DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017; Congressional Record Vol. 162, No. 112
(House of Representatives - July 12, 2016)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H4790-H4812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 820 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5538.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  2321


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page H4791]]

House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 5538) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, with Mr. Collins of Georgia 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 31 printed in House Report 114-683 offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters) had been disposed of.


                  Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Brat

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce contracts or other agreements under the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund program that were entered 
     into with States or units of local government more than 20 
     years before the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Brat) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5538, 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the Land and Water Conservation Fund requires property 
acquired and developed with the LWCF assistance to be retained and used 
for public outdoor recreation. Any property so acquired and/or 
developed may not be converted to other uses without approval of the 
National Park Service, NPS, indefinitely.
  Federal funding through the LWCF grant shouldn't let the NPS enforce 
conditions on the use of State and local lands forever. A quid pro quo 
condition in exchange for funds for some period might be reasonable, 
but eventually federalism needs to kick in again.
  This amendment would prevent the NPS from enforcing the conditions on 
an LWCF grant for a 20-year period. This allows the State or locality 
to use its property as it sees fit, without needing permission from the 
NPF.
  After a generation or more, it is only reasonable for State and local 
governments to reassess land use on behalf of their citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to put our constituents 
back in control of local matters.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment nullifies the terms of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund contracts that are more than 20 years 
old.
  When States, counties, and other municipal governments receive funds 
from the LWCF State assistance grant program, they do so with the 
understanding that the land acquired with these funds will be used for 
public recreation purposes in perpetuity. If they no longer need the 
land for this purpose, there is an established administrative process 
that allows for a simple conversion.
  Since LWCF's establishment over 50 years ago, this conversion process 
has been successfully executed thousands of times. Under this 
amendment, however, any parcel acquired more than 20 years ago could be 
converted to private use or even sold on the open market without any 
compensation to the American taxpayer. This is a misguided outcome, Mr. 
Chairman. Our constituents deserve a fair return on their investment, 
and we shouldn't allow one town's unwillingness to play by the rules to 
upend 50 years of success.
  I urge my colleagues to defend the integrity of the LWCF and reject 
this amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the comments just made by the 
gentleman from New York.
  The LWCF, these local communities know what they are entering into 
when they enter into it. And if they choose to do that, they have the 
right to do that and they have to live by the decisions that they have 
made.
  We have a lot of LWCF projects in communities that I have lived in in 
Idaho, and they get the benefit of that LWCF.
  I will tell you, if there is a local problem that the gentleman would 
like to deal with, I know that the committee and the chairman of the 
committee would be more than willing to work with you to try to address 
that and try to address the concerns that the local community has 
because there is a way that, yes, with the agreement of the Federal 
Government, they can get out of the deals that they have made.
  I know, in my community, we had an indoor swimming pool that was 
actually built for our community. It was a great thing. It became very 
expensive when the price of energy went up. They wanted to take the 
roof off of the indoor swimming pool so it wasn't indoor anymore, and 
the Federal Government wouldn't let them. Now, we are glad they didn't. 
So these decisions are made for a very good reason.
  I would oppose the amendment, and I agree with the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished leader of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho, and the ranking member from 
Minnesota agree that this amendment would have a misguided outcome.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Brat).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Buck

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to enter into a cooperative agreements with or 
     make any grant or loan to an entity to establish in any of 
     Baca, Bent, Crowley, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, 
     Prowers, and Pueblo counties, Colorado, a national heritage 
     area, national heritage corridor, national heritage canal 
     way, national heritage tour route, national historic 
     district, or cultural heritage corridor.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about 
this important amendment to the Department of the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  This amendment protects private property in southeast Colorado by 
prohibiting the use of funds for the creation or expansion of 
environmental or cultural protection areas. These zones, often known as 
national heritage areas, are just another backdoor method for the 
government to impose Federal zoning on private property.
  The heritage areas amount to a forced conservation agreement for 
private landowners. An appointed management entity imposes its views 
and ideas on the property holders, changing the way they can use their 
property without compensating them.
  Private property is an essential element of a free democracy. The 
citizens of Southeast Colorado have fought this government overreach 
for years now, desperate to save their farms and ranches that have been 
passed down for generations.
  This amendment will ensure that private property rights are restored 
in southeast Colorado.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.

[[Page H4792]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops the Department of the 
Interior from entering into cooperative agreements or providing 
financial assistance of any kind for the purpose of protecting natural, 
cultural, or historic resources in several counties in southeast 
Colorado.
  It is my understanding that the sponsor aims to preemptively prevent 
an expansion of the Federal footprint in his district, specifically due 
to concerns with the application of Executive Order No. 13287.
  I would remind the sponsor that the Preserve America Executive Order 
was issued by President George W. Bush, a Republican, and emphasizes 
private-public partnerships that limit, not expand, Federal ownership.
  If there are specific concerns about Federal management in the 
region, the sponsor, I hope, would work with the authorizing committee 
to make sure they are addressed, not use the appropriations process to 
wall off a section of the country from partnering with the Federal 
Government to preserve its historic, cultural, and natural resources. 
That is why I oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, again, I would urge opposition to this 
amendment. There are opportunities for the gentleman to work with the 
authorizing committee. The Appropriations Committee should not be used 
as a vehicle to wall off sections of specific areas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2330


                Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to hire or pay the salary of any officer or employee 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency under subsection (f) 
     or (g) of section 207 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 209) who is not already receiving pay under either 
     such subsection on the date of enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to offer an amendment 
on an issue that I have worked on, as well as the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, for the last 6 years.
  In 2006, the Committee on Appropriations, without consultation with 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, included a provision in the 
annual Interior-EPA appropriations bill to allow the Environmental 
Protection Agency to begin using a special pay program that was 
explicitly and exclusively authorized for use by the Public Health 
Service Administration under the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  This special pay mechanism allows a government employee to leave the 
normal GS pay scale and receive nearly uncapped compensation. This 
special provision was intended to be used only in unique circumstances 
for leaders in the healthcare industry who would never leave the 
private sector to work for the Federal Government but for special 
higher salaries. This justification can never be used at the EPA.
  Indeed, some of the employees that the Environmental Protection 
Agency pays under title 42, the part of the U.S. Code that allows for 
this special pay, were previous government workers and were merely 
moved to the special pay scale because they wanted more money. The 
Environmental Protection Agency claims that, because the EPA is a 
health organization, it may use this statute to pay special hires; and 
the Committee on Appropriations has agreed to let them, despite the 
authorizing committee's objection.
  Originally, the EPA was granted only a handful of slots to fill with 
title 42 hires. That number has now ballooned to over 50. The cost to 
the taxpayers for these employees is tens of millions of dollars. That 
is unconscionable.
  This amendment would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from 
hiring any new employees under title 42 or transferring any current 
employees from the GS scale to title 42. It would not affect current 
employees being paid by this provision. This would give the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce, the authorizing committee, the time it needs to 
address whether the EPA truly deserves this special pay consideration.
  The General Accountability Office looked into HHS' abuse of title 42 
several years ago and found problems with the implementation of the 
program. That is within the Department of Health and Human Services, 
where it arguably could be allowed. Why would Congress ever allow the 
Environmental Protection Agency to implement the same problematic pay 
structure?
  In multiple hearings in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, both 
Administrator Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy refused to give specifics 
regarding the program. A Freedom of Information Act request by the EPA 
union, the American Federation of Government Employees, sent to my 
office showed that title 42 hires at EPA are sowing dissent among the 
workers, with the union asking the Congress stop this abusive and 
unfair hiring technique.
  Both Chairman Emeritus Barton and I have introduced legislation 
further clarifying that the Public Health Services Act, written for 
HHS, does not permit the EPA to use this language to hire employees 
under a special pay structure. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, title 42 authority is a flexible hiring 
mechanism that allows agencies to attract and retain staff with 
outstanding scientific, technical, and clinical skills. It is not 
always easy for the Federal Government to attract high-level 
professionals who have invested many years in school and can easily 
make more in private practice or even in academia, and that is why the 
Federal Government needs to allow these agencies to provide some 
additional incentives to recruit these employees.
  With our Nation facing so many crises like Zika, we really should be 
investing in our scientists. This amendment unfairly attacks Federal 
employees who devote their life to public service. I urge defeat of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Tarrant 
County and Denton County for offering this amendment. I am a cosponsor.
  It is unconscionable that we are using a provision in Federal law 
that was first passed during World War II to give a handful of elite 
medical professionals the capability to get a little bit more than the 
average Federal pay scale. This has ballooned over at the EPA, and, as 
has been pointed out, as far as we know, there are in the neighborhood 
of 50 people who are now getting this above-average pay.
  We ought to be eliminating the program. We ought to be just putting 
the nail through the coffin in this program at EPA. Instead, because of 
the generosity of my good friend, Dr. Burgess, he is just saying don't 
hire any more. Surely this House of Representatives, with a $500 
billion budget deficit, can see it within our heart to accept the 
Burgess amendment and let us in the

[[Page H4793]]

authorizing committee hold hearings and hopefully next year pass a law 
that puts an end to this program.
  I rise in strong support of the Burgess amendment and would ask for 
its adoption.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, we have such an array of public health and 
science emergencies: we have Zika; we have Ebola; we have public health 
emergencies; we have pandemics, epidemics. Now is the time for us to 
recruit the best and the brightest in the scientific community. Title 
42 gives us the ability to do that. This amendment would undermine that 
ability, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. BARTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON. Does the gentleman understand that we are talking about 
people at EPA? We are not talking about public health in the HHS. We 
are talking about EPA.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Reclaiming my time, the EPA uses scientists engaged in 
research on pesticides. It uses scientists engaged in other health-
related emergencies. We have a difference of opinion as to how to 
deploy those scientists, where to deploy those scientists. I, as a 
Member of Congress, don't want to make that decision. I want to make 
sure that the Federal Government is deploying the scientific community 
across a broad range of challenges, which is why I oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Byrne

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to propose or develop legislation to redirect funds 
     allocated under section 105(a)(2)(A) of the Gulf of Mexico 
     Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce this amendment, 
along with two of my colleagues, Representatives Charles Boustany and 
Garret Graves, both of Louisiana.
  My straightforward amendment would prohibit any effort to redirect 
funds allocated under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, also 
referred to as GOMESA. GOMESA was passed in 2006 and created a revenue-
sharing agreement for offshore oil revenue between the Federal 
Government and four States in the Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama.
  Under GOMESA, a certain percentage of the revenues generated from 
selected oil and gas lease sales in the Outer Continental Shelf of the 
Gulf of Mexico are returned to the Gulf States. This money must be used 
in coastal areas for important purposes like coastal restoration and 
hurricane preparedness.
  There is a reason the law was structured this way. These Gulf States 
not only provide a significant share of the infrastructure and 
workforce for the industry in the Gulf, but they also have inherent 
environmental and economic risks. Unfortunately, in his budget proposal 
this year, President Obama recommended the money be taken away from the 
Gulf States and instead be spread around the country to implement his 
radical climate agenda.
  Not only does this proposal directly contradict the current Federal 
statute, it vastly undermines the purpose of this law: to keep revenues 
from these lease sales in the States that supply the workforce and have 
the inherent risk of a potential environmental disaster.
  This is not the first time the President has made this proposal, and 
so far Congress has stood strong in opposition. I hope we will do so 
again today.
  My simple amendment will support our coastal communities on the Gulf 
Coast while preserving the rule of law. We should not allow the 
President to turn our revenue-sharing agreements into a slush fund for 
politically driven climate projects.
  I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply an overreaction to 
a policy proposal in the administration's fiscal year 2017 budget 
request. The budget request proposed to redirect funds currently 
allocated to payments to States and shift them toward Federal programs 
that serve the Nation more broadly.

                              {time}  2340

  The proposal wasn't included in the bill because the Committee on 
Appropriations rejected it. The appropriation process is just that, it 
is a process.
  The administration submitted a proposal, the committee evaluated it, 
and the power to accept or reject the proposal lay with the committee.
  This amendment would unnecessarily stifle any proposal to amend the 
current formula, which is unnecessary, because Congress would need to 
enact legislation before any changes could be made to the formula. The 
Department of the Interior does not have the authority to change the 
formula through rulemaking or other administrative action.
  Basically, Mr. Chairman, this would prohibit the Department from even 
suggesting an idea for Congress to consider. I urge my colleagues to 
preserve the integrity of the appropriations process and the Committee 
on the Appropriations and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to provide some context 
here.
  Under the Mineral Leasing Act, States shared in 50 percent of the 
revenues from production of energy on Federal lands--in the State of 
Alaska, it is actually 90 percent of the revenues--up until 2006, when 
we reached a bipartisan agreement to share not 50 percent, not 90 
percent, but 37\1/2\ percent of the revenues associated with offshore 
energy production. 2006. The revenue sharing, in effect, doesn't 
actually turn on until next year.
  These funds in the State of Louisiana are dedicated by our 
constitution to restoring the coast, restoring our coastal wetlands, 
improving the sustainability of our communities that have been pounded 
by hurricanes in recent years.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is actually designed to save taxpayers 
dollars to restore our coastal ecosytem that has been destroyed. And to 
allow the administration year after year to come in and create this air 
of uncertainty by attempting to rescind these funds and treating us 
differently than they treat all the other States that produce onshore 
is simply bad policy and it creates uncertainty for efforts to restore 
coastal Louisiana, which has lost 1,900 square miles as a result of 
Federal actions in the State of Louisiana.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, this administration has been reversed by the 
United States Supreme Court more than any other administration in the 
history of the United States of America. There is nothing that this 
administration won't do to further its radical agenda, including going 
against the clear statement of a statute of the United States Congress.
  So we have to have language that affirmatively tells them they can't 
spend this money. Otherwise, they will take the radical step of going 
against a Federal statute and cynically wait on the United States 
Supreme Court to tell them they can't do it.

