[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4783-H4814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
General Leave
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to
[[Page H4784]]
include extraneous material on H.R. 2822 and that I may include tabular
material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter of Georgia). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 333 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. 2822.
Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 1446
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2822) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
June 25, 2015, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Benishek) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page
76, line 4.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I would encourage Members who have striking
amendments to come to the floor immediately.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
capital improvement and maintenance
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $357,363,000, to remain available until
expended, for construction, capital improvement, maintenance
and acquisition of buildings and other facilities and
infrastructure; and for construction, reconstruction,
decommissioning of roads that are no longer needed, including
unauthorized roads that are not part of the transportation
system, and maintenance of forest roads and trails by the
Forest Service as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23
U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided, That $40,000,000 shall be
designated for urgently needed road decommissioning, road and
trail repair and maintenance and associated activities, and
removal of fish passage barriers, especially in areas where
Forest Service roads may be contributing to water quality
problems in streams and water bodies which support
threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or community
water sources: Provided further, That funds becoming
available in fiscal year 2016 under the Act of March 4, 1913
(16 U.S.C. 501) shall be transferred to the General Fund of
the Treasury and shall not be available for transfer or
obligation for any other purpose unless the funds are
appropriated: Provided further, That of the funds provided
for decommissioning of roads, up to $14,743,000 may be
transferred to the ``National Forest System'' to support the
Integrated Resource Restoration pilot program.
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, (16 U.S.C.
460l-4 et seq.), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with statutory authority applicable to the Forest
Service, $20,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 77, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)(increased by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, this amendment takes $1 million out of
the Forest Service land acquisition account and then, for technical
reasons, inserts it back into the same account with the intent to
identify unused land for potential sale.
The United States Federal Government currently owns around 640
million acres of land. That is just a number. But that is 27 percent of
the landmass in the United States, owned by Uncle Sam. That is the same
size as all of Western Europe, if you can imagine that, that being 27
percent of the United States landmass. The Forest Service alone owns
over 230 million acres of this Federal land.
This amendment is very simple. All it does is to have the Federal
Government examine the land that it has in its possession for the
potential sale back to Americans so that Americans can own America.
We are not talking about National Forests. We are not talking about
the Grand Canyon. We are talking about unused land that is owned by the
Federal Government.
It will have the Federal Government go through that land--27 percent
of the landmass in the country--and decide whether some of that might
actually be better to be in the possession and the property of
Americans so that, if Americans then own the land, that land in some
State--like Utah--can then be developed by Americans, and then those
people can pay taxes on the land that would go to the State of Utah,
for example. Right now the land is unused. It is not able to be
productive.
So that is what this amendment would do: have the Forest Service
study the possibility of selling some of that unused land back to the
United States.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
acquisition of lands for national forests special acts
For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $950,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.
acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges
For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities,
and for authorized expenditures from funds deposited by non-
Federal parties pursuant to Land Sale and Exchange Acts,
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967 (16 U.S.C. 484a), to
remain available until expended (16 U.S.C. 460l-516-617a,
555a; Public Law 96-586; Public Law 76-589, 76-591; and
Public Law 78-310).
range betterment fund
For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant
to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, to remain
available until expended, of which not to exceed 6 percent
shall be available for administrative expenses associated
with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, and
improvements.
gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research
For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $45,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.
management of national forest lands for subsistence uses
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage
Federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(Public Law 96-487), $2,441,000, to remain available until
expended.
wildland fire management
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, hazardous fuels management
on or adjacent to such lands, emergency rehabilitation of
burned-over National Forest System lands and water, and for
State and volunteer fire assistance, $2,373,078,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That such funds
including unobligated balances under this heading, are
available for repayment of advances from other appropriations
accounts previously transferred for such purposes: Provided
further, That such funds shall be available to reimburse
State and other cooperating entities for services provided in
response to wildfire and other emergencies or
[[Page H4785]]
disasters to the extent such reimbursements by the Forest
Service for non-fire emergencies are fully repaid by the
responsible emergency management agency: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, $6,914,000
of funds appropriated under this appropriation shall be
available for the Forest Service in support of fire science
research authorized by the Joint Fire Science Program,
including all Forest Service authorities for the use of
funds, such as contracts, grants, research joint venture
agreements, and cooperative agreements: Provided further,
That all authorities for the use of funds, including the use
of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, available
to execute the Forest and Rangeland Research appropriation,
are also available in the utilization of these funds for Fire
Science Research: Provided further, That funds provided shall
be available for emergency rehabilitation and restoration,
hazardous fuels management activities, support to Federal
emergency response, and wildfire suppression activities of
the Forest Service: Provided further, That of the funds
provided, $361,749,000 is for hazardous fuels management
activities, $19,795,000 is for research activities and to
make competitive research grants pursuant to the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, (16 U.S.C. 1641
et seq.), $78,000,000 is for State fire assistance, and
$13,000,000 is for volunteer fire assistance under section 10
of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2106): Provided further, That amounts in this paragraph may
be transferred to the ``National Forest System'', and
``Forest and Rangeland Research'' accounts to fund forest and
rangeland research, the Joint Fire Science Program,
vegetation and watershed management, heritage site
rehabilitation, and wildlife and fish habitat management and
restoration: Provided further, That the costs of
implementing any cooperative agreement between the Federal
Government and any non-Federal entity may be shared, as
mutually agreed on by the affected parties: Provided further,
That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein may be
used by the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into
procurement contracts or cooperative agreements or to issue
grants for hazardous fuels management activities and for
training or monitoring associated with such hazardous fuels
management activities on Federal land or on non-Federal land
if the Secretary determines such activities implement a
community wildfire protection plan (or equivalent) and
benefit resources on Federal land: Provided further, That
funds made available to implement the Community Forest
Restoration Act, Public Law 106-393, title VI, shall be
available for use on non-Federal lands in accordance with
authorities made available to the Forest Service under the
``State and Private Forestry'' appropriation: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture may authorize the transfer of funds
appropriated for wildland fire management, in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $50,000,000, between the Departments
when such transfers would facilitate and expedite wildland
fire management programs and projects: Provided further, That
of the funds provided for hazardous fuels management, not to
exceed $5,000,000 may be used to make grants, using any
authorities available to the Forest Service under the ``State
and Private Forestry'' appropriation, for the purpose of
creating incentives for increased use of biomass from
National Forest System lands: Provided further, That funds
designated for wildfire suppression, including funds
transferred from the ``FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve
Fund'', shall be assessed for cost pools on the same basis as
such assessments are calculated against other agency
programs: Provided further, That of the funds for hazardous
fuels management, up to $28,077,000 may be transferred to the
``National Forest System'' to support the Integrated Resource
Restoration pilot program.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 79, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000) (decreased by $1,000,000)''.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman from Colorado and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, we still see approximately 3,000 deaths,
17,000 injuries, and $3 billion spent annually as a result of wildfires
across the country.
In many ways, wildfires lack parity with nearly every other natural
disaster and are hugely underfunded when it comes to mitigation,
prevention, and suppression.
Despite the fact the fires often occur in rural communities with
smaller populations, wildfires demand intensive resources, equipment,
and infrastructure.
The Volunteer Fire Assistance grant program is critical to moving the
needle on wildfire management and supporting the men and women who
serve in our volunteer fire agencies, including in my district in
Colorado. Though this grant program is small and oriented towards
lesser trafficked communities, its impact is incredible.
The Volunteer Fire Assistance program provides matching funds to
volunteer fire departments protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer
residents to purchase equipment and training for use in wildland fire
suppression.
Volunteer fire departments provide nearly 80 percent of the initial
attack on wildfires across the United States, but, unfortunately, these
volunteer fire departments frequently lack the financial resources. And
$1 million makes an enormous difference for our volunteer fire
departments across the country.
Unfortunately, in recent years, Federal funding for volunteer fire
departments to prepare for wildland fire suppression has dwindled. VFA
has seen funding reduced from $16 million in FY 2010 to $15.6 million
in 2011 and approximately $13 million in FY 2012-2015.
Additionally, the Rural Fire Assistance program, which has
historically been funded at $7 to $10 million per year and provided
matching grants to fire departments that agreed to assist in responding
to wildland fires on Federal lands, hasn't been funded since FY 2010.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, Federal support is critical to ensure
volunteer fire departments are able to safely and effectively respond
to wildland fires.
The bipartisan amendment I offer today with my colleagues,
Representatives Ruiz of California and Peter King of New York, would
help ensure that we have stronger support for our volunteer fire
departments across our country.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that has been
supported by the Congressional Fire Service Institute, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, and National Volunteer Fire
Council.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
flame wildfire suppression reserve fund
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for large fire suppression
operations of the Department of Agriculture and as a reserve
fund for suppression and Federal emergency response
activities, $315,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such amounts are only available for transfer
to the ``Wildland Fire Management'' account following a
declaration by the Secretary in accordance with section 502
of the FLAME Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 1748a).
administrative provisions, forest service
(including transfers of funds)
Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (1) purchase of passenger motor
vehicles; acquisition of passenger motor vehicles from excess
sources, and hire of such vehicles; purchase, lease,
operation, maintenance, and acquisition of aircraft to
maintain the operable fleet for use in Forest Service
wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs;
notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft
being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in
value used to offset the purchase price for the replacement
aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to
exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3)
purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other
public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land,
waters, and interests therein pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5)
for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National
Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6)
the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and
(7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31
U.S.C. 3718(c).
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters
under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions upon the Secretary's notification of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that all fire
suppression funds appropriated under the headings ``Wildland
Fire Management''
[[Page H4786]]
and ``FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund'' will be
obligated within 30 days: Provided, That all funds used
pursuant to this paragraph must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development in connection with forest and rangeland research,
technical information, and assistance in foreign countries,
and shall be available to support forestry and related
natural resource activities outside the United States and its
territories and possessions, including technical assistance,
education and training, and cooperation with U.S., private,
and international organizations. The Forest Service, acting
for the International Program, may sign direct funding
agreements with foreign governments and institutions as well
as other domestic agencies (including the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the Department of State, and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation), U.S. private sector firms,
institutions and organizations to provide technical
assistance and training programs overseas on forestry and
rangeland management.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for expenditure or transfer to the Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, for removal,
preparation, and adoption of excess wild horses and burros
from National Forest System lands, and for the performance of
cadastral surveys to designate the boundaries of such lands.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service in
this Act or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year
shall be subject to transfer under the provisions of section
702(b) of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944
(7 U.S.C. 2257), section 442 of Public Law 106-224 (7 U.S.C.
7772), or section 10417(b) of Public Law 107-107 (7 U.S.C.
8316(b)).
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying
this Act.
