed risk either creates unwarranted public panic or cynical disregard. Neither outcome creates a safer society.

Even worse, if IRIS is overly focused on evaluating the safety of low-risk or, in some cases, effectively no-risk chemicals, then it is likely to be distracted from assessing truly dangerous substances.

Again, I invite my colleagues to support this very important laser- focused amendment. We are not overly broad here. We are focusing on one program that has been completely--not repudiated, but certainly been highly criticized by the National Academy of Science and the GAO.

I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, it is hard to overstate the devastating effects of lengthening fire seasons across the United States, especially in my home State of California.

I represent three diverse valleys in California's 25th Congressional District, across northern Los Angeles and Ventura County, and all of them have had significant wildfires and forest fires in the last year.

In fact, 2018 was the deadliest fire season in California's history. According to CAL FIRE and the National Interagency Fire Center, 8,527 fires burned a total of 1,893,913 acres, the largest area on record.

Not only are these fires larger and more frequent, but they are also hotter and more intense. Soon, the term ``fire tornadoes'' will be a phrase that many people are familiar with.

My own house was evacuated last summer. We had to trailer my horse and relocate my goats and dogs to my sister's house. My sister's house was evacuated shortly thereafter. Sadly, this is not the first time I or my family has had to evacuate. It has practically become a common occurrence for people in areas like ours.

Two days after I found out that I would be coming to Washington to represent my community, three people died in the Woolsey fire, part of which burned through my district in Simi Valley.

We have to do more. I am thankful for the opportunity to put forth this amendment that provides additional funds for wildland fire management and hazardous fuels work. I am offering it to highlight the funding that is already in this bill to prepare for, combat, and reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfires and to make sure we do more.

These funds are critical because when the Forest Service does not have enough fire suppression funds, they have to borrow from mitigation accounts to pay for fire suppression activities. This fire borrowing delays the very activities that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk.

We cannot simply treat the effects. We have to treat the cause. But prevention takes funding, and that is why this bill and this amendment are so important.

For the first time, this bill includes $2.25 billion in fire cap adjusted funds. These additional funds ensure that our firefighters will have the resources they need to combat wildfires without fire borrowing, meaning that we will invest in the prevention solutions that we know work.

However, we will only have the cap adjusted funds for 2 years. We must all work together to ensure that any budget agreement includes fire cap adjusted funds for future budget years as well. That is how we can make lasting change on this front.

For my community, for California, and for States across the country experiencing the devastating effects of wildfires, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.