[[Page H4794]]

  So that is why we have to have this. This is very important not just 
to the Gulf States, but to the rule of law in the United States of 
America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing radical about any 
administration, Democrat or Republican, making a decision, making a 
rule that would shift funds from specific States to broader national 
purposes.
  I understand the gentleman's and his colleagues' concern for this 
particular policy, but this is an overreach, Mr. Chairman. This 
amendment would prohibit the Department from even suggesting an idea 
for Congress to consider.
  This is not worthy of the appropriations process. It ought to be 
considered as part of a broader approach by the gentleman, not in this 
bill, and I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Byrne

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk related to 
the National Ocean Policy.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


limitation on use of funds for executive order relating to stewardship 
                 of oceans, coasts, and the great lakes

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce Executive Order 
     No. 13547 (75 Fed. Reg. 43023, relating to the stewardship of 
     oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes), including the National 
     Ocean Policy developed under such Executive Order.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce this amendment 
with two of my colleagues, Representative Bill Flores of Texas and 
Representative John Fleming of Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent coastal Alabama, and I have spent my entire 
life living on the Gulf Coast. Like many of my friends and neighbors, 
my family has always enjoyed fishing, swimming, boating, and spending 
time in the Gulf of Mexico. It is safe to say that living on the Gulf 
becomes a way of life.
  For some people, the Gulf also provides for economic well-being, 
whether through the commercial seafood industry, tourism, or something 
else.
  No one is a better steward of the shores and our waters than those of 
us who live and work in the Gulf. Since the water provides our way of 
life and our economic well-being, we are going to do everything we can 
to protect and preserve our resources. We don't need the Federal 
Government to tell us what to do.
  That is why I am so concerned by the National Ocean Policy, which was 
created under President Obama's Executive Order No. 13547 in 2010. The 
policy requires that various bureaucracies work together to ``zone the 
ocean'' and the sources thereof, largely affecting the ways in which we 
utilize our ocean resources.
  The National Ocean Policy is executive overreach at its very worst. 
The policy not only restricts ocean and inland activities, but it 
redirects Federal money away from congressionally directed priorities 
for over 20 Federal agencies that meet as part of the National Ocean 
Council, tasked with implementing the National Ocean Policy--a council 
that has no statutory authority to exist and no congressional 
appropriation.
  Numerous and varied industries will suffer as a result of this well-
meaning but ill-conceived policy, including but not limited to 
agriculture, energy, fisheries, mining, and marine retail enterprises, 
just to name a few.
  Those who are affected most by the policy don't have a say or any 
representation in the rulemaking process. There is no current system of 
oversight in place for the regional planning agencies created as an arm 
of the National Ocean Council.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for our coastal communities, say no 
to more executive overreach, and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Byrne-Flores 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I disagree with my colleague. I think that 
the National Ocean Policy is a vital tool that we have to help ensure 
that our coastal communities and their stakeholders work together and 
coordinate their ideas and make plans to achieve local goals. I think 
as a Congress we need to recognize the importance of our oceans and 
ocean planning.
  Unfortunately, each year, we come to the floor of this body on 
various appropriations bills to defend the vital work of the National 
Ocean Policy. We have debated over 15 riders on this issue in the past 
two Congresses. Instead, we ought to be talking about the progress that 
our local communities are making on ocean planning. In New England, we 
are actually making progress. And this year, we have the New England 
regional ocean plan to be proud of.
  No process is perfect, I will give you that, but at least we have 
begun the discussion. Fisherman, lobstermen, and other community 
leaders have been included in the development of these voluntary 
regional ocean plans.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided attempt to stop the 
National Ocean Policy and the important work it does.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the phrase ``land grab.'' This 
is an ocean grab. There is no cooperation here. This is dictation by 
the Federal Government to people that live along the coast of the 
United States of America.
  It is time to take our oceans and the water of the United States 
back, not for the bureaucrats in Washington, but for the people of the 
United States. That is who actually owns this water, not some faceless 
bureaucrat in Washington who wants to tell us what to do.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and take 
back control of our oceans for the people of the United States and not 
allow it to be directed by bureaucrats in Washington who couldn't care 
less what we feel like on the coast.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my good friend and colleague.

                              {time}  2350

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
and in support of the National Ocean Policy established by President 
Obama, an issue also championed by our junior Senator from Rhode 
Island, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
  Far from being government overreach, National Ocean Policy is an 
excellent example of how government engages and partners with our 
States and local communities.
  In the Northeast, we recently celebrated the release of the draft 
Northeast Ocean plan for management of Federal waters off the coast of 
New England.
  Since 2012, the Regional Planning Body has worked with our 
constituents to build a plan that will be responsive to our region's 
needs. This type of collaboration would not have been possible without 
the implementation of the National Ocean Policy, which requires 
agencies to work together in a more efficient and collaborative manner.
  Due to this important program, we are now moving toward a more 
effective use of our common ocean resources.
  Mr. Chairman, our oceans are enjoyed and utilized by beachgoers, 
commercial fishermen, boaters, recreational anglers, wind farms, and 
others. With proper collaboration, these mixed uses can thrive.

[[Page H4795]]

  So I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. By supporting 
National Ocean Policy, we can continue to engage our citizens, 
effectively use our resources, and ensure that our ocean is sustainable 
for years to come.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, would you please give me a sense of how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for 
once again describing what is a very important policy.
  I have to disagree with my colleague from Alabama (Mr. Byrne). I do 
not think that this is Federal top-down. In fact, I think this is 
better decisionmaking, bottoms-up, not top-down. It gives opportunities 
for local communities to have an input.
  I want to unequivocally state that we spend no money on ocean 
planning. The NOP does not create any Federal regulations or supersede 
any local or State regulations. But what it does do is it leverages 
taxpayer dollars to reduce duplication between Federal, State and local 
agencies, to streamline data collection, and to strengthen public 
involvement. That is exactly what we want to have happen in our coastal 
communities.
  Our oceans and coasts support 3 million ocean-related jobs, generate 
$360 billion through tourism, development, commercial fishing, 
recreational fishing, boating, energy, shipping, and other activities. 
This is a very effective planning tool to reconcile and coordinate 
those activities. It does not prevent them.
  And just in closing, I will say that my colleague from Alabama may 
look at this one way, but I represent the State of Maine, which has a 
tremendous amount of coastline. I represent about half the coastline 
off the coast of Maine, and I have also represented many coastal 
communities prior to coming to Congress as a State legislator.
  I live on an island. I take a ferry for 1 hour to get home, unlike 
virtually any other Member of Congress. Everybody in my community is 
dependent on the ocean. Every island I represent is dependent on the 
ocean.
  Every coastal community has to have a working waterfront, fishermen. 
It has to have tourism, fishing, all of them working together. I don't 
think that in the State of Maine we don't understand ocean planning.
  We know our oceans are desperately troubled. They are in danger. They 
need our attention, and Congress has to pay attention to that. We can't 
do this in a haphazard way. We have to have it coordinated.
  So I ask my colleagues to oppose this rider, as we have many, many 
times, and to support National Ocean Policy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Cramer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop, propose, finalize, implement or enforce 
     the rule entitled ``Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas 
     Rights'' and published by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service on December 11, 2015 (80 Fed Reg. 77200), or any rule 
     of the same substance.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, in February of 2014, the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
called--and it is important to know what it is called--Management of 
Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights. In December of last year, the proposed 
rule was posted and comments were due in February of this year.
  Mr. Chairman, States--States, not the Federal Government, States--
largely regulate oil and gas operations except in circumstances where 
the Federal Government has ownership of the mineral rights. That 
obviously is not the case in this rule, given its title.
  Where there is Federal ownership, it is the Bureau of Land Management 
that has regulatory authority. And for an agency that has hundreds of 
personnel and decades of experience, even they have a hard time keeping 
up with the workload and maintaining adequate expertise in their 
agency.
  But, Mr. Chairman, not only do States have the authority and the 
expertise to regulate oil and gas industry, they have the most natural 
and obvious incentive to do it well. The State regulators live in the 
States where the minerals reside.
  Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the personnel 
or the expertise to regulate oil and gas operations, as demonstrated by 
GAO recommendations. Concerns outlined by the Fish and Wildlife Service 
are concerns that are addressed by several other regulatory bodies, 
including State regulators and, therefore, any attempt by Fish and 
Wildlife Service to also regulate would be redundant and duplicative. 
Enough already with redundant and duplicative regulations.
  The added regulation will only serve to increase the delays and the 
costs to U.S. energy producers and, consequently, ultimately to the 
consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply prevents funding to move this job-
killing rule any further, and I encourage my colleagues to support jobs 
by voting ``yes'' on my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this new rule updates 50-year-old 
regulations that govern the exercise of non-Federal oil and gas rights 
within refuge units. The objectives of this new rule are to improve the 
effectiveness of the regulations so that they can protect refuge 
resources and values, and provide clarity for both operators and for 
the service.
  Updating this regulation avoids regulatory uncertainty, providing 
more clarity and guidance to oil and gas operators and refuge staff, 
instituting a simple process for compliance, and incorporating 
technological improvements in exploration and drilling technology, 
ensures that non-Federal oil and gas operations are conducted in a 
manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to refuge resources.
  This amendment prohibits the service from making positive advances 
and allowing non-Federal oil and gas operations to occur on refuge 
lands, while protecting these natural habitats for the benefit of 
future generations. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to my colleague's 
concern by stating that the concerns that he raises, that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service raises, are legitimate concerns. But they are concerns 
that are already being addressed by other regulatory bodies, including 
the States who have both the legal authority and the expertise as well 
as, as I said earlier, the natural incentive to do it well. It is where 
they live.
  I think it is also important to understand that it is sort of private 
property law 101, that the minerals are often bifurcated from the 
surface, and that is the case we are talking about. And in that case, 
at least in North Dakota, the minerals supersede, actually, the surface 
rights. So this rule conflicts with not only common sense, but even 
with basic private property law.
  I, again, urge a ``yes'' vote, and assure my colleagues that the 
concerns raised are being addressed by other regulatory bodies. 
Duplication is not necessary.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that what this rule 
is

[[Page H4796]]

about is non-Federal operators operating on refuge lands, and I think 
part of our job should be to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service can do their job.
  I oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Crawford

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to enforce the requirements of part 112 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to any farm (as 
     that term is defined in section 112.2 of such title).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in defense of 
agricultural producers across the country who continue to face the 
heavy hand of EPA regulations.
  The EPA's Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule for on-
farm fuel storage requires farmers and ranchers to make costly 
infrastructure improvements to their oil storage facilities to reduce 
the possibility of an oil spill.
  These regulations fail to take into account, however, the relative 
risk of oil spills on farms, and they do not recognize the simple fact 
that family farmers are already careful stewards of the land and water. 
It is clear that no one has more at stake in the health of their land 
than those who work on the ground from which they derive their 
livelihoods. Even if EPA wants to resist common sense, USDA actually 
studied risk of oil spills on farms. It determined that more than 99 
percent of farmers have never experienced a spill.
  In the 2014 Water Resources Development Act, we made modifications to 
the exemption threshold and required EPA to go back to the drawing 
board and conduct a study to determine how to balance the needs of 
financial resources of small producers with their assessed spill risk. 
Instead, the EPA defied Congress' wishes and hastily put together a 
study without evaluating risk specific to agriculture. It offered the 
same unsubstantiated conclusions that it found in the original SPCC 
rule and could not cite a single incident of a spill on a farm.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the EPA from 
enforcing its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule 
against farms, giving special interest to one industry. The EPA's spill 
rule is not based upon the type of facility or type of operations, but 
upon the storage of oil or petroleum products.
  If you store greater than 1,320 gallons and if a discharge from 
aboveground storage would reach waterways, you fall under these 
regulations and must develop and implement a spill prevention plan. 
Now, some large farm operations store up to 60,000 gallons of fuel in 
one location, and it is reckless to not require them to have some sort 
of spill response plan.
  EPA has already made efforts to accommodate farms and made compliance 
with the rule easier. The Agency amended its rule to provide a self-
certification option for the facilities, including farms that store 
under 10,000 gallons of oil, thereby avoiding the expense of a 
professional engineer. EPA also provided a template for a spill control 
plan for farmers to use.
  Compliance with this rule is not difficult or costly. In fact, about 
95 percent of farms subject to the rule are eligible to self-certify 
their spill prevention plans.
  This amendment could have devastating consequences and harmful 
impacts on our Nation's waterways. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to 
join me in opposing this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, to require that all of our producers make 
a significant investment to prevent such an unlikely event seems out of 
touch with reality and disregards the already overwhelming number of 
safeguards our farmers already employ.
  My amendment would restrict the EPA's ability to enforce SPCC 
regulations on farms so that farmers and ranchers can go about their 
business of producing America's food and fiber without having to worry 
about unnecessary compliance costs and red tape.
  Let me say that on three separate occasions, the House unanimously 
passed my bipartisan legislation, the FUELS Act, which rolled back 
these same SPCC regulations on farms. We passed this same amendment 
during last year's consideration of the Interior and environmental 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to again support our farmers and 
ranchers and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I once again reiterate my opposition to 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Crawford