Not more than $82,000,000 of funds available to the Forest
Service shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund of
the Department of Agriculture and not more than $14,500,000
of funds available to the Forest Service shall be transferred
to the Department of Agriculture for Department Reimbursable
Programs, commonly referred to as Greenbook charges. Nothing
in this paragraph shall prohibit or limit the use of
reimbursable agreements requested by the Forest Service in
order to obtain services from the Department of Agriculture's
National Information Technology Center and the Department of
Agriculture's International Technology Service.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to
$5,000,000 shall be available for priority projects within
the scope of the approved budget, which shall be carried out
by the Youth Conservation Corps and shall be carried out
under the authority of the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993,
Public Law 103-82, as amended by Public Lands Corps Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2005, Public Law 109-154.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $4,000 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to
$3,000,000 may be advanced in a lump sum to the National
Forest Foundation to aid conservation partnership projects in
support of the Forest Service mission, without regard to when
the Foundation incurs expenses, for projects on or
benefitting National Forest System lands or related to Forest
Service programs: Provided, That of the Federal funds made
available to the Foundation, no more than $300,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses: Provided further, That
the Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of
Federal financial assistance, private contributions to match
on at least one-for-one basis funds made available by the
Forest Service: Provided further, That the Foundation may
transfer Federal funds to a Federal or a non-Federal
recipient for a project at the same rate that the recipient
has obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, up to
$3,000,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service may
be advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a
lump sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without
regard to when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting
National Forest System lands or related to Forest Service
programs: Provided, That such funds shall be matched on at
least a one-for-one basis by the Foundation or its sub-
recipients: Provided further, That the Foundation may
transfer Federal funds to a Federal or non-Federal recipient
for a project at the same rate that the recipient has
obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities and natural resource-based businesses for
sustainable rural development purposes.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, pursuant to section 14(c)(1) and (2),
and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
Any funds appropriated to the Forest Service may be used to
meet the non-Federal share requirement in section 502(c) of
the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)).
Funds available to the Forest Service, not to exceed
$55,000,000, shall be assessed for the purpose of performing
fire, administrative and other facilities maintenance and
decommissioning. Such assessments shall occur using a square
foot rate charged on the same basis the agency uses to assess
programs for payment of rent, utilities, and other support
services.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not
to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the
General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel
and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance
or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings,
training sessions, management reviews, land purchase
negotiations and similar nonlitigation-related matters.
Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and
the Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums
previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.
An eligible individual who is employed in any project
funded under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) and administered by the Forest Service
shall be considered to be a Federal employee for purposes of
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service
indian health services
For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act, the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act
with respect to the Indian Health Service, $4,321,539,000,
together with payments received during the fiscal year
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) and 238b, for services furnished
by the Indian Health Service: Provided, That funds made
available to tribes and tribal organizations through
contracts, grant agreements, or any other agreements or
compacts authorized by the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), shall be
deemed to be obligated at the time of the grant or contract
award and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or
tribal organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided
further, That, $935,726,000 for Purchased/Referred Care,
including $51,500,000 for the Indian Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund, shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That, of the funds provided, up to
$36,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
implementation of the loan repayment program under section
108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Provided
further, That the amounts collected by the Federal Government
as authorized by sections 104 and 108 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613a and 1616a) during the
preceding fiscal year for breach of contracts shall be
deposited to the Fund authorized by section 108A of the Act
(25 U.S.C. 1616a-1) and shall remain available until expended
and, notwithstanding section 108A(c) of the Act (25 U.S.C.
1616a-1(c)), funds shall be available to make new awards
under the loan repayment and scholarship programs under
sections 104 and 108 of the Act (25 U.S.C. 1613a and 1616a):
Provided further, That funds provided in this Act may be used
for annual contracts and grants that fall within 2 fiscal
years, provided the total obligation is recorded in the year
the funds are appropriated: Provided further, That the
amounts collected by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under the authority of title IV of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act shall remain available until expended
for the purpose of achieving compliance with the applicable
conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the
Social Security Act, except for those related to the
planning, design, or construction of new facilities: Provided
further, That funding contained herein for scholarship
programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25
U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal
organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and
available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations
until expended: Provided further, That the Bureau of Indian
Affairs may collect from the Indian Health Service, tribes
and tribal organizations operating health facilities pursuant
to Public Law 93-638, such individually identifiable health
information relating to disabled children as may be necessary
for the purpose of carrying out its functions under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400,
et seq.): Provided further, That the Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out
activities typically funded under the Indian Health
Facilities account: Provided further, That $717,970,000 shall
be for payments to Indian tribes and tribal organizations for
contract support costs associated with contracts, grants,
self-governance compacts, or annual funding agreements
between the Indian Health Service and an Indian tribe or
tribal organization pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) prior to
or during fiscal
[[Page H4787]]
year 2016, and shall remain available until expended.
indian health facilities
For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and
titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with
respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $466,329,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for the planning, design, construction,
renovation or expansion of health facilities for the benefit
of an Indian tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land on
which such facilities will be located: Provided further, That
not to exceed $500,000 may be used by the Indian Health
Service to purchase TRANSAM equipment from the Department of
Defense for distribution to the Indian Health Service and
tribal facilities: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated to the Indian Health Service may be used for
sanitation facilities construction for new homes funded with
grants by the housing programs of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development: Provided
further, That not to exceed $2,700,000 from this account and
the ``Indian Health Services'' account may be used by the
Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for the Indian
Health Service and tribal facilities in conjunction with an
existing interagency agreement between the Indian Health
Service and the General Services Administration: Provided
further, That not to exceed $500,000 may be placed in a
Demolition Fund, to remain available until expended, and be
used by the Indian Health Service for the demolition of
Federal buildings.
administrative provisions--indian health service
Appropriations provided in this Act to the Indian Health
Service shall be available for services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109 at rates not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior-level
positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor
vehicles and aircraft; purchase of medical equipment;
purchase of reprints; purchase, renovation and erection of
modular buildings and renovation of existing facilities;
payments for telephone service in private residences in the
field, when authorized under regulations approved by the
Secretary; uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; and for expenses of attendance at meetings
that relate to the functions or activities of the Indian
Health Service: Provided, That in accordance with the
provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-
Indian patients may be extended health care at all tribally
administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to
charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under
the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653)
shall be credited to the account of the facility providing
the service and shall be available without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service
shall be administered under Public Law 86-121, the Indian
Sanitation Facilities Act and Public Law 93-638: Provided
further, That funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service
in this Act, except those used for administrative and program
direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations
directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available to
the Indian Health Service in this Act shall be used for any
assessments or charges by the Department of Health and Human
Services unless identified in the budget justification and
provided in this Act, or approved by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations through the reprogramming
process: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, funds previously or herein made available
to a tribe or tribal organization through a contract, grant,
or agreement authorized by title I or title V of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25
U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
determination contract under title I, or a self-governance
agreement under title V of such Act and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available to the Indian Health Service in this Act
shall be used to implement the final rule published in the
Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by the Department of
Health and Human Services, relating to the eligibility for
the health care services of the Indian Health Service until
the Indian Health Service has submitted a budget request
reflecting the increased costs associated with the proposed
final rule, and such request has been included in an
appropriations Act and enacted into law: Provided further,
That with respect to functions transferred by the Indian
Health Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian
Health Service is authorized to provide goods and services to
those entities on a reimbursable basis, including payments in
advance with subsequent adjustment, and the reimbursements
received therefrom, along with the funds received from those
entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may
be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account
from which the funds were originally derived, with such
amounts to remain available until expended: Provided further,
That reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance: Provided further, That the
appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service may not
be altered without advance notification to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That
the Indian Health Service shall develop a strategic plan for
the Urban Indian Health program in consultation with urban
Indians and the National Academy of Public Administration,
and shall publish such plan not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this Act.
National Institutes of Health
national institute of environmental health sciences
For necessary expenses for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set
forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9660(a)) and section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, $77,349,000.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
toxic substances and environmental public health
For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set
forth in sections 104(i) and 111(c)(4) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) and section 3019 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, $74,691,000, of which up to $1,000 per eligible employee
of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry shall
remain available until expended for Individual Learning
Accounts: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, in lieu of performing a health assessment under
section 104(i)(6) of CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may
conduct other appropriate health studies, evaluations, or
activities, including, without limitation, biomedical
testing, clinical evaluations, medical monitoring, and
referral to accredited healthcare providers: Provided
further, That in performing any such health assessment or
health study, evaluation, or activity, the Administrator of
ATSDR shall not be bound by the deadlines in section
104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided further, That none of the
funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for
ATSDR to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles
pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 2016,
and existing profiles may be updated as necessary.
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
Executive Office of the President
council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality
For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, and not to
exceed $750 for official reception and representation
expenses, $3,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section
202 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the
Council shall consist of one member, appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
serving as chairman and exercising all powers, functions, and
duties of the Council.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant
to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, including hire of
passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for individuals not to exceed
the per diem equivalent to the maximum rate payable for
senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376, $11,000,000:
Provided, That the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board (Board) shall have not more than three career Senior
Executive Service positions: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the individual
appointed to the position of Inspector General of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall, by virtue of
such appointment, also hold the position of Inspector General
of the Board: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Inspector General of the Board
shall utilize personnel of the Office of Inspector General of
EPA in performing the duties of the Inspector General of the
Board, and shall not appoint any individuals to positions
within the Board.
[[Page H4788]]
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$7,341,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10: Provided
further, That $200,000 shall be transferred to the Office of
Inspector General of the Department of the Interior, to
remain available until expended, for audits and
investigations of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation, consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.).
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development
payment to the institute
For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498 (20 U.S.C. 56 part A), $9,469,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2017.
Smithsonian Institution
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease
agreements of no more than 30 years, and protection of
buildings, facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000
for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and purchase,
rental, repair, and cleaning of uniforms for employees,
$680,422,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017,
except as otherwise provided herein; of which not to exceed
$47,522,000 for the instrumentation program, collections
acquisition, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum
of African American History and Culture, and the repatriation
of skeletal remains program shall remain available until
expended; and including such funds as may be necessary to
support American overseas research centers: Provided, That
funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments
to independent contractors performing research services or
participating in official Smithsonian presentations.
facilities capital
For necessary expenses of repair, revitalization, and
alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian
Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by
section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), and
for construction, including necessary personnel,
$139,119,000, to remain available until expended, of which
not to exceed $10,000 shall be for services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109.
National Gallery of Art
salaries and expenses
For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $119,500,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2017, of which not to
exceed $3,578,000 for the special exhibition program shall
remain available until expended.
repair, restoration and renovation of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, for operating lease agreements of no more than 10
years, with no extensions or renewals beyond the 10 years,
that address space needs created by the ongoing renovations
in the Master Facilities Plan, as authorized, $19,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That contracts
awarded for environmental systems, protection systems, and
exterior repair or renovation of buildings of the National
Gallery of Art may be negotiated with selected contractors
and awarded on the basis of contractor qualifications as well
as price.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
operations and maintenance
For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $21,660,000.
capital repair and restoration
For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $11,140,000, to
remain available until expended.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $10,420,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2017.
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, $146,021,000
shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for
the support of projects and productions in the arts,
including arts education and public outreach activities,
through assistance to organizations and individuals pursuant
to section 5 of the Act, for program support, and for
administering the functions of the Act, to remain available
until expended.
National Endowment for the Humanities
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, $146,021,000 to
remain available until expended, of which $135,121,000 shall
be available for support of activities in the humanities,
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act and for administering the
functions of the Act; and $10,900,000 shall be available to
carry out the matching grants program pursuant to section
10(a)(2) of the Act, including $8,500,000 for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That appropriations for carrying out
section 10(a)(2) shall be available for obligation only in
such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts,
bequests, devises of money, and other property accepted by
the chairman or by grantees of the National Endowment for the
Humanities under the provisions of sections 11(a)(2)(B) and
11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding fiscal years for
which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated.
Administrative Provisions
None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may
be used as necessary for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That the
Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts may
approve grants of up to $10,000, if in the aggregate the
amount of such grants does not exceed 5 percent of the sums
appropriated for grantmaking purposes per year: Provided
further, That such small grant actions are taken pursuant to
the terms of an expressed and direct delegation of authority
from the National Council on the Arts to the Chairperson.