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 1913 of title 18, United 
     States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, first let me start by thanking the 
gentleman from Washington for joining me as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Our amendment is simple. It prohibits the EPA and other agencies from 
using funds in violation of a longstanding law, formally known as the 
Anti-Lobbying Act. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability 
Office ruled that the EPA violated the law by engaging in grassroots 
solicitation intended to urge the public to support the waters of the 
United States rule, a vast expansion of Federal jurisdiction. The GAO 
found that EPA went to unprecedented lengths using social media and 
other online tools to manufacture public support for the rule and to 
sway the opinions of Members of Congress. GAO cited two specific 
violations by the EPA that occurred during the critical time when the 
Agency was preparing the final WOTUS rule.
  The first violation was an effort through an Internet tool called 
Thunderclap which enabled the EPA to reach 1.8 million people who 
simultaneously shared a message supporting the WOTUS rule. Not only did 
EPA write the message itself, but it disseminated the message covertly, 
failing to identify itself as the author.
  Secondly, the GAO found that EPA violated the law by hyperlinking its 
own Web site to an outside advocacy group's grassroots campaign effort. 
The site asked members of the public to take action by contacting their 
Members of Congress using a form letter written in support of the WOTUS 
rule.
  These unprecedented actions were crafted by the EPA in a deliberate 
effort to undermine Congress and advance its extremist environmental 
agenda. Even though the independent, nonpartisan GAO ruled EPA's 
actions

[[Page H4797]]

clearly violated the law, nobody at EPA was ever held accountable, and 
no appropriate remedial action has been taken to prevent this from 
happening again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, maybe the gentleman is aware, or maybe 
perhaps you are not aware, that there is an existing prohibition on 
lobbying that applies to all Federal employees that has been in place 
since 1919. I can cite it for you. So, in my opinion, this is 
unnecessary and redundant.
  I would also remind my colleagues that Federal employees are not 
prohibited from providing information to Congress on legislation, 
policies, or programs. But there must be an open dialogue between 
legislative and executive branches to ensure laws are being implemented 
appropriately and that programs achieve their intended goals. We 
cannot, or we should not, operate in an information vacuum.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated before, the GAO cited two 
specific violations by the EPA that did, in fact, violate the Anti-
Lobbying Act that was mentioned by my colleague from Minnesota. That 
occurred during a critical time, as I indicated before.
  The Anti-Lobbying Act allows agencies to promote their own policies, 
but it prohibits them from engaging in covert propaganda efforts 
intended to influence the American public. Our amendment simply 
reinforces this important law. It will prevent agencies like the EPA 
from undermining Congress through the use of publicity and propaganda 
tools that interfere with the lawmaking process. The amendment serves 
as another important reminder to executive agencies of its proper 
constitutional role.
  Congress, not unaccountable Agency bureaucrats, is responsible for 
writing the laws that our citizens must live by.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, there is an existing prohibition on 
lobbying. We have agreed with that. It applies to all Federal 
employees, and it has been in place since 1919. If a Federal employee 
breaks that, then a Federal employee needs to be held accountable.
  So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe we do not need an extraneous, 
redundant provision to a bill that is already overburdened with harmful 
legislative riders. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     under the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' 
     may be used for the Office of Congressional and 
     Intergovernmental Relations of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (b) The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``Environmental Programs and Management'' is hereby reduced 
     by $4,235,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it is truly unfortunate 
that I actually have to offer this amendment. You would think an Office 
of Congressional Affairs that was set up to specifically deal with 
Members of Congress, our staff, and the different committees that all 
of us populate would be able to respond to simple questions.
  I had a very eloquent speech put together, but it is getting very 
late out here in Washington, D.C., so I am going to condense it.
  The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, over 2 years ago, I offered 
language in the farm bill to create a specific committee on the Science 
Advisory Board to deal with agriculture to make sure that somebody in a 
concrete building out here in Washington, D.C., was able to actually be 
at the table when the EPA came up with a rule to regulate milk spills 
like oil spills.

                              {time}  0010

  I wish somebody would have raised their hands and said, Which one can 
you clean up with cats?
  Mr. Chairman, since the public comment deadline ended on September 8, 
2015, the EPA has failed to appoint one single person. Also, over 30 
questions were submitted by Republicans and Democrats from the House 
Agriculture Committee in February after Gina McCarthy, the 
Administrator of the EPA, came to testify at a hearing, and we have yet 
to get a single response.
  Time and time again, Mr. Chairman, I have asked the same questions 
over and over to many people at the EPA in numerous committees that I 
serve on, and time and time again, we get nothing. We get crickets.
  It is an unfortunate situation that we have to go to this extreme, 
but it is the only way that we can send a message to an office in an 
agency that is completely unresponsive to this institution and our 
constitutional responsibilities of oversight. It is wrong. Their lack 
of responsiveness is not only disrespectful, it is unconstitutional.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know that I, at 
times, have shared his frustration with getting answers back from the 
administration. His amendment, I think, is going to get everybody's 
attention. Unfortunately, his amendment seeks to restrict the 
information provided from the EPA by just eliminating the funding for 
the Office of Congressional/Legislative Affairs.
  I use that office quite a bit. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes 
I don't, but we have a dialogue going forward. In order to make 
educated and informed decisions on environmental legislation, I believe 
Congress should have all of the material available, including from the 
administration.
  What I am hearing from the gentleman is that they are not responding 
to him in an adequate fashion. I hear his passion in this and, at 
times, I have shared his frustration.
  I would suggest that we work together to figure out ways to improve 
communication dialogue and hold them accountable when they don't get 
it--put a bright spotlight on it--but I oppose eliminating it.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. I 
appreciate her frustration. I hope she would advocate on behalf of not 
just me, but the entire House Agriculture Committee, that gets zero 
response. It is not just the House Ag Committee, it is our House T&I 
Committee. It is individual congressional offices that don't have that 
interaction. There is such a lack of action that I didn't take this 
amendment lightly. We came here to the floor tonight this late because 
there is a lack of respect and constitutional responsibility coming 
from this agency of the executive branch.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter to the EPA dated June 
14, 2016.
                                                    June 14, 2016.
     Hon. Gina McCarthy,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator McCarthy, We are frustrated and 
     concerned that in over two years, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to create the Agriculture-
     Related Committee within its Science Advisory Board (SAB). On 
     February 7, 2014, the Agricultural Act of 2014 was signed 
     into law

[[Page H4798]]

     (Pub.L. 113-79). Section 12307 of the Act directed the EPA to 
     ``establish a standing agriculture-related committee'' to 
     provide farmers a stronger voice in the federal rule making 
     process regarding regulations which impact agriculture.
       On December 10, 2014, nearly one year after this provision 
     was signed into law, the EPA released a Federal Register 
     Notice announcing its establishment of the SAB Agricultural 
     Science Committee and set a deadline of January 26, 2015, to 
     nominate members. On January 26, 2015, the EPA extended the 
     nomination deadline to March 30, 2015. Eventually, on August 
     19, 2015, after creating a list of 88 potential candidates, 
     the EPA invited public comment on the candidates.
       Since the public comment deadline on September 8, 2015, the 
     EPA has failed, despite numerous requests, to keep Members, 
     who supported this important provision, informed of 
     meaningful actions or updates regarding the process. Our 
     questions regarding the implementation of the committee have 
     been met with empty responses, which point to a further 
     delayed implementation process.
       To our knowledge, all other components of the Act have been 
     successfully implemented. Unfortunately, the EPA's inability 
     to timely execute the creation of the Agriculture Science 
     Committee, pursuant to Section 12307, has only fueled the 
     growing disconnect between the agriculture community in rural 
     America and the EPA.
       To bridge this gap, it is vital the EPA establish the 
     Agriculture Science Committee. Please respond to this request 
     providing when you anticipate publishing the final candidate 
     list. Thank you for your consideration of this request and we 
     look forward to your prompt reply.
           Sincerely,
         Rodney Davis; Suzan DelBene; Mike Conaway; Collin C. 
           Peterson; David Rouzer; Kurt Schrader; Tim Walz; Randy 
           Neugebauer; Mike Bost; Doug LaMalfa; Austin Scott; 
           Vicky Hartzler; Frank Lucas; Dan Newhouse; Trent Kelly; 
           Bob Goodlatte; Scott DesJarlais, M.D.; Brad Ashford; 
           David Scott; Cheri Bustos; Bob Gibbs; Ted S. Yoho, DVM; 
           Steve King; Jackie Walorski; Glenn `GT' Thompson; 
           Filemon Vela; Ann Kirkpatrick; Mike D. Rogers; Ralph 
           Abraham, MD; Ann McLane Kuster; Richard M. Nolan; 
           Michelle Lujan Grisham; John Moolenaar; Gwen Graham.

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have got 11 people on 
this letter wondering why they haven't appointed a single person to the 
Science Advisory Board Committee that is supposed to deal with 
agricultural issues that was written in the farm bill that passed in 
2014.
  I hate to do this amendment, but it is the only way we can send a 
message to the EPA and to the specific office that Congress means 
business in actually implementing our oversight responsibilities that 
the Constitution gives us that our Forefathers gave us.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment Nos. 55 and 56 
will not be offered.


               Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to take any of 
     the actions described as a ``backstop'' in the December 29, 
     2009, letter from EPA's Regional Administrator to the States 
     in the Watershed and the District of Columbia in response to 
     the development or implementation of a State's watershed 
     implementation and referred to in enclosure B of such letter.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this evening, I rise to urge support for 
my amendment which would reaffirm and preserve the rights of the States 
to write their own water quality plans.
  My amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using its Chesapeake Bay 
total maximum daily load and the so-called watershed implementation 
plans to hijack States' water quality strategies.
  Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a total maximum 
daily load, or TMDL, blueprint for the six States in the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed, which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter 
the Chesapeake Bay. Through its implementation, the EPA has basically 
given every State in the watershed an ultimatum--either the State does 
exactly what the EPA says, or it faces the threat of an EPA takeover of 
its water quality programs.
  Congress intended that the implementation of the Clean Water Act be a 
collaborative approach through which the States and the Federal 
Government work together. This process was not meant to be subject to 
the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Therefore, 
my amendment instructs the EPA to respect the important role States 
play in implementing the Clean Water Act.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that my amendment would not stop 
the EPA from working with the States to restore the Chesapeake Bay, nor 
would it undermine the cleanup efforts already underway. My language 
only removes the ability of the EPA to take over a State's plan or to 
take retaliatory actions against a State if it does not meet EPA-
mandated goals. Again, it ensures States' rights remain intact and not 
usurped by the EPA.
  It is important to point out the correlation between the EPA's 
outrageous waters of the United States rule and the bay TMDL. At the 
heart of both issues is the EPA's desire to control conservation and 
water quality improvement efforts throughout the country and to punish 
all those who dare to oppose them.
  Mr. Chairman, the bay is a national treasure, and I want to see it 
restored. But we know that in order to achieve this goal, the States 
and the EPA must work together. The EPA cannot be allowed to railroad 
the States and micromanage the process. With this amendment, we are 
simply telling the EPA to respect the important role States play in 
implementing the Clean Water Act and preventing another Federal power 
grab by the administration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow those that 
pollute the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection 
Agency's water quality standards.
  We finally have an administration that has made the Chesapeake Bay a 
priority by establishing mandatory water quality standards and 
providing financial assistance to help States, localities, and 
businesses actually meet the new standards.
  This amendment also would put the funding in this bill for the 
Chesapeake at risk. The Federal funding is tied to the requirements for 
results. So how long do you think the States and localities will meet 
their obligations that they agreed to this past December in an historic 
agreement if the Federal financial assistance goes away?
  If this amendment were to become law, it would block EPA's ability to 
enforce the court ordered settlement requiring the farm community and 
agri-business to meet watershed specific pollution limits. It would 
not, however, relieve the farms and agri-businesses from the 
requirements in this settlement.
  In the end, operators should be responsible for controlling the 
pollution that they dump into our rivers and streams across this 
country, both for the Chesapeake and elsewhere. The courts have already 
sided with the EPA on this matter.
  Again, I urge defeat of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership with this 
amendment.

[[Page H4799]]

  This amendment is meant to address the overreach, a punitive approach 
that the EPA is taking, intervening itself within a process that the 
States are taking the leadership of cleaning up a treasure--the 
Chesapeake Bay. We are not talking about taking away funding. As 
chairman of the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee, there are 
significant conservation dollars that go into cleaning watersheds. 
Watersheds are part of the jurisdiction of the subcommittee that I 
chair in this House on the Agriculture Committee.
  This amendment is identical to one approved by the House last year in 
consideration of the Interior appropriations bill, Mr. Speaker. I have 
been hearing since 2009 from my constituents, many of which own farms, 
about the significant challenges and the costs of the Chesapeake Bay 
total maximum daily load, or TMDL, mandate.

                              {time}  0020

  These significant concerns also extend to the State and local 
governments because of the billions of dollars in direct costs and new 
regulatory burdens the TMDL imposes. The Agriculture Committee's 
Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee, which I have the honor of 
chairing, has also listened to the concerns of stakeholders over the 
past few Congresses. While each and every one of these witnesses 
wholeheartedly supports the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, there 
remains great concern over the lack of consistent models, the heavy-
handed approach of the TMDL, and the lack of needed flexibility while 
implementing the watershed implementation plans, or WIPS. This 
amendment is needed in order to allow for that flexibility at the State 
and local levels.
  Pennsylvania has been very innovative in our efforts to do our part 
with the bay restoration, and that restoration will continue into the 
future. However, rather than acting punitive, the EPA must work 
collaboratively with the States.
  I strongly support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I am going to repeat what I said earlier. My amendment does not 
remove the TMDL or the watershed implementation plans. It only removes 
the retaliatory actions threatened by the EPA.
  Those who oppose this amendment are right in that the States have 
made great improvements. The States have made great strides in cleaning 
up the bay; so why continue to threaten them with an EPA takeover of 
their water quality plans?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, in closing, I will say a few things. One, our 
country has some extraordinary gems, and the Chesapeake Bay is one of 
them.
  This language, as was rightfully pointed out, was part of a bill last 
year, but that language was removed in conference. Part of the reason 
it was removed in conference is that this is part of a court-ordered 
settlement in which water quality standards were established, and 
financial assistance was tied to results. If this amendment were to 
pass, I think it would put in jeopardy that funding, and it would put 
in jeopardy one of our Nation's true gems.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the draft 
     technical report entitled ``Protecting Aquatic Life from 
     Effects of Hydrologic Alteration'' published by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the United States 
     Geological Survey on March 1, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 10620).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer a simple amendment that will 
protect private water rights and prohibit the EPA's attempt to expand 
Clean Water Act regulation beyond what Congress has intended.
  This amendment prohibits the use of funds to carry out the draft EPA-
USGS technical report, entitled, ``Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects 
of Hydrologic Alteration,'' which is agency guidance that aims to 
expand the scope of the Clean Water Act and Federal control over waters 
currently under the jurisdiction of States.
  A March 1, 2016, Scientific Investigations Report from the 
Environmental Protection Agency argues that the Clean Water Act gives 
the EPA the authority to regulate not just the quality of waters of the 
U.S. but also the quantity, or amount, of water in the Nation's river 
and water systems.
  The management of water rights and allocation quantities from all 
natural streams, lakes, and other collections is an authority that is 
enshrined in State constitutions and compacts across the West--legal 
protections that are explicitly designed to exclude interference from 
the Federal Government. Under the expanded scope of the authority, the 
EPA suggests in their report that the Federal Government could require 
an individual private water owner or a local municipality to obtain a 
Federal permit any time it alters the amount of water available in 
streams or other water systems.
  In their comments on the draft report, the Family Farm Alliance 
stated, ``The report relies heavily on concepts rather than real 
science'' and that the legal strategies advocated in the report ``could 
embolden some regulators and special interest groups to seek flow 
requirements on water projects, even if doing so has no support in 
Federal or State law.''
  Unfortunately, this is par for the course for the Obama 
administration to push an economically disastrous agenda at the expense 
of science, the rule of law, and basic common sense.
  In their statement endorsing my amendment, Americans for Tax Reform 
explained, ``American citizens cannot afford more economic hurdles and 
the commandeering of State powers over precious water supplies from an 
overzealous, unaccountable Federal Government. States, local 
governments, and private water rights holders should not be subjected 
to such costly and burdensome Federal overreach.''
  In addition, the Family Farm Alliance, the Americans for Tax Reform, 
and dozens of national, regional, and local organizations have endorsed 
my amendment to rein in this Federal overreach and have expressed 
serious concerns regarding the EPA's dubious report.
  In their comments on the draft report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
stated, ``The Chamber is concerned that the agencies will use these 
arguments to further expand Federal jurisdiction over land and water 
features without proper constitutional authority.''
  The National Association of Conservation Districts echoed that very 
same sentiment, stating, ``NACD believes that the report attempts to 
expand the Clean Water Act beyond Congress' original intent.''
  The American Petroleum Institute stated, ``The draft report 
constitutes rulemaking in the guise of guidance. The draft report is 
vague and ambiguous, and owing to these concerns, EPA and USGS should 
withdraw the draft report and not finalize it.''
  In my home State, the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation stated, ``Not 
only is this Federal overreach, but it becomes a bureaucratic and 
logistical nightmare for individuals and businesses.''
  I think the Mohave Livestock Association summed up the issue best 
when they stated, ``The last thing our producers need is another layer 
of costly

[[Page H4800]]

and time-consuming permitting. The States understand water use in their 
respective ecological territories better than any centralized 
bureaucracy from Washington, D.C.''
  I am honored that this amendment is supported by the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, Americans for Limited Government, the American 
Public Power Association, Americans for Tax Reform, the Council for 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the Family Farm Alliance, the 
National Association of Conservation Districts, the National Water 
Resources Association, and countless other organizations and 
individuals throughout the country.
  My amendment prohibits the EPA from implementing, administering, or 
enforcing their misguided attempt to usurp States' rights and control 
the quantity of water used by individual owners and local 
municipalities. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their good work on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding to 
implement, administer, or enforce the draft technical report, entitled, 
``Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration,'' 
published by the EPA and by the USGS on March 1, 2016.
  This draft technical report is not a policy. It is not guidance. It 
is not a criteria document. It shows no advocacy. It doesn't require 
States to do anything. This technical document provides information to 
help States and tribes and territories and water resource managers and 
other stakeholders actually understand how water flows impact water 
quality, and it gives examples of what some States have chosen to do to 
address flow concerns.
  The EPA and the USGS collaborated to develop this report in response 
to State and EPA regional requests. The draft report had a 105-day 
comment period, which closed on June 17, 2016, and it received more 
than 100 submissions from Federal and State partners, watershed groups, 
mining and farming associations, and other highly engaged stakeholders. 
Now that the comment period has ended, the EPA and the USGS will 
consider the comments and revise the document and then publish a final 
document, which will serve as a source of technical information for 
States, tribes, territories, and other stakeholders.

  Why would we prohibit producing a resource document? The EPA is 
targeting the release date for the final publication as September 30, 
2016, which is the end of fiscal year 2016, meaning the final report 
will supersede the prohibition on the draft technical report in the 
fiscal year 2017 bill.
  This draft technical document received extensive internal and 
external technical peer review by scientists with expertise in 
environmental flow. If the report is not finalized, States will not be 
able to benefit from critical scientific information or from the 
effective solutions shared by other States.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, as I have said, it is well-established legal 
doctrine that the Constitution and the Clean Water Act strictly limit 
the Federal Government's authority to usurp State water rights and 
compacts.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting State authority, 
private property rights, and in reining in yet another EPA Federal 
overreach. I urge a ``yes'' vote on Gosar amendment No. 58.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, again, I will just say in closing that this is 
a draft technical report that doesn't set policy, that doesn't set 
guidance, that doesn't have advocacy, that doesn't require States to do 
anything. This is a resource document, and I don't know why we would 
prohibit producing a resource document.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment Nos. 59 and 60 
will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61 printed in House 
Report 114-683.

                              {time}  0030


        Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my 
amendment, No. 62, as printed in the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop, 
     finalize, promulgate, implement, administer, or enforce any 
     rule under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412) 
     that applies to glass manufacturers that do not use 
     continuous furnaces.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the bill 
today is very straightforward. What it would do is preserve our 
Nation's specialty glass manufacturers from EPA overregulation.
  Specialty glass manufacturers, these are the small businesses. These 
are facilities typically employing less than 50 employees. Yet, they 
produce the stained glass windows that adorn our churches, decorative 
vases, commemorative and artisan products.
  West Virginia has a proud tradition of specialty glass manufacturing. 
In fact, one of the oldest companies is Blenko Glass in Milton, West 
Virginia, which is in my district. Its limited edition pieces are 
prized by collectors and have been handed down through generations.
  Let me give my colleagues a sense of where some of the Blenko Glass 
is today: Colonial Williamsburg, Westminster Abbey--the replacement 
glass for antique windows at the White House is from Blenko Glass. 
Jackie Kennedy actually used Blenko Glass at the White House--the Cadet 
Chapel at the Air Force Academy in Colorado, St. Patrick's Cathedral in 
New York City. And that beautiful award from the Country Music 
Association that is given out to the recipient, it is a piece of Blenko 
Glass.
  This is proud American tradition, and that tradition is now in 
jeopardy. Blenko, like all other specialty glass manufacturers in the 
Nation, is facing changes to the standards that would make it harder to 
make glass. The EPA is considering revising the current regulation to 
make it harder for these small businesses to simply make glass.
  My amendment would simply protect specialty glass manufacturers that 
use noncontinuous furnaces for their glassmaking. The rules for 
continuous furnaces for the bigger glass-producing facilities, which 
produce items like glass bottles, cookware, and windows, would still 
apply under current regulation.
  I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment to protect our 
Nation's small, specialty, and often family-owned, glass manufacturers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would impede the EPA's 
ability to regulate toxic air pollutants from glass manufacturers. EPA 
currently requires glass manufacturers to limit their air toxic 
emissions, which contain carcinogenic heavy metals like arsenic and 
lead.
  My good friend, Mr. Jenkins', amendment seeks to block these 
requirements from refined glass manufacturers that do not use 
continuous furnaces or that produce less than 50 tons of glass per 
year.
  I point out at the present time there are no Federal air toxic 
emission regulations that cover those types of glass

[[Page H4801]]

facilities. So this amendment tries to fix a problem that doesn't 
really exist, and in the process, it would hamstring the EPA's ability 
to protect public health.
  Just this year, we saw that glass manufacturers who do not use a 
continuous furnace may also pose a significant health risk to 
neighboring communities in Oregon, just to the south of me. Air 
monitoring data showed that glass manufacturers using a batch process 
were emitting high levels of arsenic and chromium. The EPA has been 
investigating the situation to ensure that other communities are not 
exposed to these harmful contaminants.
  While these manufacturers are only a small portion of the market, 
reports have shown that these facilities can be alarmingly close to 
homes and even to schools, having serious implications for the health 
of nearby families and kids. We should be shielding these communities 
from these toxic air emissions instead of limiting the EPA's ability to 
take necessary action to protect public health, as this amendment would 
do.
  This amendment preempts regulation and carves out an exemption for 
one particular industry. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, let me make 
reference to what the existing EPA regulations do. There are current 
regulations, but the exemptions from the current regulation, as it 
stands right now, are for those glass manufacturers that are 
noncontinuous furnaces and produce under a certain amount of tonnage of 
glass each year.
  The EPA is looking at changing those regulations. We are not trying 
to carve-out a new exemption. We are just trying to sustain and contain 
in the current law the exemptions for the noncontinuous furnaces and 
those under a certain amount of tonnage. So we are not making any 
changes. We are simply trying to maintain the current exemption because 
we see the EPA out looking to make changes to eliminate the current 
exemptions that exist in the law.
  Once again, another step of the EPA overreach that will be 
jeopardizing the small glass manufacturers that mean so much to not 
only our employment base, but also our heritage.
  I encourage support for my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, in closing, I have 
seen much of this glasswork. It is really impressive. But, as impressed 
and grateful as I am for that artistry, I also care a lot about kids 
and making sure that they are not exposed to toxic air pollutants. With 
that, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 63 Offered by Ms. Graham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Jolly), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to research, investigate, or study offshore drilling 
     in any portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of 
     the Outer Continental Shelf that under section 104 of the 
     Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 
     note) may not be offered for leasing, preleasing, or any 
     related activity.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Graham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chair, I would like to recognize my colleagues, Mr. 
Jolly and Mr. Clawson, who are my good friends and cosponsors of this 
amendment.
  Second, I would also like to remind my colleagues that this amendment 
passed by voice during last year's debate, and I am hopeful we can do 
the same again this year.
  As many of my colleagues know from across the country, who have 
visited Florida at some point and have enjoyed our beautiful beaches, 
sunshine, water, white sand--and I don't mean to brag, but we really do 
live in a paradise. That is why for years we have fought oil drilling 
off of our beaches, and, thankfully, the Federal Government has 
listened to the people of Florida and banned drilling in the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico.
  This amendment would strengthen that ban and our commitment to 
protect Florida's beaches by prohibiting exploration and testing for 
oil in the eastern Gulf. Our military opposes it, conservationists 
oppose it, and Florida's tourism industry opposes it.
  I am proud to work with Mr. Jolly and Mr. Clawson on this important 
amendment for Florida, and I hope my colleagues will join us in 
supporting this amendment to protect Florida's Gulf beaches.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. I understand this amendment dovetails with the current 
congressional moratorium that exists through 2022. Therefore, the 
amendment isn't necessary for this year. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chair, as I previously said, the purpose of this is 
to strengthen the ban. And, again, I was on the beaches following the 
BP oil spill and saw the tar washing up on the shores. I am proud to 
represent many military installations in the State of Florida and in 
north Florida, and they don't wish to have this either for training 
purposes for our military.