Commission of Fine Arts
salaries and expenses
For expenses of the Commission of Fine Arts under Chapter
91 of title 40, United States Code, $2,524,000: Provided,
That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to cover the
full costs of its publications, and such fees shall be
credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to
remain available until expended without further
appropriation: Provided further, That the Commission is
authorized to accept gifts, including objects, papers,
artwork, drawings and artifacts, that pertain to the history
and design of the Nation's Capital or the history and
activities of the Commission of Fine Arts, for the purpose of
artistic display, study or education.
national capital arts and cultural affairs
For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956a), $2,000,000.
[[Page H4789]]
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665), $6,080,000.
National Capital Planning Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the National Capital Planning
Commission under chapter 87 of title 40, United States Code,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$7,948,000: Provided, That one-quarter of 1 percent of the
funds provided under this heading may be used for official
reception and representational expenses associated with
hosting international visitors engaged in the planning and
physical development of world capitals.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
holocaust memorial museum
For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as
authorized by Public Law 106-292 (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310),
$52,385,000, of which $865,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2018, for the Museum's equipment replacement
program; and of which $2,200,000 for the Museum's repair and
rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the Museum's
outreach initiatives program shall remain available until
expended.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including transfers of funds)
restriction on use of funds
Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which Congressional action is not complete other than to
communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C.
1913.
obligation of appropriations
Sec. 402. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
disclosure of administrative expenses
Sec. 403. The amount and basis of estimated overhead
charges, deductions, reserves or holdbacks, including working
capital fund and cost pool charges, from programs, projects,
activities and subactivities to support government-wide,
departmental, agency, or bureau administrative functions or
headquarters, regional, or central operations shall be
presented in annual budget justifications and subject to
approval by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate. Changes to such estimates
shall be presented to the Committees on Appropriations for
approval.
mining applications
Sec. 404. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act
shall be obligated or expended to accept or process
applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim
located under the general mining laws.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the
Secretary of the Interior determines that, for the claim
concerned (1) a patent application was filed with the
Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims, sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Report.--On September 30, 2017, the Secretary of the
Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate a report on actions taken by the Department under
the plan submitted pursuant to section 314(c) of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management to conduct a mineral examination of the
mining claims or mill sites contained in a patent application
as set forth in subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management
shall have the sole responsibility to choose and pay the
third-party contractor in accordance with the standard
procedures employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the
retention of third-party contractors.
contract support costs, prior year limitation
Sec. 405. Sections 405 and 406 of division F of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015
(Public Law 113-235) shall continue in effect in fiscal year
2016.
contract support costs, fiscal year 2016 limitation
Sec. 406. Amounts provided by this Act for fiscal year
2016 under the headings ``Department of Health and Human
Services, Indian Health Service, Indian Health Services'' and
``Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Bureau of Indian Education, Operation of Indian Programs''
are the only amounts available for contract support costs
arising out of self-determination or self-governance
contracts, grants, compacts, or annual funding agreements for
fiscal year 2016 with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the
Indian Health Service: Provided, That such amounts provided
by this Act are not available for payment of claims for
contract support costs for prior years, or for repayments of
payments for settlements or judgments awarding contract
support costs for prior years.
forest management plans
Sec. 407. The Secretary of Agriculture shall not be
considered to be in violation of subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)) solely because more than 15
years have passed without revision of the plan for a unit of
the National Forest System. Nothing in this section exempts
the Secretary from any other requirement of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.) or any other law: Provided, That if the Secretary is
not acting expeditiously and in good faith, within the
funding available, to revise a plan for a unit of the
National Forest System, this section shall be void with
respect to such plan and a court of proper jurisdiction may
order completion of the plan on an accelerated basis.
prohibition within national monuments
Sec. 408. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to
conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under
either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)
within the boundaries of a National Monument established
pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)
as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where
such activities are allowed under the Presidential
proclamation establishing such monument.
limitation on takings
Sec. 409. Unless otherwise provided herein, no funds
appropriated in this Act for the acquisition of lands or
interests in lands may be expended for the filing of
declarations of taking or complaints in condemnation without
the approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided, That this provision shall not apply
to funds appropriated to implement the Everglades National
Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, or to funds
appropriated for Federal assistance to the State of Florida
to acquire lands for Everglades restoration purposes.
timber sale requirements
Sec. 410. No timber sale in Alaska's Region 10 shall be
advertised if the indicated rate is deficit (defined as the
value of the timber is not sufficient to cover all logging
and stumpage costs and provide a normal profit and risk
allowance under the Forest Service's appraisal process) when
appraised using a residual value appraisal. The western red
cedar timber from those sales which is surplus to the needs
of the domestic processors in Alaska, shall be made available
to domestic processors in the contiguous 48 United States at
prevailing domestic prices. All additional western red cedar
volume not sold to Alaska or contiguous 48 United States
domestic processors may be exported to foreign markets at the
election of the timber sale holder. All Alaska yellow cedar
may be sold at prevailing export prices at the election of
the timber sale holder.
prohibition on no-bid contracts
Sec. 411. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act to executive branch agencies may be
used to enter into any Federal contract unless such contract
is entered into in accordance with the requirements of
chapter 33 of title 41, United States Code, or chapter 137 of
title 10, United States Code, and the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, unless--
(1) Federal law specifically authorizes a contract to be
entered into without regard for these requirements, including
formula grants for States, or federally recognized Indian
tribes; or
(2) such contract is authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-
638, 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or by any other Federal laws that
specifically authorize a contract within an Indian tribe as
defined in section 4(e) of that Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)); or
(3) such contract was awarded prior to the date of
enactment of this Act.
posting of reports
Sec. 412. (a) Any agency receiving funds made available in
this Act, shall, subject to subsections (b) and (c), post on
the public website of that agency any report required to be
submitted by the Congress in this or any other Act, upon the
determination by the head of the agency that it shall serve
the national interest.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
(1) the public posting of the report compromises national
security; or
(2) the report contains proprietary information.
(c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so
only after such report has been made available to the
requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less
than 45 days.
national endowment for the arts grant guidelines
Sec. 413. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment
for the Arts--
[[Page H4790]]
(1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an
individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a
literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or
American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
(2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure
that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made
to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be
used to make a grant to any other organization or individual
to conduct activity independent of the direct grant
recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments
made in exchange for goods and services.
(3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group,
unless the application is specific to the contents of the
season, including identified programs or projects.
national endowment for the arts program priorities
Sec. 414. (a) In providing services or awarding financial
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this
Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts
shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or
awarding financial assistance for projects, productions,
workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population
of individuals, including urban minorities, who have
historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities
programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income
below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
(2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a
family of the size involved.
(c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance
under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act
of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson
of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that
priority is given to providing services or awarding financial
assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs
that will encourage public knowledge, education,
understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
(d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out
section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and
Humanities Act of 1965--
(1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for
projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of
national impact or availability or are able to tour several
States;
(2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15
percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State,
excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
(3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually
and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each
grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
(4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to
improve and support community-based music performance and
education.
status of balances of appropriations
Sec. 415. The Department of the Interior, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the
Indian Health Service shall provide the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
quarterly reports on the status of balances of appropriations
including all uncommitted, committed, and unobligated funds
in each program and activity.
report on use of climate change funds
Sec. 416. Not later than 120 days after the date on which
the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request is submitted
to the Congress, the President shall submit a comprehensive
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate describing in detail all
Federal agency funding, domestic and international, for
climate change programs, projects, and activities in fiscal
years 2015 and 2016, including an accounting of funding by
agency with each agency identifying climate change programs,
projects, and activities and associated costs by line item as
presented in the President's Budget Appendix, and including
citations and linkages where practicable to each strategic
plan that is driving funding within each climate change
program, project, and activity listed in the report.
{time} 1500
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 416.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the overwhelming scientific consensus is
that climate change is real. Leaders of the communities of faith, such
as His Holiness the Pope, are now urging us to take this issue very
seriously.
No matter how often the fossil fuel industry whispers that we have
nothing to worry about, no matter how much manufactured science they
gin up to create doubt, climate change is real.
We should have begun assessing the costs of climate change decades
ago, but we did not. The legislation before us today would require a
report on climate change expenditures. But the purpose of this section
is not to assess the impacts of climate change; the purpose is to root
out climate funding in the budget, so that next year's Interior bill
can prohibit that spending.
Madam Chair, the report requirement as written is not only pointless,
it is counterproductive. The Obama administration is open about
responding to climate change. Most of their climate expenditures are
clearly labeled and can be discovered by simply reading their budget
request. For the remainder, I would be happy to write the President
asking him to list these programs, and I suspect he would be pleased to
answer.
As written, this reporting requirement is a waste of time. We should
be instead asking the administration to report back to us on the costs
of climate change to our health, our environment, and our economy.
Earlier this week, the White House issued a report showing that its
efforts to reduce air pollution and climate change--efforts opposed by
House Republicans, I might add--would provide billions of dollars in
health benefits and save hundreds of thousands of lives.
A report also out this week from the National Park Service showed
that $90 billion of National Park resources are at risk from sea level
rise caused by global warming, and we all know about the historic
drought in California and the lingering costs of recovery from
Superstorm Sandy.
A full assessment of all the costs of inaction would help inform the
Congress and the American people about what steps we must take
immediately to ensure that climate change does not bring our country to
its knees. Unfortunately, this bill does not ask for that assessment.
Instead, Madam Chair, the section my amendment would strike would
undertake some kind of witch hunt to root out the meager funding we
have in place to respond to this challenge. To support this section is
to deny climate change.
I would tell my colleagues, all the constituent services you provide,
all the money you can raise, the votes you cast, and the laws you pass
will amount to nothing if you are on the wrong side of history on
climate change. Climate deniers will join a long list of political
figures who failed to respond to the most serious challenge of their
time and so are labeled as failures for all time.
Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to strike the
reporting language in the bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this provision shouldn't be controversial.
The language has been included in our enacted bills on a bipartisan
basis since 2010. The language simply requires that programs and
activities dedicated to climate change are reported in a transparent
way so the American people know what we are spending their tax dollars
on.
With so many climate change programs being initiated, it is important
to know what is being done across the government to avoid redundancy,
and there is certainly a significant amount of redundancy in some of
these climate change studies. It is in the bill so the committee can
have the information it needs to provide critical oversight.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
prohibition on use of funds
Sec. 417. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available
[[Page H4791]]
in this Act or any other Act may be used to promulgate or
implement any regulation requiring the issuance of permits
under title V of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq.)
for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane
emissions resulting from biological processes associated with
livestock production.
greenhouse gas reporting restrictions
Sec. 418. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available in this or any other Act may be
used to implement any provision in a rule, if that provision
requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from
manure management systems.
recreation fee
Sec. 419. Section 810 of the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6809) is amended by striking ``10
years after the date of the enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``on September 30, 2017''.
modification of authorities
Sec. 420. (a) Section 8162(m)(3) of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public
Law 106-79) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2015'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2016''.
(b) For fiscal year 2016, the authority provided by the
provisos under the heading ``Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial
Commission--Capital Construction'' in division E of Public
Law 112-74 shall not be in effect.
funding prohibition
Sec. 421. None of the funds made available by this or any
other Act may be used to regulate the lead content of
ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) or
any other law.
waters of the united states
Sec. 422. None of the funds made available in this Act or
any other Act for any fiscal year may be used to develop,
adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any change to the
regulations and guidance in effect on October 1, 2012,
pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251,
et seq.), including the provisions of the rules dated
November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating to said
jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated January 15,
2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to said jurisdiction.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam 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:
Strike section 422.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would strike section 422 from the underlying bill. In doing so, this
amendment would allow the EPA and the Army to implement the waters of
the United States rule. This rule will ensure protection for the
Nation's public health and aquatic resources and will clarify the scope
of the waters of the United States protected under this law.