                              {time}  0040

  I would like to just reiterate this is something that, in a 
bipartisan nature, has been approved of. It was just approved last 
year, and I would just like to respectfully request that it be approved 
again this year by voice vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the amendment. I 
urge a ``no'' vote. We already have a moratorium in effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will just close by reminding my 
colleagues that this has been a longstanding, bipartisan consensus 
that, for military as well as economic reasons, should be strengthened, 
and we should not be drilling in the eastern Gulf. I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act, 
     including the amendments made by this Act, may be used to 
     implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing rate of wage 
     requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 
     United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon 
     Act).
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment that I 
have brought in past years. What it

[[Page H4802]]

does, it says none of the funds made available by this act, including 
the amendments made by this act, may be used to implement, administer, 
or enforce a prevailing rate of wage requirements in subchapter 4, 
which is basically referred to normally as the Davis-Bacon Act.
  The Davis-Bacon Act is a bill that was passed back in the early 
1930s. The purpose of it was to lock the labor out from Alabama that 
was going, during the Depression years, up into New York to build 
Federal buildings and competing with the labor unions up there that 
happened to be locking Black workers out of the workforce in New York. 
It was brought to us by a Senator and by a House Member from New York--
both Republicans, by the way. It is the remaining Jim Crow law that I 
know of on the books, and it imposes what is called a prevailing wage 
on all contractors doing Federal contracts that are $2,000 or more.
  King Construction has been in business since 1975. That is 41 years. 
We have dealt with this Davis-Bacon wage scale for a long time. Not 
only is it expensive, and it costs the taxpayers extra money on every 
single project on which it is imposed, but it also brings about 
inefficiencies that are brought about because of the reporting 
requirements, the confusion that is there.
  We happen to have seen on our jobs people that jump from machine to 
machine to try to get to the highest paying machine, not the most 
efficient one. That is just one picture of what Davis-Bacon does. There 
are many others. Our numbers from our company are someplace between 8 
and 35 percent, depending on your project, that the cost of these 
projects are increased unnecessarily. It does not reflect prevailing 
wage. It reflects an imposed union scale.
  This is something that this Congress has to come to grips with if we 
are going to ever get to balance and be responsible with the taxpayer 
dollars. I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, we have taken 
several votes on whether or not we should waive prevailing wage 
requirements that are contained in Davis-Bacon. In each and every 
instance, the Congress has rejected these efforts because there is 
strong bipartisan support for fair labor standards for construction 
contracts.
  Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple contract, and it is a fair one. What 
the Davis-Bacon Act does is it protects the government as well as 
workers in carrying out a policy of paying a decent wage on government 
contracts. Davis-Bacon simply requires workers on federally funded 
construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the 
community for similar work. I want to stress this again--Federal 
construction projects to be paid no less than wages paid in communities 
for similar work.
  It requires every contractor for which the government is a party in 
excess of $2,000 contain a provision defining minimum wages paid to 
various classes of laborers and mechanics. This law has helped workers 
in all trades all over the Nation, and there is no need to abandon 
those workers today. I urge my colleagues to oppose the King amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would say in response to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota that the actual application of the Davis-
Bacon wage act is not what we would call a fair labor standard, not 
when you have some hacks that sit in a room once a year and decide 
whether and who gets how much of a raise. It is not free enterprise. It 
is not merit. It is based on backroom deals. It is based on imposing 
union scale and making the taxpayers pay for that.
  If I don't hear that this year, it is the first year I haven't heard 
it, and that is the argument that the quality of the work isn't there. 
Well, the honor of our employees for 41 years, and many other merit 
shop employees, is on the line. We meet plans and specifications. They 
are Federal projects. They are inspected, and the standard of the work 
is indiscernible, except that we don't happen to have union squabbles 
on our jobs, and we pay the wage that is necessary to keep good help, 
and we have had some of the lowest unemployment rates that anybody has 
had. In fact, my rates were zero because we kept our people on year 
round. We take care of our employees. We provide a benefits package. So 
do the merit shop people I know.
  So often I hear from the other side of the aisle that the Federal 
Government has no business interfering in a relationship between two or 
more consenting adults, and this is one of those cases. It is a 
contract of labor between the employer and the employee. The Federal 
Government needs not be involved in that. When they are, it invariably 
costs the taxpayers more money.
  We can dredge five harbors instead of four. We can repair five locks 
and dams instead of four if we pass this amendment. Why would we, with 
the starvation of resources to our interior, why would we deny those 
resources the most efficient application?
  I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
  Mr. KILMER. I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because I support Davis-Bacon. 
Studies have shown that Davis-Bacon actually doesn't increase the cost 
to taxpayers, but what happens is that, if this amendment were to pass, 
you would see a reduction in wages. You would see an increase with 
these protections from Davis-Bacon being pulled away, an increase in 
on-the-job injuries. You would have fewer workers with health benefits.

  Davis-Bacon is about preventing wage exploitation. It is about 
preventing, undercutting local wages.
  I will tell you this. This is about ensuring that when the Federal 
Government builds a project with taxpayer money that it is not just 
about building a road or a bridge or a facility. It is about building 
the middle class, and it is about building the next generation of 
workers. It is about providing training and providing a good wage for 
people to be able to live and earn a good living and live with dignity.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have to say in contradiction to the 
gentleman who just spoke, on-the-job injuries, I don't know what would 
support that, whether or not there is a Davis-Bacon wage scale on that. 
That has to do with your safety policy on the job. It has to do with 
the culture of the company, and it has to do, to a degree, with the 
culture of the projects that you are on.
  The fewer benefits side of this thing, I think it goes the other way, 
because Davis-Bacon requires that you add dollars into this Federal-
mandated union scale to pay benefits; and when that happens, you are 
paying a benefit figure on a dollar figure to the employees rather 
than, say, a health insurance package that is going to take care of 
them far better and in the long term.
  I point out also today that we had testimony from the Secretary of 
Transportation from the State of Oklahoma, Secretary Gary Ridley, who 
said that they run into the inefficiencies driven by Davis-Bacon where 
you have as many as three or more different pay scales on a single 
project that might stretch out over 6, 8, or 10 miles. They end up in 
different wage scales. So the contractors have to keep track of who 
crosses that line in what machine. The confusion of all that adds to 
the inefficiencies as well.
  The most important thing is this: the taxpayers are paying an 
unnecessary premium for projects that we could be far ahead of where we 
are right now if we hadn't had all these years of this Davis-Bacon wage 
scale. I would reiterate: it is ironic that it is the Democrats who are 
always on the floor defending the last Jim Crow law on the books.
  It is time to get rid of the last Jim Crow law on the books. Let free 
enterprise prevail. Let the taxpayers be the beneficiaries of this. I 
urge the adoption of my amendment.

[[Page H4803]]

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

                              {time}  0050

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, while I would just like to point out that 
corporate interests and their advocates often claim that Davis-Bacon 
increases taxpayers costs, there isn't a study that proves that. In 
fact, a study of school construction costs in the Great Plains States 
shows that prevailing wage laws did not only not raise constructions 
costs, but also that repealing such wage laws hurt taxpayers and 
workers.
  After Kansas' prevailing wage law was repealed, wages fell 11 
percent, training programs declined by 28 percent, and job site 
injuries rose 19 percent. Highway construction costs are actually 
higher when workers are paid less, according to an analysis of the 
Federal Highway Administration data by the Construction Labor Research 
Council. The studies showed that the cost to build 1 mile in States 
average $17.65 per hour, compared with low wages of $9.97 per hour, on 
average. Money was actually saved, on average, by higher productivity. 
Better productivity, better wages.
  In Wisconsin, a study of the State's prevailing wage laws shows that 
potential savings from wage cuts were never outweighed by the cost of 
income to communities. Annual costs of repealing the law has estimated 
between $123 million in lost income and net tax revenues to a loss of 
$6.8 million. In Missouri, a similar study showed a loss to the State 
of $380 million to $384 million. Cost overruns are more likely without 
prevailing wages.
  As a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the King amendment and pay people in the community 
a prevailing wage under Davis-Bacon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65 
printed in House Report 114-683.


                Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 66 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule 
     entitled ``Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands'' 
     as published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2015 and 
     March 30, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 16127 and 16577, respectively).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the process of hydraulic fracturing, often used in 
combination with horizontal drilling, has unlocked vast new American 
energy resources, making the United States the largest energy producer 
in the world. This creates tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and 
lower energy prices for consumers.
  Despite this technological advancement, the Obama administration, 
acting through the Bureau of Land Management, has sought to regulate it 
out of existence by trying to institute new, onerous regulations 
regarding well construction and water management for hydraulic 
fracturing operations that take place on Federal and Indian lands.
  Thankfully, the U.S. District Court in Wyoming recently struck down 
BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule, finding that the BLM lacks authority 
from Congress to regulate the process of fracking, and was acting 
contrary to law. As expected, the Obama administration has filed an 
appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court.
  Despite being illegal, these burdensome regulations simply do not 
recognize the extensive work done by the States to regulate hydraulic 
fracturing within their borders.
  The Natural Resources Committee has heard from numerous witnesses 
from Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and other States, who have testified to 
the tireless process these States went through to draft and implement 
their regulations--regulations that are very successful.
  My home State of Colorado has been safely using hydraulic fracturing 
for over 40 years, and has the toughest Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure 
Rule in the Nation. Even our Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper, 
who has actually drunk hydraulic fracturing fluid to show that it is 
safe, believes it is the State's responsibility to regulate industry. 
And this amendment will do exactly that by ensuring that States like 
Colorado can continue to safely regulate energy production based on 
local geology and conditions without unnecessary and unlawful 
interference from the Federal Government.
  One size does not fit all and the States frequently--I think always--
know better than the Federal bureaucrats in Washington do what their 
geology is like, what their water is like, and so son.
  So I ask that you support my amendment and allow the current energy 
renaissance to continue ensuring a stable supply of affordable and 
reliable energy. This will help drive down prices for gasoline, 
electricity, and home heating.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. This amendment would prohibit the Bureau of Land 
Management from implementing a uniform national standard for hydraulic 
fracking on public lands. This amendment would prohibit the BLM from 
implementing a uniform national standard for hydraulic fracking on 
public lands. Public lands only. Such a standard is necessary to ensure 
that operations on public and tribal lands are safe and environmentally 
responsible.
  Of the 32 States with potential for oil and gas development on 
federally managed mineral resources, only slightly more than half have 
rules in place to address hydraulic fracturing. And those that do have 
rules vary greatly in their requirements.
  So BLM continues to offer millions of acres of public land for 
conventional and renewable energy production, and it is critical that 
the public have confidence and transparency that effective State and 
environmental protections are in place.
  So, as I said before, there are 32 States, and half of them don't 
even have anything in place that BLM could use. BLM is looking to have 
an implementation of a rule in State offices, and they are in the 
process of meeting with their State counterparts, undertaking State-by-
State comparisons and regulatory requirements. I believe what the 
gentleman has told me about Colorado; it looks like that would be best 
practices and something BLM would want to look at and maybe model 
under.
  So they are trying to establish memorandums of understanding. 
Unfortunately, what your amendment does is stop that from going 
forward. I think that, for right now, BLM needs to come up with a 
transparent standard so that when people are interacting with BLM State 
by State and when the taxpayers are looking at what BLM is doing, there 
is transparency, there is clarity, and there is uniformity.
  Unfortunately, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has raised an interesting 
point. On the surface, there is some merit to what she says. However, 
there is one big flaw. She wasn't aware because she wasn't in the 
hearing, but when BLM came and spoke to our committee, I said to them: 
States like Colorado are doing a good job already.