Unfortunately, Republicans continue to undermine efforts to protect
the Great Lakes as well as other critical water bodies around the
Nation. We cannot afford to delay years of work by the EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers that would enhance the protection of our Nation's
aquatic resources and public health.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1515
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, it comes as no surprise that I rise in
opposition to this amendment.
In 2006, the Supreme Court determined the EPA and the Corps of
Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters
under the Clean Water Act.
I am certain the EPA's final rule violates that. From day one, the
EPA claimed that they were not expanding the waters under their
jurisdiction, but we now know that those permits will be required and
that the final rule is worse than proposed.
Twenty-seven States have now filed lawsuits challenging the legality
of EPA's rule, so the Agency again finds itself on shaky legal ground,
both on process and substance.
The language in the bill protects the authority of the States by
preventing the EPA from implementing its regulation and expanding its
jurisdiction. The language needs to stay in, so I urge a ``no'' vote on
the amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The language is in there for a very good reason. Everybody assumes
that the waters are not covered under the Clean Water Act, that being
the navigable waters. That is a definition they came up with somehow--I
don't know--but that they are unregulated waters.
They are not unregulated waters. They are regulated by the States.
When the court said, ``Navigable waters is kind of an elusive term, so
maybe you ought to redefine it,'' the EPA said, ``Okay, we will just
regulate all the waters,'' and that is what they did with this. They
have gone way beyond whatever the intent of the Clean Water Act was.
I will tell you most resource groups, most agricultural groups,
everybody else disagrees with what the EPA has done on this new rule
that they are writing. The fact that they have expanded their authority
into areas far beyond what was intended in the Clean Water Act, I
think, goes beyond the pale and goes beyond what Congress originally
intended under the Clean Water Act.
We are not talking about leaving waters unregulated; they are just
being regulated by the States, and they need to start over in writing
this rule.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, can you tell me how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my colleague.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague.
I rise to support the Lawrence amendment to strike the section
prohibiting the new rule on the Federal jurisdiction of the waters of
the United States.
A few weeks ago, the Obama administration issued a final rule that
clarifies the limits of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. It
does this by reducing red tape and providing more certainty for the
regulated community.
Instead of confusion in case-by-case determinations about where
waters are covered, the rule says physical, measurable boundaries for
the first time about where clean water coverage begins and ends.
The rule does not expand the waters covered. In fact, it will
actually reduce the scope of waters protected by the Clean Water Act.
Additionally, the rule does not create any new permitting
requirements for agriculture. It maintains all previous exemptions and
exclusions.
The rule ensures that the waters protected under the Clean Water Act
are more precisely defined and predictably measured, making permitting
less costly, easier, and faster for business and industry.
Prohibiting the EPA from implementing the rule will only perpetrate
confusion in the jurisdiction of the water.
This harmful rider should be struck; therefore, I urge my colleagues
to support the Lawrence amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I strongly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment
as it seeks to strip a commonsense provision included in the base bill
that will protect the American people from the EPA's new waters of the
U.S. regulation, commonly referred to as WOTUS.
WOTUS is a terrible Agency proposal that will have disastrous effects
and economic consequences for agriculture, small business, property
owners, municipalities, and other water users throughout the country.
This job-killing, overreaching water grab being imposed by Washington
bureaucrats is a dream killer for future generations and local
economies. The EPA claims this new regulation was
[[Page H4792]]
shaped by public input; yet we recently learned that the EPA used
taxpayer dollars to unleash a propaganda campaign in an attempt to
rally comments and support for this WOTUS regulation, despite the Anti-
Lobbying Act which bans such actions.
Furthermore, States and local governments that have traditionally
managed these waterways and activities were not included in drafting
the WOTUS regulation. The Agency failed to comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act as required by Federal law and consider the new impact
that the WOTUS regulations would have on small businesses.
The EPA claims this rule is grounded in law; yet this overreaching
regulation contradicts prior Supreme Court decisions by expanding
Agency control over 60 percent of our country's streams and millions of
acres of wetlands that were previously nonjurisdictional.
Despite claiming the WOTUS rule reduces Agency jurisdiction, the
final regulation imposes new regulations for navigable waters and their
tributaries, potholes, ditches, bays, and even waters that are next to
rivers and lakes.
The new WOTUS regulation has been built on a foundation of
pseudoscience, deception, and lawlessness. This overreach is so extreme
that 24 Members of the President's own party joined Members in the
House in passing legislation in May calling for the formal withdrawal
of the new WOTUS regulation.
For these reasons and more, I strongly oppose the gentlewoman's
amendment and urge its defeat.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Chair, I would really urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
The rule does not create any new permitting requirements for the
agriculture and maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions. The
rule ensures that waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more
precisely defined and particularly determine making permitting less
costly, easier, and faster for business and industry.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I think the American public must be quite
confused about what we are currently debating in this Chamber.
The amendment I rise in strong support of strikes section 422 which
prevents funds from being used to ``develop, adopt, implement,
administer or enforce any change . . . pertaining to the definition of
waters under the jurisdiction'' of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
I would like to remind the other side that, thanks to the Clean Water
Act, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers,
and the number of waters that now meet clean water goals nationwide has
actually doubled with direct benefits for drinking water, public
health, recreation, and wildlife.
This is especially true for my home State of Maryland that is within
the six-State Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is fed by 110,000 miles of creeks,
rivers, and streams; covers 64,000 square miles; includes over 11,500
miles of shorelines; contains 150 major rivers and streams; and is home
to over 17 million people.
And this watershed's land-to-water ratio is 14-1, the largest of any
coastal water body in the world.
Several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, the Patuxent,
Potomac, and Severn Rivers flow through the Fourth Congressional
District. 70 percent of Marylanders get our drinking water from sources
that rely on headwater or seasonal streams.
Nationwide, 117 million people, or over a third of the total
population, get our water from these waters.
However, due to the two Supreme Court decisions, there is, in fact,
widespread confusion as to what falls under the protection of the Clean
Water Act.
That is precisely why the Obama administration finalized their rule
clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the Act on May 27,
2015.
The agencies finalized the clean water protection rule after over a
year of public outreach on their then proposed rule at a scale
unprecedented in the history of the Clean Water Act, as well as
countless congressional hearings.
Madam Chair, supporters of this provision have complained about the
confusion in the litigation.
That is precisely why we needed to get through the final rulemaking,
which has been years in the making.
That is what the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Government to
do 14 years ago with the 2001 SWANCC decision and, subsequently, the
2006 Rapanos case.
Along with those Supreme Court decisions, the Bush administration
followed the exact same process in issuing two guidance documents in
2003 and 2008.
Up until the final rule issued just over a month ago, they remained
in force.
It is, in fact, these two Bush-era guidance documents that have
compounded the confusion, uncertainty, and increased compliance costs
faced by our constituents--opponents and proponents alike--who all just
say they want clarity.
You don't actually have to take my word for it.
In fact, let me quote from the comments made by the American Farm
Bureau Federation, something I don't do all that often: ``With no clear
regulatory definitions to guide their determinations, what has emerged
is a hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional theories.''
Those are the words of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
We all agree that it is confusing.
That is why it was so important that this administration finish what
the Bush administration started and failed to do, and that is publish a
final rule that gives stakeholders the clarity they have been seeking
for 14 years.
Madam Chair, despite nearly universal calls for increased clarity and
certainty from certain stakeholders, my colleagues have made it a
priority to prohibit the implementation of the final clean water
rulemaking entirely.
It is really clear that what they want to do is stop these agencies
from doing their jobs at all--no new rules and no clean water, what a
shame for our natural resources, our public health, and our
environment.
I urge my colleagues to support the Quigley-Edwards amendment to
strike this harmful and shameful provision.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
stream buffer
Sec. 423. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to develop, carry out, or implement (1) any guidance,
policy, or directive to reinterpret or change the historic
interpretation of 30 C.F.R. 816.57, which was promulgated on
June 30, 1983 by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement of the Department of the Interior (48 Fed. Reg.
30312); or (2) proposed regulations or supporting materials
described in the Federal Register notice published on June
18, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 34667) by the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement of the Department of the
Interior.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Beginning at page 122, line 23, strike section 423.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, my amendment would allow the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to continue to develop
regulations designed to protect communities and the environment from
the devastating effects of mountaintop removal mining.
If you have seen a picture of a mountaintop removal mining site, you
get an idea of how destructive this process is. Companies literally
blast the tops off of mountains, scoop out the coal, and dump what used
to be the mountaintop into the valley below. The scars on the landscape
are unmistakable, as are the piles of rock filling in what used to be
mountain valleys and streams.
What you don't see in the picture is the health impacts on the people
living nearby, although those are just as real and just as terrible.
People who live near mountaintop mining sites have higher rates of lung
cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, birth defects, hypertension, and
other health related problems.
Despite some confusion in the Natural Resources Committee just last
month, these results are statistically corrected for rates of smoking,
obesity, and other factors.
A paper in the journal Science a few years ago, one of the preeminent
scientific journals in the world, pointed
[[Page H4793]]
out that mountaintop removal mining with valley fills ``revealed
serious environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot
successfully address,'' that ``water emerges from the base of valley
fills containing a variety of solutes toxic and damaging to biota,''
and ``recovery of biodiversity in mining waste-impacted streams has not
been documented.''
Under our laws governing surface coal mining, streams are supposed to
be protected; but the existing regulations, which are over 30 years
old, have done a poor job of doing just that. Over 2,000 miles of
streams have been buried by mountaintop removal mining, and countless
more have been polluted by toxic mine runoff. Wildlife habitat is
destroyed; fish are killed, and the people in the area suffer.
That is why the administration has been working for years on a new
rule that would do a better job of protecting streams. It has taken
longer than I would like for them to propose this rule, and the process
has certainly not gone as smoothly as it could have.
The majority uses the snags in the process to argue that there
shouldn't be a rule at all. Never mind that their own partisan
investigation delayed this rule for years without uncovering any
evidence of political misconduct.
The majority also claims that this rule will cause huge job losses,
but the draft rule hasn't even been published yet, so we can't possibly
know the impacts, and the Director of the Office of Surface Mining says
the job losses will be minor at best.
Even if the majority does not believe him--and I suspect they might
not--they should wait until the draft rule comes out and there can be
independent analysis of the impacts, not just wild exaggerations that
the mining industry will produce, but real, independent analysis.
If they are still not happy with the rule at that point, we can hold
hearings. We can try to pass constructive laws that protect the
environment and human health and workers all at the same time.
A partisan rider in this bill that completely stops the ability of
the administration to work on this stream buffer rule to provide badly
needed protections to Appalachian communities is the wrong way to go.
It has nothing to do with managing spending. In fact, it would just
result in the waste of all the money that was required to get to this
very point.
The rider is bad policy; it is bad for the environment, and it is bad
for public health and the health of the people living near these mines.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment that would allow the
stream protection rule to see the light of day.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, in 2008, the Office of Surface Mining
finalized revisions to the stream zone buffer rule in an open and
transparent manner. After taking office, the Obama administration put a
hold on the rule and is currently writing a new rule.
The administration's approach under the new rule has been anything
but collaborative and inclusive, and many States feel they have been
shut out of the process. When Chairman Rogers required advanced
analysis on job impacts, his request was ignored.
The American people expect more openness and transparency from their
government, and that is why this funding prohibition must remain in the
base bill.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and reject this
amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on federal land
Sec. 424. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds made available by this or any other Act for any fiscal
year may be used to prohibit the use of or access to Federal
land (as such term is defined in section 3 of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6502)) for
hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting if such use or
access--
(1) was not prohibited on such Federal land as of January
1, 2013; and
(2) was conducted in compliance with the resource
management plan (as defined in section 101 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 6511)) applicable to such Federal land as of January
1, 2013.
(b) Temporary Closures Allowed.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a), the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture may temporarily close, for a period not to exceed
30 days, Federal land managed by the Secretary to hunting,
fishing, or recreational shooting if the Secretary determines
that the temporary closure is necessary to accommodate a
special event or for public safety reasons. The Secretary may
extend a temporary closure for one additional 90-day period
only if the Secretary determines the extension is necessary
because of extraordinary weather conditions or for public
safety reasons.
(c) Authority of States.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or
responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or
regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or
regulations.
limitation on use of funds for national ocean policy
Sec. 425. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to further implementation of the coastal and marine
spatial planning and ecosystem-based management components of
the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order
13547.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Tsongas
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Beginning at page 124, line 17, strike section 425.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, nearly 3 years ago, Superstorm Sandy caught
millions of coastal residents by surprise and cost billions of dollars
in economic damage. Unfortunately, the weather is not all that has
become more extreme over the past several years.
I am disappointed that this misguided and misinformed language to
block implementation of the National Ocean Policy keeps coming back,
just like the recurrent coastal flooding being caused by sea level
rise, and my amendment would strike that language.
{time} 1530
It shows a lack of respect for science and a lack of appreciation for
the magnitude and complexity of the governance challenges we face.
It seems some Members of Congress do not want to see government
succeed even when government's failure to respond to a disaster, to
predict a drought, or to properly manage a fishery can devastate the
communities they represent.
When you disavow words like ``precaution,'' ``preparedness,'' and
``planning,'' you stop being conservative and start being reckless.
Conservatives always say they want to run government like a business.
Well, would you invest in a business with different departments that
don't talk to each other? Would you invest in a business that is not
responsive to its shareholders? Would you invest in a business with no
business plan?
That is essentially what the National Ocean Policy is, a business
plan for the oceans that seeks to maximize the benefits for
shareholders, all the American people.
The policy is a win-win-win for economic growth, public safety, and
environmental protection. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to
protect the National Ocean Policy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I have operated a business. Ever since this
administration created the National Ocean Policy through executive
order,
[[Page H4794]]
the subcommittee has asked the CEQ, the DOI, and the EPA to provide an
estimate of the impact of the Policy on their budgets, and we have yet
to receive a substantial answer.
The so-called report we were provided last year was fewer than three
pages long. Clearly, this failed to outline expenditures supporting the
administration's National Ocean Policy.
Our job here is to pay the bills. When we ask how much does the
National Ocean Policy cost, we expect to get an answer. We need an
answer so that proper congressional oversight can be conducted.
I want to point out that this language was included in the House
fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. There are
concerns about the costs and all of the unknowns related to this policy
in multiple jurisdictions.
The bottom line is, if this administration wants the funds to
implement the National Ocean Policy, then tell us how much it is going
to cost the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my colleague.
Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Chair, Congress has enacted numerous laws that manage the ocean
and coastal issues across 11 of the 15 Cabinet-level departments and
four independent agencies across the Federal Government. As my
colleague from Massachusetts pointed out, why wouldn't we want these
folks to be working together?
Clearly, what the President is trying to do is to just have an action
that lets the independent bipartisan commission move forward, including
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which was appointed entirely by
President George W. Bush.
The National Ocean Policy is a means by which the Federal agencies
can sort through all of the tangles of uncoordinated governance and can
bring some common sense to the chaos. Wouldn't we want that?
If my colleagues have a problem with what government can do on ocean
management, then they have a problem with laws that are enacted by
Congress, not with the National Ocean Policy or with the President's
executive order, because what the President is doing through the
National Ocean Policy is following a well-established Presidential
tradition of using an executive order to supervise and guide agencies
under the President's charge as they execute existing laws passed by
Congress.
Let us let this agency get to work. Let us find out how we could be
more effective with our agencies working together.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Calvert for his work on this bill.
Madam Chair, I want to set the record straight. In the year 2000,
Congress did pass a bill during the 106th Congress to create an ocean
commission to review and to make recommendations.
Yes, President Bush did appoint persons to that commission. They did
make those recommendations, and those recommendations were submitted to
Congress.
Since then, those recommendations have been reviewed by the 108th,
the 109th, the 110th, and the 111th Congresses, and each of those
Congresses decided that no action should be taken.
What happened here is the President decided to go into the Article I
powers, which are reserved for Congress, and to do what Congress does
not intend to have done, which is to have an ocean zoning commission
built from dozens of agencies.
They have never asked for an appropriations for this activity, and
there is no lawful basis for the activity to exist. The President's
executive order is basically violating the statutes that have been
passed by Congress, and it is also violating the Constitution.
The language that is in the appropriations bill should remain as it
is. Congress has voted seven times on this language, and it has passed
all seven times on a bipartisan basis. The other side is that of
basically trying to undo what Congress has said it wants to do seven
times on a bipartisan basis.
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my colleague.
Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, which
would allow for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.
Plain and simple, coordinated ocean planning makes common sense and
is a good economic policy for our coastal communities. It allows for a
comprehensive mapping of existing ocean uses that helps to identify and
resolve conflicts between stakeholders before they play out in specific
permitting processes.
In Virginia, this process has been crucial to preserving public
access to the ocean, to sustain economic growth, to address marine
debris, to create migration corridors for marine mammals, and to
support promising new ocean industries, such as wind power and marine
aquaculture.
In fact, I am proud to note that Virginia was recently selected by
BOEM to be the first State in the Nation to receive a wind energy
research lease in Federal waters. This rider would eliminate language
that would undermine regional collaborative efforts to manage existing
and future ocean policy challenges.
Let's not roll back the valuable work and resources that many States,
industries, and communities have already devoted to implementing this
policy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Calvert.
Madam Chair, again, I want to set the record straight. We are not
against ocean planning, as it makes perfect sense, but only insofar as
Congress has explicitly authorized those activities.
Congress has not allowed the President to do what he is trying to do
by executive fiat. There are 67 groups, which include fishing,
agricultural, farming, energy, and other industries, that are concerned
about the impact of this Federal overreach. Again, it is an
unconstitutional Federal overreach, and I would urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I do appreciate that my colleague across
the aisle has said that it does make perfect sense to have an ocean
policy. The ocean policy is a business plan for the oceans that seeks
to maximize the benefits for all of its shareholders, the American
people.
I certainly know that we in Massachusetts have a great appreciation
for the complex task it seeks to undertake in order to protect that
which we value most, the ocean off our coast.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, 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
Massachusetts will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
lead test kit
Sec. 426. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce regulations under subpart E
of part 745 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations
(commonly referred to as the ``Lead; Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Rule''), or any subsequent amendments to such
regulations, until the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency publicizes Environmental Protection Agency
recognition of a commercially available lead test kit that
meets both criteria under section 745.88(c) of title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations.
financial assurance
Sec. 427. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to develop, propose, finalize, implement, enforce, or
administer any regulation that would establish new financial
responsibility requirements pursuant to section 108(b) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)).
ghg nsps
Sec. 428. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to propose, finalize, implement, or enforce--
(1) any standard of performance under section 111(b) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
[[Page H4795]]
7411(b)) for any new fossil fuel-fired electricity utility
generating unit if the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency's determination that a technology is
adequately demonstrated includes consideration of one or more
facilities for which assistance is provided (including any
tax credit) under subtitle A of title IV of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15961 et seq.) or section 48A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(2) any regulation or guidance under section 111(b) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)) establishing any standard
of performance for emissions of any greenhouse gas from any
modified or reconstructed source that is a fossil fuel-fired
electric utility generating unit; or
(3) any regulation or guidance under section 111(d) of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(d)) that applies to the
emission of any greenhouse gas by an existing source that is
a fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating unit.
definition of fill material
Sec. 429. None of the funds made available in this Act or
any other Act may be used by the Environmental Protection
Agency to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce
any change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 2012,
pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill material''
or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer
Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 429.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
The amendment strikes a rider that would prevent the Environmental
Protection Agency from updating regulations pertaining to the
definitions of the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill
material'' for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
Presently, the Army Corps of Engineers issues a section 404 permit if
the fill material discharged into a water body raises the bottom
elevation of that water body or converts the area to dry land.
The current rule allows mining waste to be dumped into the rivers and
streams without an appropriate environmental review process.
Given repeated instances of mining activities resulting in lakes and
streams devoid of fish or aquatic life, downstream water users are
rightly concerned that the section 404 process fails to protect them
from the discharge of hazardous substances.
The Clean Water Act section 404 guidelines are not well suited for
evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous waste,
such as mining refuse and similar materials, into a water body or a
wetland.
The rider that this amendment strikes would block the EPA from making
necessary modifications to these guidelines. This rider is a preemptive
strike against protecting our drinking water, and it allows mining
companies' interests to trump the protection of the health of our
citizens.
We should not short-circuit regular order through the appropriations
process. We should not preclude the Corps or the EPA from considering
any regulatory changes to the current definition and permit process. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike this language
from the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, this language simply maintains the status
quo regarding the definition of ``fill material'' for the purposes of
the Clean Water Act.
The existing definition was put in place through a rule-making
initiated by the Clinton administration and finalized by the Bush
administration. That rule harmonized the definitions on the books of
the Corps and the EPA so that both agencies were working with the same
definition.
Any attempts to redefine this important definition could
significantly negatively impact the ability of all earth-moving
industries, road and highway construction, and private and commercial
enterprises to obtain vital Clean Water Act section 404 permits.
Changing the definition of ``fill material'' could result in the loss
of up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and jeopardize over 1 million
jobs that are dependent upon the economic output generated by these
operations.
For these reasons, I support the underlying language and oppose this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I respect the chairman's objections to this,
but I would like to point out that all that this amendment does in
striking the section is allow the EPA to consider future changes to the
``fill'' definitions.
Clearly, the work begun in the Clinton administration and finalized
in the George W. Bush administration were the best possible actions at
the time.
In the meantime, we have discovered that, unfortunately, much mining
waste and refuse are ending up in mining streams and rivers, and it has
severely affected the health of those people.
We are not attempting to eliminate mining jobs or to even impact
earth moving. It is only reasonable to make sure that our Environmental
Protection Agency has the latitude and the freedom to evolve future
definitions so as to best protect the health of our citizens.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1545
Mr. CALVERT. 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 Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
contracting authorities
Sec. 430. Section 412 of division E of Public Law 112-74
is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2015,'' and inserting
``fiscal year 2017,''.
chesapeake bay initiative
Sec. 431. Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-312; 16 U.S.C. 461 note) is
amended by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2017''.
extension of grazing permits
Sec. 432. The terms and conditions of section 325 of
Public Law 108-108 (117 Stat. 1307), regarding grazing
permits issued by the Forest Service on any lands not subject
to administration under section 402 of the Federal Lands
Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1752), shall remain in
effect for fiscal year 2016.
availability of vacant grazing allotments
Sec. 433. The Secretary of the Interior, with respect to
public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management,
and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the
National Forest System lands, shall make vacant grazing
allotments available to a holder of a grazing permit or lease
issued by either Secretary if the lands covered by the permit
or lease or other grazing lands used by the holder of the
permit or lease are unusable because of drought or wildfire,
as determined by the Secretary concerned. The terms and
conditions contained in a permit or lease made available
pursuant to this section shall be the same as the terms and
conditions of the most recent permit or lease that was
applicable to the vacant grazing allotment made available.