[[Page H4804]]

Why don't you just regulate the States that don't have their own 
regulation?
  Well, they said: No. We want to regulate everybody.
  They really didn't care whether States had good regulations in place 
or not. So I think they gave away the game. They just wanted to put 
more regulation on industry. What that means is that you have two sets 
of regulations to have to wade through, and that is going to shut out 
marginal plays, it is going to shut out jobs of people that would have 
been in those marginal plays.
  So BLM really wasn't interested in listening to the States. They 
rejected that suggestion, and they just want to regulate everybody.
  Let's let the States do what they do best. They know their territory, 
they know their water, they know their geology. They are doing a great 
job already. No one ever raised any examples of where the States had 
not done a good job.
  So let's pass this amendment and BLM can manage the land and not do 
what the States are already doing. That is the way it should be.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0100

  Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for an interesting discussion, 
but here is the challenge I see: 32 States with the potential of oil 
and gas development on federally managed lands, only slightly more than 
half have rules in place. So then, if the Federal Government is 
considering possible development on its own land and it is in a State 
that doesn't have a rule, they need to have a rule. They need to have 
transparency. They need to have accountability to the taxpayer, to our 
constituents.
  So they are trying to form rules and regulations, and I am hopeful 
that BLM--and I will make some inquiries--is in the process of meeting 
with their State counterparts and taking best practices to develop 
rules, to develop transparency, to develop accountability in the States 
where no rules exist.
  At this current time, I really have to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the threatened species or 
     endangered species listing of any plant or wildlife that has 
     not undergone a review as required by section 4(c)(2) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2) et 
     seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law, 
specifically, section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by 
conducting a review of all threatened and endangered plants and 
wildlife at least once every 5 years.
  Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the 
Endangered Species Act. The government designates land as critical 
habitat, despite not meeting the ESA, Endangered Species Act, 
definition; and the government consistently refuses to remove plants 
and animals from threatened or endangered status, even when these 
species are flourishing and are no longer in need of ESA protections.
  But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when the 
species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How 
does the government know if a species is recovering?
  The answer can be found in the ESA and its requirement that the 
Federal Government reviews all plants or species that are currently 
listed as endangered or threatened every 5 years.
  Under the act, the purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that 
threatened or endangered species have the appropriate level of 
protection. The reviews assess each threatened and endangered species 
to determine whether its status has changed since the time of its 
listing, or its last status review, and whether it should be removed 
from the list, delisted; reclassified from endangered to threatened, 
which is downlisted; reclassified from threatened to endangered, 
uplisted; or just maintain the species' current classification, the 
status quo.
  And because the act grants extensive protection to a species, 
including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes 
sense to regularly verify if a plant or animal is being properly 
classified or should be delisted. Despite this commonsense requirement, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has acknowledged that it has 
neglected its responsibility to conduct the required reviews for 
hundreds of listed species.
  For example, in Florida alone, it was found that 77 species, out of a 
total of 124 protected species in the State, were overdue for a 5-year 
review. In other words, the government had not followed the law for a 
staggering 62 percent of species in that State.
  In California, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged that 
it had failed to follow the law for roughly two-thirds of the State 
species listed under the Endangered Species Act and was forced by the 
courts to conduct the required reviews of 194 species.
  By enforcing the 5-year review, my amendment will ensure that the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best available scientific 
information in implementing its responsibilities under the Endangered 
Species Act, including incorporating new information through public 
comment and assessing ongoing conservation efforts.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service follows the Endangered Species Act and that we do 
not provide money in this bill that would violate current law. I ask 
you to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the service attempts to comply with the 
statutory mandate to review the status of listed species every 5 years 
to determine whether or not the classifications of threatened or 
endangered are still appropriate, and you gave some eloquent answers.
  However, the service has a backlog of such reviews due to the funding 
limitation, such as the 30 percent listing reduction contained in this 
bill--$3 million less than they had last year. This has been cumulative 
time and time again.
  So if you don't have the resources, if you don't have the staff, if 
you don't have the wherewithal to get out in the field and do the job, 
a backlog occurs. The reason why, that they are behind with the backlog 
on this, is because they don't have the resources to do their job.
  And whose responsibility is that?
  It is Congress' responsibility to make sure that they have the 
funding necessary to get up, go to work in the morning, and get rid of 
this backlog and do their job. We have a responsibility to put the 
tools in the toolbox for them to be able to do their job properly; and 
this Congress, and this piece of legislation, fails to give them the 
tools in the toolbox, and so the backlog will continue.
  So I oppose the gentleman's amendment because it is not U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife's lack of wanting to do their job. It is their lack of 
ability, through the lack of funding, to do the job the way that they 
would like to do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, depending on how you look at the budget, 
we are talking about, like, let's say $11 billion, and they just have 
to do a better job of prioritizing their work. It is not our fault that 
they are not doing

[[Page H4805]]

the required 5-year species review. I think we agree that that should 
be done.
  So sometimes you just have to tell the bureaucracy that they need to 
get on the ball and do the right thing, and that's all this amendment 
does. And they just have to have a better set of priorities. If they 
are not following the current law, they just need to get up and do it.
  So let's pass this amendment. Let's make them follow the law. It is 
better for all the species involved if we know whether they are being 
conserved and the efforts behind them are working or not. We need to 
know that.
  So let's pass this amendment, make them follow the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Once again, I thank the gentleman for being here 
because I think we have had some discussions about the work that needs 
to be done on the policy committees and some of the challenges that we 
have in this bill with our limited resources.
  As my grandmother would say, and maybe you had a grandparent who had 
a similar saying: You can't get water out of a rock.
  We keep asking the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 
all kinds of wonderful people who get up every morning wanting to do 
the best job possible and protecting our natural resources, to do more 
and more and more and more with less. At some point, they just can't do 
any more because they don't have the full-time equivalents. They don't 
have the scientists that they can hire. They don't have the resource 
managers who can get out and work in the local community. They are 
hamstrung.
  So for only that reason, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. If they 
were fully funded and I could look them in the eye and say, ``You have 
all the tools in the toolbox; get the job done,'' I would be with you, 
sir. But they do not have all the tools in the toolbox, and this 
Congress has underfunded them repeatedly, and that is why we have the 
backlog. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  0110


                Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 68 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the threatened species 
     listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is my third and last amendment on this bill, and I 
am hopeful that maybe this is one we can agree on.
  Mr. Chairman, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with 
a body approximately 3 inches long, a 4-to 6-inch long tail, and large 
hind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives 
primarily in stream side ecosystems along the foothills of southeastern 
Wyoming south to Colorado Springs in my district along the eastern 
ridge of the Front Range of Colorado.
  To evade predators, the mouse can jump like a miniature kangaroo up 
to 18 inches high using its long, whip-like tail as a rudder to switch 
directions in mid-air. But the little acrobat's most famous feet was 
its leap onto the Endangered Species list in May, 1998, a move that has 
hindered development from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Laramie, 
Wyoming.
  Among projects that have been affected: the Jeffco Parkway southeast 
of Rocky Flats, an expansion of Chatfield Reservoir, and housing 
developments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument Creek. 
Builders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas have 
incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of this 
mouse. And protecting the Preble's mouse has even been placed ahead of 
protecting human life.
  On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event that 
damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and 
public works projects. As a result of the Preble's mouse's listing as 
an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as 
Colorado sought a waiver. In fact, FEMA was so concerned that they sent 
out a notice that stated: ``Legally required review may cause some 
delay in projects undertaken in the Preble's mouse habitat.'' It goes 
on to warn that ``local officials who proceed with projects without 
adhering to environmental laws risk fine and could lose Federal funding 
for their projects.''
  While a waiver was eventually granted, the scientific evidence simply 
does not justify these delays or the millions of taxpayer dollars that 
go toward protecting a mouse that is actually part of a larger group 
that roams throughout half of the North American continent.
  Scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse does not 
warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all, and is 
actually related to the Bear Lodge jumping mouse. Even the scientist 
that originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since 
recanted his work. Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation 
parity score--meaning the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent 
on protection efforts could have been better spent on other, more 
fragile species.
  My amendment would correct the injustice that has been caused by the 
inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and refocus the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that have been 
thoroughly scientifically vetted and that should be managed by the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Fish and 
Wildlife from implementing or enforcing a threatened species listing of 
the Preble's meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act.
  On April 11, 2016, the service announced the availability of a draft 
recovery plan for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse which the public 
could review and comment on until June 10, 2016.
  Now the service is currently reviewing and considering all the 
comments that they received, so nothing is final yet. So this is 
premature. You are predicting an outcome that I don't know whether or 
not you would agree with. So under this amendment, the service would 
not be able to continue to recover this species because the Endangered 
Species Act would still apply. The service would not be able to work 
with agencies. It would not be able to work with developers. It would 
not be able to work with landowners in order to abide ESA compliance.
  Additionally, the amendment will also limit the service from 
undertaking required status reviews of the subspecies from being able 
to implement any rulemaking down-listing or delisting the species if 
they thought it was appropriate after they were done with their review.
  Sadly, the gentleman's amendment would undermine the service's 
ability to work collaboratively with States, local governments, 
communities, and landowners to conserve this imperiled species, and the 
amendment would create uncertainty for landowners and

[[Page H4806]]

also make them vulnerable to lawsuits. So I think we should be 
supporting Fish and Wildlife to finish doing the job that it started 
and not blocking it from doing the job it is currently getting ready to 
do when it comes to this species.
  So because nothing is final yet, I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this 
species should have never been listed in the first place. It is highly 
disputed and contentious science that it was ever even listed at all.
  So on the previous amendment I think we discussed how the Fish and 
Wildlife Service is already too busy in your State and they don't have 
enough money to do what they need to do right now. Let's free up a lot 
of their workload and take this one off the table because it shouldn't 
have been listed in the first place. Then they will have more time to 
do everything else that they claim to want to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Loudermilk

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 69 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     proposed rule entitled ``Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel 
     Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and 
     Vehicles-Phase 2'' published by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency in the Federal Register on July 13, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 
     40138 et seq.), with respect to trailers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, under the Clean Air Act, Congress 
directed the EPA to regulate ``any air pollutant from any class or 
classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which may 
be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.''
  Congress further defined ``motor vehicle'' as a ``self-propelled 
vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or 
highway.''
  Mr. Chairman, any reasonable person would understand that self-
propelled vehicle means a vehicle that can propel itself of its own 
initiative. One would think of pickup trucks, semis, vans, or cars. One 
thing that does not come to mind is the back portion of a tractor 
trailer being the trailer portion which has no way of self-propelling 
itself.
  Unfortunately, the EPA doesn't seem to see it that way. In last 
year's proposed rules for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency 
standards for on-road heavy-duty vehicles and engines, the EPA 
attempted to regulate truck trailers as self-propelled vehicles.
  Furthermore, the EPA has a voluntary program called SmartWay that 
provides engineering guidelines for aerodynamics and reduced truck 
weight. SmartWay, which is voluntary, is intended to improve fuel 
efficiency for combined tractor tailers.
  However, SmartWay only improves fuel efficiency when tractor trailers 
are traveling at highway speeds of more than 50 miles per hour. 
SmartWay provides no benefits whatsoever when the tractor trailers are 
traveling at less than 50 miles per hour around towns which are where 
most of the tractor trailers are used in the United States. But EPA 
wants to mandate all trailers to be governed by SmartWay, even those 
that travel less than 50 miles per hour.
  In fact, if the government manipulates the weight of trailers, cargo 
gets displaced which results in more tractor trailers on the road, 
higher consumer prices, and more greenhouse gas emissions just to meet 
current freight demands.
  Mr. Chairman, the trailers that EPA is proposing to regulate are 
highly customized to the individual specifications of each customer. 
Trailer manufacturers should not be forced to comply with a one-size-
fits-all standard especially when given that so many trailers do not 
gain any fuel efficiency benefits from SmartWay.
  My amendment would prevent the EPA from using any funds in the bill 
to regulate trailers under the greenhouse gas rule. Not only should 
these guidelines remain voluntary because they only benefit some 
trailers, EPA has no business regulating trailers under the Clean Air 
Act given that they are not self-propelled.
  This proposed regulation by the EPA is another example of a Federal 
agency overstepping its bounds and attempting to enact a regulation 
that benefits some parts of the economy but harms others.