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332) shall not apply with respect to any Federal
agency action under this section.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment to strike section
433.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 433.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I offer my amendment to strike section 433
regarding the availability of vacant grazing allotments and waiving one
of our key environmental laws.
While grazing on our public lands is an important part of our
Nation's culture and economy, this section of the appropriations bill
is redundant and unnecessary. The BLM and Forest Service already have
the authority to transfer permits when grazing lands are deemed
unusable.
Furthermore, this section would have the effect of waiving section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. NEPA is one of
our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, serving to
[[Page H4796]]
establish policies to protect our air, water, and our natural
resources. Section 102 of NEPA contains key provisions to make sure
that Federal agencies act according to the spirit and letter of the
law.
By stating that section 102 shall not apply to agency actions, this
bill is, in essence, waiving NEPA and putting our public lands at risk.
Our Federal agencies did not ask for a NEPA waiver, and Congress should
not be in the business of dictating to professional land managers when
they should or should not have the flexibility to use NEPA in making
land management decisions.
Allowing section 433 to be included in the appropriations bill could
have unintended consequences for our public lands and environment,
particularly when conditions on the ground change. In this time of
climate change, drought, and wildfire, it is vital that agencies have
the tools and the flexibility to conduct adequate environmental
reviews.
In the face of these challenges, why should grazers get to jump to
the front of the line for new land? What about land for species and
recovery and habitat that are displaced by climate change or
recreational demands and interests?
Congress has tasked the BLM with managing our public lands for
multiple uses. I welcome the belated recognition by my Republican
colleagues that climate change is impacting these lands, but this
provision would waive the balancing process found in NEPA and mandate
that grazing gets to trump other uses when lands are destroyed by fire
or drought.
Section 433 benefits one special interest above all others, and I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting to strike this section from
the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. The amendment would strike a commonsense provision--repeat,
commonsense provision--in this bill that allows the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service to make available vacant grazing
allotments when a rancher is forced off his or her existing allotment
due to drought or wildfire.
It is not that they jump to the front of the line and have special
provisions because of this. The fact is, if you don't exclude the NEPA
process, it can take 3 months, 6 months--guess what? Cows and sheep
don't go on a diet for 3 months or 6 months. They actually need to put
these cows and sheep somewhere, and vacant allotments is what they look
for.
The gentleman says that this is redundant, that they can already do
that. Well, if they can already do it, then what the heck? Why is he
opposed to this provision?
Unfortunately, drought and catastrophic wildfires are all too common
in the West. Ranchers shouldn't be further penalized when they lose
their allotments due to natural disasters. The provision provides some
flexibility to the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to help
in these circumstances.
It doesn't say, ``You will provide these vacant allotments.'' It
says, ``You may.'' It is not a must. We are trying to give the Bureau
of Land Management and the Forest Service the flexibility to use vacant
allotments when circumstances are required.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Grijalva
amendment. As has been pointed out, BLM already has the authority to
make vacant grazing allotments available for permittees on a
discretionary basis where the permittee is adversely impacted by
wildfire or drought, but unlike the discretionary basis on which the
BLM currently makes these allotments, this rider would exempt the
National Environmental Policy Act, a NEPA review.
On page 127, line 25, it reads ``with respect to'' the National
Forest System lands, ``shall''--not may--``shall make vacant,'' and so
what the BLM currently can do is they can conduct a NEPA review in
areas where they think they have concerns and they can ensure that the
land, health standards, and resources are not going to be compromised
because the BLM has a role to play in protecting these lands for
grazing potential in the future so that they are not harmed or
overgrazed.
To me, it makes common sense that the rider should not exempt the BLM
from a regulatory requirement to issue a decision and conduct an
administrative review, which they currently can choose to do or choose
not to do based on the information that they have. Any grazing that is
mandated by this rider is likely also to find itself caught up by
hearings and delays and appeals and judicial review.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike the
unnecessary rider and to leave the discretion in place so it continues
to be the National Forest System lands may be made vacant.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would ask my colleagues just one thing.
If you are a rancher and you have had one of these catastrophic
wildfires come through--and they come through frequently,
unfortunately--and they have wiped out your grazing allotment, what do
you tell your cows? What do you tell your sheep? What do they eat for
the next several months as you go through the NEPA process? This is
giving some flexibility to the Forest Service and to the BLM.
I know we can all say: Oh, gee, they can make arrangements and do it
otherwise and so forth.
This is just a commonsense provision, frankly, and we haven't had any
problem with it with the time that it has been in existence. I think it
should stay in existence, and that is why the chairman has included it
in this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the redundancy comes from the fact that
that flexibility has existed in BLM and Forest Service; it has existed
for years. The situations of wildfires have occurred, and they have
been handled.
It is an unnecessary NEPA waiver. It is a redundant amendment,
addition to it. The NEPA waiver in the writing says it is not optional.
It says ``shall.''
I urge Members to support my amendment striking section 433.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, this language has been in the bill since
2003. It hasn't caused any problems. It has fed a lot of cows. I think
it is a good provision in the bill, and we should defeat this
amendment. It is a bad amendment. Vote against it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
protection of water rights
Sec. 434. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used to condition the issuance, renewal,
amendment, or extension of any permit, approval, license,
lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use
or occupancy agreement on the transfer of any water right,
including sole and joint ownership, directly to the United
States, or any impairment of title, in whole or in part,
granted or otherwise recognized under State law, by Federal
or State adjudication, decree, or other judgment, or pursuant
to any interstate water compact. Additionally, none of the
funds made available in this or any other Act may be used to
require any water user to apply for or acquire a water right
in the name of the United States under State law as a
condition of the issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension
of any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement,
right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement.
limitation on status changes
Sec. 435. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to propose, finalize, implement, or enforce any
regulation or guidance under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7671k) that changes the status from acceptable to
unacceptable for purposes of the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program of any hydrofluorocarbon used as a
refrigerant or in foam blowing agents, applications or uses.
Nothing in this section shall prevent EPA from approving
[[Page H4797]]
new materials, applications or uses as acceptable under the
SNAP program.
use of american iron and steel
Sec. 436. (a)(1) None of the funds made available by a
State water pollution control revolving fund as authorized by
section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-
12) shall be used for a project for the construction,
alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public water system
or treatment works unless all of the iron and steel products
used in the project are produced in the United States.
(2) In this section, the term ``iron and steel'' products
means the following products made primarily of iron or steel:
lined or unlined pipes and fittings, manhole covers and other
municipal castings, hydrants, tanks, flanges, pipe clamps and
restraints, valves, structural steel, reinforced precast
concrete, and construction materials.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or category
of cases in which the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (in this section referred to as the
``Administrator'') finds that--
(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the
public interest;
(2) iron and steel products are not produced in the United
States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and
of a satisfactory quality; or
(3) inclusion of iron and steel products produced in the
United States will increase the cost of the overall project
by more than 25 percent.
(c) If the Administrator receives a request for a waiver
under this section, the Administrator shall make available to
the public on an informal basis a copy of the request and
information available to the Administrator concerning the
request, and shall allow for informal public input on the
request for at least 15 days prior to making a finding based
on the request. The Administrator shall make the request and
accompanying information available by electronic means,
including on the official public Internet Web site of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
(d) This section shall be applied in a manner consistent
with United States obligations under international
agreements.
(e) The Administrator may retain up to 0.25 percent of the
funds appropriated in this Act for the Clean and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds for carrying out the provisions
described in subsection (a)(1) for management and oversight
of the requirements of this section.
social cost of carbon
Sec. 437. None of the funds made available by this or any
other Act shall be used for the social cost of carbon (SCC)
to be incorporated into any rulemaking or guidance document
until a new Interagency Working Group (IWG) revises the
estimates using the discount rates and the domestic-only
limitation on benefits estimates in accordance with Executive
Order 12866 and OMB Circular A-4 as of January 1, 2015:
Provided, That such IWG shall provide to the public all
documents, models, and assumptions used in developing the SCC
and solicit public comment prior to finalizing any revised
estimates.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk to strike
section 437.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 437.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, my amendment, which I offer along with Mr.
Lowenthal and Mr. Peters, would simply remove one of the so-called
policy riders from this bill. It is a particularly dangerous policy
rider.
What my amendment would do is it would strip the bill of a harmful
and unrelated restriction that actually would prohibit Federal agencies
from assessing the social cost of carbon, meaning Federal agencies
would not be able to look at the monetized impact, the actual costs of
climate change.
They would be forced to deliberately have a blindfold and not be
allowed to consider climate change in their planning, just like
American businesses do, like States do, like municipalities do, but the
Federal Government would be prohibited from even looking at the costs
of climate change.
According to a recent poll undertaken by Stanford University, 81
percent of American people have looked at the science and agree that
climate change is at least in part caused by humans; 74 percent of
Americans believe the Federal Government should be working hard to
combat climate change, and 71 percent of the American people expect
that they will be hurt personally or impacted by climate change.
Madam Speaker, climate change is not some fallacy. It is not some
evil plot by leftwing or rightwing extremists. It is simply science.
Climate change is what major corporations like Coca-Cola and Nike have
called an economically disruptive force that needs to be addressed.
Acting on climate change is what the most high profile religious
leader on the planet has called a moral imperative, an economic
imperative, a moral imperative. It is what the Department of Defense
has called an ``immediate risk to U.S. national security.''
I would ask my colleagues on the other side to adopt this amendment
so that we don't ignore the calls of business, Defense, religious
leaders--among thousands of others--to ensure that the Federal
Government operates with its eyes wide open and not with ideological
blinders, simply because we don't want to see the truth of what is
occurring with regard to climate change.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I have long been concerned with how EPA
conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is
something that the committee has discussed with EPA on a number of
occasions, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to
examining costs and their regulation was flawed.
The administration's revised estimates for the social cost of carbon
help justify on paper larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions in
any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag so
that the benefits always exceed the costs, the administration can
goldplate requirement regulations from any department or any agency.
Section 437 says that the administration should convene a working
group to revise the estimates in a more transparent manner and to make
that information available to the public.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1600
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment addresses is not simply
the creation of some commission or a nuanced look into how cost-benefit
analyses are done. It actually would ensure that the costs of climate
change are able to be considered in decisionmaking.
The answer to the concerns that my colleague raised from the other
side would be a surgical approach, not to remove the authority to look
at the cost of climate change, which is what this language does and
what my amendment would fix.
This rider is really about the deep ideologically driven agenda of
climate deniers and is a terrible waste of both Federal and taxpayer
money to allow its passage because it will lead to poor decisionmaking
by the Federal Government.
Companies are planning for climate change. Municipalities and States
are planning for climate change. We need to look at the monetized costs
with regard to climate change of new rules and regulations.
Instead of spending our time here focusing on how to impact and
better understand climate change, we have this opportunity to ensure
that that is a factor in future decisionmaking, rather than prohibiting
agencies from even considering it in the cost of climate change.
Blocking proposals and silencing discussion isn't indicative of
leadership, Mr. Chair. It is indicative of fear of the truth.
I urge my colleagues to consider that and support my and my
colleague's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I would rise in
opposition to this amendment.
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H4798]]
Mr. POLIS. 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.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
limitation on use of funds
Sec. 438. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to propose, promulgate, implement, administer, or
enforce a national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard for ozone that is lower than the standard
established under section 50.15 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on July 2, 2014), until at least 85
percent of the counties that were nonattainment areas under
that standard as of July 2, 2014, achieve full compliance
with that standard.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 132, beginning on line 9, strike ``, until at least 85
percent of the counties that were nonattainment areas under
that standard as of July 2, 2014, achieve full compliance
with that standard''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Calvert, along
with the ranking member, for the work he and the committee have done.
My amendment prevents the EPA from using any funds in the bill to
change ozone regulations, regardless of whether or not all counties
meet the 2008 standards.
As of 2012 and based on the 2008 ozone standards as designated by the
EPA, 24 mainland States were in attainment, including my home State of
Florida. An additional four States had either partial attainment or
whole counties had marginal attainment.
What I find most interesting is the areas of our Nation that have
consistently been designated as nonattainment by the EPA. This includes
most of California, parts of Texas, and the mid-Atlantic States. These
counties have had nearly 20 years to change their policies and abide by
the ozone standards.
Under the newly proposed standards, a fair amount of the country
would be designated as nonattainment areas. Why should the remainder of
the country be subject to new standards when parts of the country have
yet to meet the 2008 or even 2009 standards?
Making this change will have serious economic implications on the
States and counties that have already proactively worked to reduce
their emissions, all at a time when the Nation is still recovering from
one of the worst economic recessions of our lifetime.
Furthermore, I would like to remind my colleagues of the recent
Supreme Court decision, Michigan, et al., v. Environmental Protection
Agency. At the heart of the case was whether or not the EPA took care
to include the potential cost to power plants when proposing new
regulations, and that estimated cost is $9.6 billion and a burden on
the American taxpayers. The Supreme Court held that the EPA interpreted
U.S. Code 7412 ``unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the
decision.''
I would like to say that this is the exception and not the rule when
it comes to the EPA, but that simply is not the truth. The EPA has made
its de facto policy to implement unreasonable regulations with no
regard to the larger impact it will have on the economy and taxpayers
and the environment.
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. This amendment would reverse section 438 to block the
EPA from making critical updates to its ozone standard. The amendment
makes an already bad policy rider in this bill even worse.
This amendment, however, would completely prohibit the EPA from
updating the standard, short-circuiting both current law and the
judicial process, while putting millions of Americans' health at risk.
Ozone is the main component in smog, and it has been scientifically
proven to aggravate lung disease, increase frequency and severity of
asthma attacks, and reduce lung function.
We hear about those opportunities all the time that we are given now
when the ozone is too high in the air to stay inside. Young children
shouldn't be out, and people with heart disease and lung disease should
stay indoors.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review its ozone standard every
5 years to reflect the most up-to-date science on ozone and its impacts
on public health.
The EPA, in fact, is under a court order to issue its final rules by
October of this year. The EPA's update to its ozone standard is based
on strong scientific evidence, including over 1,000 scientific studies
that show the harmful effect of ozone on human health and the need for
higher standards.
The EPA estimates the benefit of updated standards of 70 parts per
billion will yield the health benefits of $13 billion each year.
On its merits, this amendment is shortsighted and reactionary, and it
is a backdoor amendment to completely gut the Clean Air Act.
Prohibiting the EPA's ability to update ozone standards is reckless,
and it is out of touch with what Americans want, and that is clear air.
The EPA's update is firmly rooted in science and ensures health and
protections for the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, ozone comes from many different sources. Yes,
it is true that it comes from hydrocarbons. When the UV light hits it,
it does do that. It also comes from the oceans. It comes from the
swamps. It comes from just nature itself.
Ozone by itself is not always bad because it is used industrially. It
disinfects laundry. It disinfects water in place of chlorine. It
deodorizes the air. It kills bacteria on food and contact surfaces. It
sanitizes swimming pools. The list goes on and on and on.
Yes, there have been reports of it causing respiratory problems, but
that is also associated with spores and molds and things like that.
I think ozone, at this time--especially when you look at the rulings
from 1997 and 2008, those standards--I don't think we should move
forward at this time, with our Nation in the economic recovery, to put
new standards on all of the Nation when yet a large portion of the
Nation is still not under compliance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I probably live in the most regulated air
quality area in the United States, southern California.
In southern California, our population continues to grow; yet we have
been able to make significant air quality improvements within the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
The committee set a level at 85 percent of the communities so that
the marginal nonattainment communities could have the opportunity to
achieve compliance with the 2008 standards before further updates are
considered.
This amendment would prevent EPA from lowering the ozone standard
below the 2008 levels. This amendment would prevent further updates to
the ozone standard for an indefinite and undetermined timeframe, and
that is certainly not the committee's intent.
We need to make progress in clean air in areas that folks want to see
cleaner air, but at the same time making sure that technology is there
in order to do that. This was, I think, compromise language that the
underlying bill has that works to move us forward, but at the same time
not stopping us from obtaining cleaner air in the future.
I am in opposition to this amendment.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that ozone is
incriminated a lot of times when I think
[[Page H4799]]
we ought to look at particulate matter in dusty environments or in
urban areas where airflow in apartment buildings may not be like it
should be.
Ozone is used as an alternative to chlorine for bleaching wood, paper
products, and things like that. Many hospitals around the world use
large ozone generators to decontaminate operating rooms between
surgeries. It is used in industry all the time.
I just ask people to support this amendment, so we don't have more
overreaching regulations from the EPA.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the EPA's update is firmly rooted in
science and ensures the health and protections for the American people.
We have a responsibility to protect the millions of Americans affected
by ozone pollution.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. YOHO. 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 Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Edwards
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 438.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman
from Maryland and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to strike
section 438.
Section 438 would prohibit any funds in this Act from being used to
even propose a national ozone standard that is less than that currently
in law until at least 85 percent of the counties across the country
that do not currently meet that standard achieve full compliance.
Now, the current ozone standard under title 40 is 75 parts per
billion; but, Mr. Chair, we had a series of hearings in our House
Science Committee earlier this year where we heard strong testimony
from scientists at State pollution control agencies and physicians at
hospitals all telling us that the current standard is not in line with
the current science.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee declared as far back as
2008 that they believe that the current standard of 75 parts per
billion is insufficient to protect public health. In fact, right now,
the ozone standard can mislead people to believe that the air, in fact,
is safe to breathe when it is not.
Studies conducted by the American Lung Association have shown more
than 4 out of every 10 people in the United States live in places where
ozone levels often make it dangerous to breathe.
The current standard rates, what we now know to be very dangerous air
quality, as code yellow or moderate. This can lead those who are
particularly at risk of ozone-related illness, such as children and
senior citizens, to unwittingly be exposed to harmful levels of ozone.
This has the potential to impact millions of people in every State
across the Nation.
Just look at my own home State of Maryland. There are 145,000
children with pediatric asthma. Over 430,000 adults have asthma. Mr.
Chairman, 246,000 people in my State have chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease or COPD, and 367,000 people in our State have cardiovascular
disease that is related to ozone.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommends that, in order
to protect the public health, the EPA set the primary ozone standard
between 60 and 70 parts per billion. In November of last year, the EPA
did exactly what it is supposed to do.
It looked at the strong scientific evidence showing the health risks
of ozone, and it issued a proposed rule to lower the ozone standard
from 75 parts per billion to a standard within the range of 65 to 70
parts per billion.
{time} 1615
Setting that standard begins a 2-year process designed to identify
areas with too much ozone. Once those areas are identified, State and
local governments can craft plans tailored to their areas using cost-
effective approaches.
This new standard, based on the most current science, will help to
provide a framework for these plans, which, in turn, will help our
States continue along the path to clean air. And yet, here we are, and
this provision that I am providing to strike would stop the EPA from
even proposing a standard of 70 parts per billion.
This is the responsibility of the EPA. This new standard would
protect Americans' health and our environment. In addition, an analysis
conducted by the EPA shows that, though the annual cost of the proposed
standard of 70 parts per billion might be around $3.9 billion, the
health benefits are estimated to reach between $6.4 billion and $13
billion annually.
Mr. Chairman, ground level ozone is harmful to the public health. It
contributes to asthma attacks, decreased lung function, respiratory
infection, and even death. Breathing ozone is dangerous for everyone,
but particularly for children, for the elderly and people of all ages
who have lung diseases.
We need to allow the EPA--in fact, empower the EPA--to follow the
science and create minimum standards necessary to protect public
health. I urge my colleagues to protect these vulnerable populations as
well as clean air for every American, and vote ``yes'' on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in clear
opposition to this amendment.
The language that was adopted in the full committee was carefully
crafted. It simply allows a majority of nonattainment counties to
achieve attainment status before the EPA moves the goalposts.
In nonattainment areas, the EPA's proposed ozone standards would
stifle economic growth and cost jobs and revenue. Just last week, the
Supreme Court admonished the EPA for ignoring the costs of its
regulations. The costs involved would be devastating to our economy.
Even the EPA admitted it would cost $15 billion a year. Other studies
have estimated that costs could be as high as $140 billion a year.
In West Virginia, in my State, it would mean $2 billion in compliance
costs, 10,000 lost jobs, and more fees for residents even to operate
their vehicles.
It would have significant impacts on agriculture, manufacturing, and
the energy industry. Federal highway funds could be frozen and permits
for infrastructure could be held up.
I am hopeful that some of our colleagues across the aisle will
recognize the impact this will have on each of our districts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, here we have heard again the exaggerated
claims about implementation, so let's get to the facts.
The first fact, the scientists tell us that this is a standard that
we need to protect the public health. The second fact, the EPA
estimates that the cost might be around $3.9 billion.
But let's look at the health benefits, because those are costing us
currently.
The health benefits are estimated to reach between $6.4 and $13
billion, and that means that there is a ripple effect when we invest in
making sure that we implement a standard that protects the public
health, and it has a benefit on the public health.
So, Mr. Chairman, there is an argument here for the EPA to simply do
its job, the job that it was charged to do by taxpayers, and that is to
protect the public health, to give us clean air, and to make sure that
we have ozone standards that in fact meet our responsibility.
The EPA is doing its job. Let's stop Congress from keeping the EPA
from keeping our air clean.
[[Page H4800]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Jenkins) for the time and for including commonsense language in
the bill that is now being debated.
In 2008, EPA set a strict ozone rule that was stuck in legal limbo
for years. From big cities to small towns, over 200 counties are still
in nonattainment.
Yet, before we finish that job, EPA wants to move the goalposts. They
have issued new ozone rules that are so strict they can't be achieved
with our current technology. All of America will be hit hard with job
losses.
This bill simply includes a pause button on new EPA rules until we
can finish the job and reach our current mandates.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Edwards amendment and strip this
language from this bill.
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As mentioned earlier, I live in one of the most, maybe the most,
regulated air districts in the United States, and I am a strong
advocate for clean air. My district has achieved some of the largest
emission reductions in the country.
However, EPA continues to dig the hole deeper as my district
continues to try to work its way out of nonattainment. So EPA and the
States need to use the resources we provided in the bill to play catch-
up on a statutory obligation to help communities implement the 2008
standard.
Remember, just last April, EPA finalized the rule for the 2008
standards. When 85 percent of the communities can achieve the latest
standards, then EPA should consider whether or not revisions are
necessary.