                              {time}  0120

  If this attempted overreach by the EPA is enforced, it will be costly 
and counterproductive because the private sector is moving faster to 
improve fuel efficiency and reduce air pollution than the EPA can move.
  Congress would be wise to stop this regulation and keep the SmartWay 
program voluntary and let trailer manufacturers do what they know is 
best for their individual customers.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the fuel standards for the trailers that 
they are studying were jointly proposed by the EPA and the Department 
of Transportation.
  Does the gentleman have a rider in anything from the Department of 
Transportation to prohibit their funding?
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. We do not at this time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. That answers part of my question, because even if he 
was to be successful with his amendment in the way the amendments are 
going--I am kind of predicting that he might be on a voice vote--it 
would still be moving forward under the Department of Transportation.
  The standards that they are looking at are to help achieve greenhouse 
gas emissions and reductions. In my opinion, that is a good thing to 
do. The amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, 
or enforcing its greenhouse gas rules by carving out this exemption for 
trailers.
  Now, the other reason why I am opposing the amendment, and I am being 
consistent with this, is the proposed regulation is still currently 
open for public comment. We don't know what the final comment is going 
to be. We don't know what is going to happen in the future, so I don't 
think we should be interfering with a rulemaking process on an 
appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, once again, as we have seen with the 
agencies, there is a lot of overreach. Quite often, if you give them an 
inch, they take a mile.
  I think it is imperative that we be proactive in this issue to ensure 
that we protect an industry that has done a good job of regulating 
itself.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H4807]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     proposed rule entitled ``Health and Environmental Protection 
     Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings'' published 
     by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal 
     Register on January 26, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 4156 et seq.), or 
     any rule of the same substance.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe that I am the 
third of three daughters, and my father used to always say nothing good 
ever happens after midnight, which is why he gave us a midnight curfew. 
I am hoping he was talking about mountain daylight time instead of 
eastern daylight time, especially with regard to my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is intended to prohibit funding to 
complete EPA's proposed rule for environmental protection standards for 
uranium and thorium mill tailings.
  The rule is intended to protect groundwater from potential future 
contamination due to in situ uranium production. The intent is not bad, 
but EPA officials acknowledge there is no evidence in situ uranium 
recovery, a process that has been used for more than four decades, has 
ever caused an adverse impact to adjacent, nonexempt aquifers.
  Also, the EPA lacks jurisdiction to impose these standards. The EPA 
has general standard setting authority; but Congress has designated the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and its agreement states, as the lead 
when it comes to implementation and enforcement, a concern raised by 
the NRC's general counsel.
  Now, the uranium industry has offered to work with the EPA to review 
existing data and conduct additional sampling, if warranted. The 
industry made this offer in May 2015, and the EPA never responded, 
which is a problem, which has been acknowledged earlier this evening 
with regard to an amendment about inquiries by stakeholders and 
Congress regarding the EPA. They are so busy making rules that they 
forget to respond to stakeholders and Members of Congress.
  American uranium production already faces intense competition from 
overseas production and Federal uranium sales, where our stockpile is 
being sold onto the market, depressing domestic prices and causing 
additional importation of uranium into the U.S. The U.S. imports 
upwards of 90 percent of the uranium we need for our power plants.
  The proposed rule's 30-year postproduction monitoring requirements 
will present a significant burden on already struggling producers in 
Texas, Wyoming, and the West, and it could lead to more mining 
bankruptcies. Employment in the industry has already dropped by 21 
percent. Why are we putting miners out of work and employing them in 
other countries where we import the same product?
  The EPA recently said the agency planned to finalize this rule before 
the end of the Obama administration is on track. This amendment may be 
Congress' last chance to stop the rule and save the domestic uranium 
industry. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I offer and support amendment 
No. 70 to H.R. 5538 and ask for its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, my primary reason for getting 
up and opposing the amendment is it blocks the EPA from finalizing 
regulations. The amendment would ensure that there are no public health 
or environmental standards tailored specifically to address the 
technologies and challenges associated with this most widely used 
method of uranium recovery.
  What the EPA is looking at doing is establishing requirements for 
leaching, which is a mining process in which boreholes are drilled into 
a deposit of uranium, and liquid solution is injected into the holes to 
absolve the uranium deposits to make sure that the aquifers are 
protected.
  I believe that the EPA should be looking at standards that will 
establish requirements to ensure that groundwater is restored to pre-
mine levels, that restoration is stable before a site is abandoned, and 
that these rules should be, moving forward, being finalized.
  To the gentlewoman from Wyoming--and I don't say this on the floor 
very often, and I think she knows this--who I consider a dear friend 
and I will miss upon her not running for reelection, I am concerned 
when I hear my colleagues say that they are not hearing back from 
people in a timely fashion. So I am going to be looking into that. But 
right now, at this particular time, because we are in the process of 
finalizing regulations and we don't know what they are going to look 
like as of right now, I have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, with great respect for the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota with whom I have had the privilege to serve for these 
past 8 years and whom I admire for her diligence and thoughtful 
representation of her constituents and our country, I would assert that 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and its agreement states, are the 
lead when it comes to implementation and enforcement, and even the 
NRC's general counsel has raised this issue. The States and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission are in control of this issue. It is adequately 
regulated. It is appropriately regulated in a manner that protects 
groundwater. The injection wells and the recovery wells are from 
nonpotable water sources, and there are no instances where a nonpotable 
aquifer has contaminated a potable water aquifer.

                              {time}  0130

  For those reasons, I believe that this amendment is appropriate, and 
I encourage its adoption.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Westerman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 71 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     enforce permit requirements pursuant to part 14 of title 50, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to the export of 
     squid, octopus, and cuttlefish products.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise on behalf of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. MacArthur).
  Prior to 2008, squid, octopus, and cuttlefish exports were permitted 
exclusively by the FDA as fish intended for human consumption. In 2008, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service also began regulating these species as 
protected species even though they are not. This allows them to charge 
excessive fees to seafood processors and to delay perishable shipments.
  This amendment will prohibit funding from going to the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to inspect squid, octopus, and cuttlefish. The FDA 
will still regulate these products for food safety, as they do other 
fishery products that are meant to be consumed as food. It is a simple 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page H4808]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, Fish and Wildlife inspections serve an 
important role for ensuring sustainability in regularly harvested 
species, which is essential to preserving the economic interests of the 
industry as well as the ocean ecosystems.
  The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee has been 
discussing the perishability of ecoderms for many years. Yet it has not 
had any other in-depth discussions about any other species.
  I know the authorizing committee has been looking at this issue, and 
I would suggest that they are the proper committee to address any 
changes to permanent requirements that are requested in this 
amendment--permanent requirements.
  Unlike the ecoderms, it is my understanding that these species are 
frozen seafood products instead of fresh.
  Is it true they are frozen seafood products instead of fresh?
  I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas so he may answer that 
question.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. I believe these are fresh products.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, in reclaiming my time, it is my 
understanding that they are frozen. Therefore, they are not perishable 
as are the other ecoderms we had been speaking to.
  I would ask that Members oppose this amendment and consider any 
legislation produced from the House Natural Resources Committee as the 
appropriate vehicle to resolve this issue.
  I asked the gentleman a question about whether they are frozen 
seafood products or not. That seems to be in doubt. I have it under 
good information that they are. The gentleman is not sure. Therefore, I 
think it is really appropriate that this amendment be tabled, or voted 
down, until the proper committee has had a chance to review it, because 
what we are about to engage in here is a radical, radical change in 
what current law is.
  I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, these harmless seafood products are treated 
as if they were listed under the Endangered Species Act or listed as 
injurious under the Lacey Act or in violation of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species, which these products are 
not. They are being regulated by both the Fish and Wildlife and the 
FDA, and they will still be regulated under the FDA.
  I encourage a positive vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, without doing inspections, we have no way of 
knowing whether or not these are potentially endangered species. They 
are not. They would be exempted from the Lacey Act. That is why I am 
saying that this amendment is so radical in its nature of changing what 
current practice is.
  I am pretty confident that these are frozen seafood products. What we 
were looking to address in the report language in the discussions that 
we have had in the committee is, for example, sea urchins, which are 
highly perishable, and that you have to have a quick turnaround in 
working with Fish and Wildlife to make sure that those inspections are 
taking place like that so that the fishermen and -women aren't put at 
an economic disadvantage.
  I am very strongly in opposition to this amendment. I think the 
gentleman is going to go forward with it, but I really wish this could 
be tabled so that we could have a full discussion about what we are 
talking about. I think, with the best of intentions, the gentleman will 
go someplace, and I am not sure we will fully understand what the final 
product will be at the end. I oppose the amendment strongly.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out seismic airgun testing or seismic airgun 
     surveys in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 
     Planning Area, the Straits of Florida Outer Continental Shelf 
     Planning Area, or the South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf 
     Planning Area located within the exclusive economic zone (as 
     defined in section 107 of title 46, United States Code) 
     bordering the State of Florida.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their hard work in staying up so late and doing our 
business here.
  I rise to offer the Murphy-Jolly-Castor-Clawson-Deutch-Graham-
Hastings-Posey-Ros-Lehtinen-Wilson amendment to block the use of 
seismic airgun testing off Florida's coasts.
  As you can see from the list of cosponsors, offshore drilling is not 
a partisan issue. In our State of Florida, the health of our economy 
relies on clean waters and beaches. Seismic testing puts the health of 
our environment and, by extension, our economy at risk. Blasting 
seismic waves into the waters off our coasts is the first step in the 
wrong direction.
  Oil and gas exploration off the coasts of Florida poses too great a 
risk to our environment and to our economy. Seismic testing can have 
negative impacts on marine life, including endangered whales and 
dolphins, by disrupting their ability to communicate and navigate to 
find food as well as to locate mates and their young. It can also have 
negative effects on sea turtles, such as the endangered loggerhead, 
that have key nesting grounds along the Treasure Coast and Palm Beaches 
in the district I am so proud to represent.
  Additionally, this practice has the potential to displace commercial 
and recreational fishing stocks. Estimates are that this practice can 
reduce catch rates in Atlantic cod, haddock, rockfish, herring, sand 
eel, and blue whiting by anywhere between 40 and 80 percent. This is 
unacceptable for Florida's fishing industry and the very livelihoods it 
sustains.
  Floridians from every political persuasion do not want to risk an oil 
spill off our coasts, as we are home to more coastline than any other 
State in the continental United States. That is why 30 cities from both 
the left-leaning and right-leaning parts of our State have passed 
resolutions that ban seismic testing. Those closest to the ground know 
seismic testing is bad for business in a State with over 280,000 jobs 
that are supported by healthy ocean ecosystems. Protecting our shores 
is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is a Florida issue, both 
environmentally and economically.
  I am proud that our delegation continues to stand strong against 
efforts to open the door to offshore drilling by working to block 
seismic testing off our shores. I ask my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to trust our State and our delegation. The Sunshine State is 
united. We do not want this. Support this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, this administration has already developed the 
most restrictive policies for the use of seismic airguns for offshore 
exploration to date. We do not need to place a moratorium on the use. 
The gentleman specifies two planning areas off the Florida coasts, but 
the amendment affects many other States than just his own. As such, I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham), another champion 
for the environment and a champion for Florida.

[[Page H4809]]

  


                              {time}  0140

  Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Murphy for yielding. I 
appreciate this opportunity of speaking for the same purpose I spoke to 
about an hour ago, but a different amendment.
  I would just like to say, living in north Florida, I have seen 
firsthand the devastation that the BP oil spill created for our coastal 
communities. There are communities in my district that have still not 
recovered. I support energy independence, but Florida's beaches add 
billions of dollars to our economy. Drilling off our coast is not worth 
the risk to our environment or our economy.
  This amendment reaffirms the current drilling ban by preventing 
seismic testing off Florida's beaches. I am proud to support it with my 
fellow Floridians in a bipartisan nature, and I hope my colleagues will 
join us in protecting Florida's beaches.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman's hard 
work on this bill, and I hope he will take a moment to consider the 
united front that we stand in Florida on a bipartisan measure to be 
against this. But we oppose this practice because of its many impacts 
on the State and the animals that move around. They are not simply off 
our shore. They are all over the place. I hope the gentleman considers 
that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 73 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

        At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of the Interior to treat any gray 
     wolf in any of the 48 contiguous States or the District of 
     Columbia as an endangered species or threatened species under 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
     after June 13, 2017.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would prohibit the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service from using any funds to continue treating the gray 
wolf under ESA after June 13, 2017--providing these agencies with 
funding to continue managing the gray wolf for nearly a year--more than 
half enough time to work with States to develop and implement 
individual State management plans that would go into effect when 
Federal management ends.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of extreme importance to my home State 
of Washington where the gray wolf is listed in the western two-thirds 
of the State but is delisted in the eastern third. This fragmented 
listing means there are no geographic barriers to prevent wolves from 
traveling between listed and delisted areas, posing a risk to people's 
lives, farming, and ranching in the region.
  Unfortunately, this issue should already be settled. On June 13, 
2013, the Service published a proposed rule to remove the gray wolf 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. It made this 
determination after evaluating ``the classification status of gray 
wolves currently listed in the contiguous U.S.'' and found the ``best 
available scientific and commercial information indicates that the 
currently listed entity is not a valid species under the Act.''
  The statutory purpose of ESA is to recover a species to the point 
where it no longer is considered endangered or threatened. The gray 
wolf is currently found in nearly 50 countries around the world, and 
the Wolf Specialist Group at the International Union for Conservation 
Nature has placed the species in the category of ``least concern 
globally'' for risk of extinction.
  Mr. Chairman, the gray wolf population has grown substantially across 
its range and is now considered to be recovered, and, therefore, it no 
longer merits protection under ESA. However, my amendment does not 
delist the gray wolf but encourages the Service to move forward with 
its proposed delisting rule.
  It restricts funding for Federal management after June 13, 2017--4 
years after the original delisting rule was first published--providing 
more than enough time for the Service to finalize the rule, as well as 
to work with individual States to develop and implement their 
respective State management plans. This approach will support an 
orderly transition to State-level management and allow State wildlife 
officials to more effectively manage wolf populations, which has proven 
successful in States such as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan.
  My amendment is simple. It provides Interior and the Service with an 
incentive to move forward with the delisting that the agency itself 
said is necessary and supported by the best available science evidence 
and data.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as the gentleman pointed out, the wolf is an 
animal which exists in the great State of Minnesota, where I am from. 
This is not an issue that I am unfamiliar with, having worked on it in 
the State house when the Federal Government and the State were coming 
to fruition on how to protect this iconic American species.
  But this amendment is an attack on that species. The work of the 
Keystone species, as we both know, plays a vital role in keeping our 
ecosystem healthy. Deer populations, the gentleman and I, being 
familiar with that, know how important they are to the entire 
ecosystem. It is also an animal to my Native American brothers and 
sisters in Minnesota and the surrounding area that have a deep kinship 
and bond with. In fact, at a wolf roundtable I had, I heard directly 
from many tribal leaders that the protections that are afforded under 
the Endangered Species Act for gray wolves is the only way in which 
they have been able to keep wolf hunts away or out of the tribal 
reservation boundaries.
  I understand many of my colleagues have very strong feelings about 
listing and delisting and the way it affects their States, but 
currently, this is in the courts right now. We don't know how the 
courts are going to come down on its ruling, so I think we should not 
interfere in what is a court process.
  The Endangered Species Act also exists to offer necessary protections 
and ensures species survival, which the majority of my constituents and 
constituents all across the United States support.
  And this is the same law that helped successfully restore another 
iconic American system: the bald eagle.
  This amendment would restrict the Department of the Interior's 
ability to implement the Endangered Species Act. However, it does not 
alter the protection for the endangered wolves in the State. Regardless 
of one's position on species protections, the amendment is problematic.
  Its restrictions will ultimately hurt farmers, ranchers, landowners, 
and business owners because under this amendment the Fish and Wildlife 
Service would not be able to offer any exemptions or permits for 
incidental killings of wolves to landowners, ranchers, and other 
parties who might need them. Right now, the way the law stands, they 
can do that. If this amendment were to pass, they would not be able to 
do that.

[[Page H4810]]

  The prohibition against accidental kills or takes would remain, and 
it would still be legally enforceable. Constituents in these States 
would either have to stop any activity that led to the taking of wolves 
or they would be put in harm's way to lawsuits and heavy penalties.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentlewoman's 
knowledge and work on this issue in her home State of Minnesota.
  However, I think it is time that we in this country declare a 
success, declare a win when it comes to the gray wolf. There are at 
least 6,000 wolves in the Great Lakes States, the Rocky Mountain 
States, the Pacific and Northwest States; 14,000 in the whole United 
States. As I said before, this is no longer an endangered species. It 
does not fit the criteria for endangered species.

                              {time}  0150

  My own State Fish and Wildlife Department 3 years in a row has sent 
letters to Congress asking and pointing out the reasons why the wolf 
could be, should be delisted.
  You talk about coexisting with other species. If you look at the elk 
population of Yellowstone, in the 10 years between 1996 and 2006, the 
population has been decimated by 50 percent. If you look at the Shiras 
moose population of Utah, it has been decimated by 90 percent because 
of these healthy populations of wolves. I think there are issues that 
we are experiencing because of being unable to manage them in ways that 
States have proven that they are capable of doing.
  It does not take away the ability for States to do those kind of 
things. The Federal Government fully has, until June 30 of 2017, to 
continue managing the wolf in the way it does now. This just sets a 
timeline, provides an incentive for the agency to move forward with its 
own rule and the process that has been in place.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman. I think we just disagree on the 
timing of this amendment and what this amendment would actually lead to 
have happen in our States and our communities. It is in the courts 
right now. The courts could very well rule in a way that you would be 
very pleased and very satisfied with, and I think we should let the 
court procedure take place.
  Simply put, in my opinion, this amendment is bad for wolves, bad for 
our ecosystem, bad for business, and my constituents think it would be 
a really bad thing to have move forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 74 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to issue any regulation under the Solid Waste Disposal 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) that applies to an animal 
     feeding operation, including a concentrated animal feeding 
     operation and a large concentrated animal feeding operation, 
     as such terms are defined in section 122.23 of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I 
know the gentlewoman from Minnesota will like on an issue critical to 
livestock farmers, not just in my State and district, but across the 
country.
  In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency approached four dairies 
in Washington State about high nitrate levels in nearby wells, 
suspecting semi-permeable manure lagoons may be the cause. The dairies 
entered into a consent decree with EPA to identify and treat the cause 
if it was, in fact, stemming from the dairies.
  Disturbingly, an environmental group FOIA'd the information the 
dairies provided to EPA and used it to file a citizen suit under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, or RCRA, against the 
dairies.
  Unfortunately, in early 2014 a Federal judge ruled with the 
environmental group, asserting that dissolved nitrates constituted a 
solid waste under the law, and high nitrate levels constituted open 
dumping.
  There are a number of problems with this case. However, the biggest 
one by far is the very law used to file the lawsuit. To be clear, there 
are a number of laws and regulations both at the State and the Federal 
level which apply to nutrient management, such as the Safe Drinking 
Water Act or the Clean Water Act. The problem is, Congress never 
intended RCRA to be used to regulate agriculture. In fact, EPA 
expresses that RCRA does not apply to agricultural waste, including 
manure and crop residue, returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil 
conditioners.
  I don't know how you can get much clearer than nutrient management 
was not intended to be governed under this law; and, unfortunately, 
this ruling has left agriculture producers in a legal gray area trying 
to figure out exactly how to comply with the law that was not intended 
to regulate them.
  All this decision has done is to create a culture of fear and 
distrust between farmers and regulatory agencies. If you are a good 
steward and come forward to proactively address problems, all you are 
doing is making yourself a target for lawsuits. Also, it creates a fear 
that a judge could capriciously decide that you are subject to a law 
despite clear intent that the law does not apply to you. Mr. Chairman, 
farmers rely on the land and water being clean and want to be good 
environmental stewards, and this self-defeating culture is not one we 
want to cultivate.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment does nothing to prevent EPA from enforcing 
current regulations under RCRA. It does nothing to prevent EPA from 
issuing or enforcing Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act rules. 
All my amendment does is prevent EPA from issuing and expanding new 
regulations under RCRA that would reflect this poor interpretation of 
current law.
  While I am not aware of a desire by EPA to do this, unfortunately, 
there have been a number of other recent legal precedents directing EPA 
to take actions they didn't want to take. This amendment will ensure 
EPA's current regulations stand until Congress has the ability to weigh 
in and reassert its intent.
  Mr. Chairman, no one is saying livestock producers, like all 
Americans, do not share in the responsibility of good environmental 
stewardship. They certainly do. But there already exists appropriate 
laws and regulations intended to govern these activities, and there are 
ones that are not intended to. We, as Members of Congress, have a 
responsibility to make that clarification, which is what my amendment 
takes steps to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes in opposition.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, I think we both would 
agree that drinking water is critical and limited in some of our rural 
communities, and we need to work together to address real threats to 
those sacred and precious resources. We should be protecting those 
communities from irresponsible factory farms rather than shielding 
large corporations from liability when their actions do make people 
sick. I think we probably both agree on that.

[[Page H4811]]

  But your amendment isn't about drinking water. It is about RCRA. Your 
amendment prohibits the EPA from, maybe in the future, regulating an 
animal feed operation under RCRA, which is the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act.
  Right now, the EPA does not regulate animal feeding operations, and 
the Agency has no immediate plans to develop or issue such regulations, 
so this amendment is unnecessary, and I strongly oppose it because it 
also gets involved in blocking the EPA Administrator from working on 
possibly anything else in the future that we might agree that would 
affect drinking water, which I don't think is part of this.
  So the fact that RCRA does not regulate animal feeding operations 
underneath this statute and the Agency has no immediate plans to do it, 
and the way that the defunding is happening, I just have to oppose this 
amendment at this time.
  Mr. Chair, if I could just say something about some of these 
amendments, I understand that sometimes people are fearful of what may 
or may not happen in the future, and so we have had many amendments 
that have either interjected before a court has ruled or interjected 
before a final rulemaking has taken place or interjected before all the 
public comment has been taken in consideration.
  I just think that the authorizing committee needs to be looking at 
what happens in public comment, and then if the Congress disagrees with 
a rule that comes out, that is when our role is most appropriate. I 
don't think we should have a role in predicting the future. I oppose 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentlewoman's 
statement that we must work together to protect critical resources, and 
that is exactly why I am presenting this amendment for our 
consideration, so that dairies that want to do a good job know which 
rules they need to follow. Is it the Clean Water Act, is it the Safe 
Drinking Water Act or is it the RCRA rules? They need to know, and they 
can't be brought to court, being sued under rules that they didn't 
realize that they were supposed to be following.
  It is like if you are driving down the freeway going 70 miles an 
hour, and the State patrolman pulls up and says, I am sorry, sir, today 
the speed limit is only 45. How are you supposed to know that if it is 
not posted? That is the kind of simplistic direction certainty that we 
are trying to give farmers across the country, so that is the reason 
for the amendment.
  Certainly, I agree, EPA is not making plans to use RCRA to promulgate 
new rules, which is exactly why it shouldn't be a problem for us to be 
able to put that forward, because they are not. It shouldn't be a 
problem, so we are not going to be standing in their way.

                              {time}  0200

  Dairies are being sued by environmental groups, and judges are making 
rulings using RCRA rules as a basis for the decisions. And so that is 
why I think it is important for us to reassert Congress' original 
intention as well as EPA's clear regulations. We have to reassert that 
to keep clarity and certainty for our farmers and ranchers so that they 
can better protect our natural resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75 
printed in House Report 114-683.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  For ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service-
     Resource Management'' to reinstate the wolf-livestock loss 
     demonstration program as authorized by Public Law 111-11, 
     there is hereby appropriated, and the amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Environmental Protection Agency-
     Environmental Programs and Management'' is hereby reduced by, 
     $1,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 820, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to offer an amendment 
that would restore funding for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration 
Program.
  This program assists livestock producers in undertaking proactive, 
nonlethal activity to reduce the livestock loss from predation by 
wolves, and addresses livestock losses caused by wolves.
  Mr. Chairman, this demonstration program was authorized in 2009 under 
a Democratic administration, and $1 million in funding was appropriated 
in the FY 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act.
  Since its inception, the Wolf Livestock Demonstration Program has 
played a critical role in minimizing conflicts with wolves while 
providing ranchers with much-needed support for non-lethal activities 
and another tool to minimize their livestock losses from wolves.
  Grants provided by this program go to 10 States with significant wolf 
populations, including my home State of Washington, and support each 
State's highest priority needs in assisting livestock producers in 
dealing with predation by wolves. The grants provided by this program 
are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and stipulates 
that the Federal cost share not exceed 50 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, this program has been funded every year since 2010. My 
amendment would continue this funding at the 2010 level, respecting our 
country's current fiscal situation and tight budgetary guidelines.
  The Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program encourages the wider 
use of nonlethal programs by livestock owners and ranchers who 
frequently rely on lethal control methods to address livestock-wolf 
conflict.
  As wolf populations continue to grow across the Lower 48, it is vital 
that we continue this demonstration program in order to benefit 
livestock producers willing to take proactive measures to protect not 
only their livestock, but wolves as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear. I think people 
who lose livestock to wolf predation should be reimbursed. I want to be 
very, very clear about that. I supported that as a State legislator, 
and I support it now. However, in 2014, this program for recouping 
farmers and ranchers is in the Agriculture bill. The Agriculture bill 
hasn't come to the floor yet.
  EPA has been cut enough. We aren't doing enough for clean drinking 
water. You have seen the cuts that have been on the floor to fund other 
programs today.
  We have funded this out of Fish and Wildlife, and now you are taking 
the funds for the Fish and Wildlife out of the Environmental Protection 
Agency. This belongs in the Agriculture bill.
  And so, in effect, what you are doing--because you continue to fund 
it out of the Interior bill, we are going to have a significant 
reduction to the EPA. The EPA was already reduced $164 million below 
2016. These deep reductions impact the ability of the EPA to protect 
human health and the health of our environment. It jeopardizes our 
ability to ensure that there is clean air and clean water for families 
today and for future generations.
  I just cannot support reducing the EPA any longer. I will join you on 
an amendment to fund this out of where it belongs--from the 2014 
Agriculture bill--but I cannot support it coming out of the EPA. It 
belongs in the Agriculture bill, where it is authorized.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the gentlewoman

[[Page H4812]]

that the original program, the demonstration program, was authorized in 
2009, and then $1 million was appropriated in the 2010 Interior and 
Environment Appropriations Act. And so it is just being consistent with 
what we have done as a Congress before I got here.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. In 2009. We passed a law in 2014. The legislation that 
is in charge of this program now, in 2014, current law, is not in this 
bill anymore. It is in the Agriculture bill.
  And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Reclaiming my time, I believe that that is authorizing 
legislation and this is appropriating legislation. So that would be the 
only difference that I could see.
  I certainly respect the gentlewoman has much more experience than I 
have, but I would still offer this amendment. It has been a good 
program in helping livestock producers as well as also being safer for 
the wolf population.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Newhouse) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 5538) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, 
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________