I will remind my colleagues that the Clean Air Act only directs EPA
to review the standards every 5 years. It does not require that EPA
revise the standard.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I thank the
gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, once again, this is a
sincere effort to try to set a benchmark and not have the EPA moving
the goalposts that will have such economic devastation, billions of
dollars in cost, and I encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. EDWARDS. 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 Maryland
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lowenthal
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 132, line 5, strike ``primary or''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, according to the American Lung
Association's 2015 State of the Air Report, the Los Angeles
metropolitan area, which includes both my district and also the
Appropriations Subcommittee chair's district, that metropolitan area is
the number one in the country for ozone pollution.
But ozone pollution is not just a southern California problem. The
report shows that more than 40 percent of the United States' population
lives in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone. Large cities like
Houston and less populated areas like northwest Ohio also make the
list.
Power plants, motor vehicles, and chemical solvents contribute to the
majority of nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds,
NOX and VOCs, which react with each other on hot, sunny days
to produce ground level ozone.
The American Lung Association has pointed out that because hot, sunny
days produce the most ozone, climate change is increasing the number of
unhealthy ozone level days. We are all familiar with those ``high ozone
level'' warnings that happen on really hot, sunny days, and
unfortunately, they are becoming more and more common due to global
warming.
Ground level ozone interacts with lung tissue, can cause major
problems for children, the elderly, and anyone with lung disease. Ozone
is known to aggravate health problems such as asthma, and it is also
linked to low birth rates, cardiovascular problems, and premature
death.
Given the grave consequences and the widespread problem of ozone
pollution, I am glad that EPA is moving forward with updates to its
national standards for ozone pollution.
Members of the medical and health communities have been calling for a
long time for updates of this standard in order to protect the public
health. The current standard of 75 parts per billion is outdated and
does not adequately protect public health, which is what the EPA is
required to do under the Clean Air Act. Thousands of hospital visits
and premature deaths and up to a million missed schooldays can be
prevented just by strengthening this standard.
But instead of trusting health professionals, some in Congress have
decided to protect the financial interests of the polluters. The
reckless legislative rider in section 438 of this appropriations bill
blocks the EPA from updating or even proposing scientifically-based
standards for ozone to the detriment of the health of at least 40
percent of the U.S. population.
I urge my colleagues to vote to remove this polluter protecting
section from the bill, to support the Edwards amendment, and allow the
EPA to move forward with doing what they are required to do by law, and
that is protect the public health.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jenkins included the language in the
full committee bill that, I think, came to a reasonable compromise. As
the gentleman is aware, many communities cannot reach the old standard,
the 2008 standard, that is now the law, and so this just gives the
communities throughout the country that cannot get to attainment
additional time to develop the technologies before we go to a new
standard.
I would remind the gentleman that it was just last April that we came
to a determination on the 2008 standard, and the administration already
is talking about a new standard that most of the Nation cannot reach in
the short term. So this gives a brief, little bit of time to allow
these communities to improve their technologies and to be able to meet
a new standard down the road.
So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment and support the
underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, let's just talk about why we need to
change the standard.
I understand and appreciate that reaching that standard is going to
take some work, but remember, the air, by saying that we don't need to
do this because the air is cleaner than it was 30 years ago, for
example, does nothing to put current air quality in context. Just
because the air is cleaner than it used to be doesn't mean that it is
completely healthy.
My district is a great example of this. L.A. County has reduced its
ground ozone by 5 days since 2009, and I am proud of that, but it
doesn't mean our air is healthy. We still experienced 217 days of
unhealthy ozone level days last year.
We need to take into account current pollution levels. We need to use
the best science available to determine what standards are needed to
get our ozone pollution below those unhealthy
[[Page H4801]]
levels. That is why we are doing this, to get the ozone below unhealthy
levels. That is what EPA is doing, and we shouldn't block their efforts
because we think that the air is cleaner or it is difficult to reach.
{time} 1630
The savings in public health will far outweigh the costs to polluting
industries. If the EPA would implement a standard of just 70 parts per
billion, the cost of implementation is estimated to be about $3.9
billion, but the savings in public health costs are estimated to be
anywhere from $6.4 to $13 billion. That is a net savings of $2.5 to $9
billion. If you reduce the standard even lower, to 65 parts per
billion, the savings are even greater, from $4 to $23 billion in public
health costs.
Ground ozone pollution costs billions of dollars in healthcare
expenses around the country. We have a chance to save taxpayers a lot
of money.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts on
trying to clean the ozone out of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. We have to suffer the ozone that is being blown from L.A./
Long Beach over into the Inland Empire. Certainly the ports of L.A. and
Long Beach, the trains emit a lot of ozone and a lot of pollutants that
end up in the Inland Empire, so we want to clean that air up.
As you know, we can't meet the 2008 standards at this time. We are
doing everything we can to meet those standards, but until these
communities can get the technology to meet the existing standard, we
shouldn't impose a new standard that could cause grave economic harm to
the communities.
With that, I would say ``no'' to this amendment and move on.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
hydraulic fracturing
Sec. 439. None of the funds made available by this or any
other 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).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cartwright
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of
myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), which I do
intend to withdraw.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 132, line 14, strike ``or any other''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chair, the Bureau of Land Management is currently
working toward implementation of a rule that would modernize horribly
outdated oil and gas regulations on Federal land. My amendment would
strike a section of this bill that would halt this important work.
What we have to do is to allow the BLM to proceed with them
implementing this rule to provide a national baseline to protect our
environment, our water, and our Federal lands from hazardous
contamination.
Since the 1980s, the scale and impacts associated with the oil and
gas industry have grown dramatically, but BLM's fracking regulations
have not kept pace. In March of 2015, the BLM finalized a modest,
commonsense rule to update its 30-year-old fracking regulations.
With these updates, the BLM is taking responsible steps to improve
well integrity, reduce the impact of toxic wastewater, and increase
transparency around chemicals used in the fracking process.
Importantly, these new regulations will not impact States that
already have robust fracking regulations and will simply offer a
regulatory baseline for the States that do not have current fracking
regulations.
Notably, in 2013, there were still 19 States with operating fracking
wells that had absolutely no hydraulic fracturing regulations in place.
Right now over 90 percent of the more than 2,500 oil and gas wells
drilled every year on federally managed lands use hydraulic fracturing.
Just this month the EPA released a draft report that concludes that
there are above- and below-ground mechanisms by which hazardous
hydraulic fracturing chemicals have the potential to impact drinking
water resources.
Because of this, the Federal Government really has to take the
necessary steps to ensure that toxic, cancer-causing fracking chemicals
do not contaminate America's water supply, America's streams, America's
rivers, and America's lakes.
As many of you know, the fracking fluids injected into oil and gas
wells contain thousands of chemicals, many of which can harm humans and
the environment.
In fact, the EPA identified over 1,000 different chemicals that have
been used during the hydraulic fracturing process, with an estimated
9,100 gallons of chemicals used for each well.
Due in large part to fracking loopholes and outdated oil and gas
regulations, fracking chemical spills and water contaminations have
occurred.
In my home State of Pennsylvania, for example, there were nearly 600
documented cases of wastewater and chemical spills in 2013 alone.
In fact, the EPA estimates that there are as many as 12 chemical
spills for every 100 oil and gas wells in the State of Pennsylvania.
And I need to remind the House that there are almost 8,000 active gas
wells operating in Pennsylvania right now. So that is a lot of spills.
Chemical and wastewater spills associated with fracking operations
harm the environment, and it has been found to contaminate surface
water. The EPA's draft study found that 8 percent of studied wastewater
spills polluted surface or groundwater.
Thankfully, the BLM's rule will help prevent fracking chemicals and
wastewater from contaminating water bodies.
It does so by validating the integrity of fracking wells and
increasing the standards for storage and recovery of waste fluid. This
rule will require companies publicly to disclose the chemicals being
pumped into public lands.
While I am concerned that the BLM fracking rule does not go far
enough in some areas, simply stopping the rule in its tracks is just
irresponsible.
I am not opposed to fracking. I believe we have to utilize our
natural resources, but we need to do so in a careful and responsible
manner.
There are bad actors in the oil and gas business just like there are
some bad actors in every area, actors that cut corners and don't drill
and frack properly and safely.
The States, unfortunately, don't have all the expertise and resources
to properly manage this exploding industry. The rule will set a
relatively low bar but one that ensures a baseline across the country
to protect our public lands.
I urge you to support my amendment to allow the BLM to implement a
rule that will prevent fracking chemical contamination and keep our
Nation's water supply pristine and something Americans can be proud of.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence
Mrs. LAWRENCE. 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:
Strike section 439.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would strike section 439 from the underlying bill. In doing so, this
amendment would allow the Bureau of Land Management to implement
standards
[[Page H4802]]
to support safe and responsible fracking operations on public and
Native American lands.
More than 1.5 million public comments were submitted in a transparent
process to regulate fracking on 750 million acres of public and Indian
lands. More than 100,000 oil and gas wells are situated on these lands.
This amendment will ensure that the BLM's rule is fully implemented
so that fracking for oil and gas continues but with full regard to
public health and the environment. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
And I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. I understand the BLM needed to update its regulation
related to fracking on Federal and Indian lands. BLM regulations are
25, 30 years old.
However, the States have been doing the same thing over the last
number of years. Unfortunately, BLM's rule is duplicative of existing
State regulation.
It forces companies to drill into a double compliance scheme. It also
costs them more time, and it significantly lengthens the time in which
it takes time to get to a permit.
None of this is necessary, which is why we adopted this provision
during the committee's markup of this bill.
I certainly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Flores).
Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Calvert for his hard work on this
section of the appropriations bill.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. American
consumers have benefited from low energy prices, thanks to the American
energy revolution and technological advancements in hydraulic
fracturing and horizontal drilling.
For decades, hydraulic fracturing has been successfully regulated by
the States. In 2013, the House passed on a bipartisan basis legislation
which I coauthored with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) from the
other side of the aisle, and that legislation would stop the BLM from
pursuing duplicative and burdensome hydraulic fracturing regulations.
Unfortunately, the BLM didn't listen to what Congress said, and it
continued down a path to impose additional red tape on American energy
development and to further drive down energy production on energy lands
while State and private production continues to experience record
growth in a safe and efficient manner.
This has always been a solution in search of a problem, particularly
when the EPA and the Department of Energy have each agreed that
hydraulic fracturing is being conducted safely right now.
Even the courts agree that there are problems with the BLM's rules,
as evidenced by the recent stay granted by the U.S. District Court of
Wyoming to stop the BLM from moving forward with their overreaching
regulatory activity.
This amendment is bad for jobs. It would increase energy costs and
would limit economic opportunity for hard-working families,
particularly those at the bottom end of the income tables. So it hurts
those that are struggling to get by today with higher energy costs.
I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his work
on including this provision during markup, as well as Chairman Calvert
for his support on stopping this regulatory overreach.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment before us would strike the
policy rider that prohibits the Bureau of Land Management from
implementing a uniform national standard for hydraulic fracking on
public lands, on Federal lands.
Such standards are necessary to ensure the operations on public and
tribal lands are safe and that they are conducted in an environmentally
responsible way. This only affects Federal lands and tribal lands.
Now, of the 32 States with the potential for oil and gas development
on federally managed mineral resources, only slightly more than half of
them have rules in place that even address hydraulic fracturing, and
those that do have rules in place vary greatly in their requirements.
As you can see, there is no consistency in the rules. There is no
guarantee that there are good quality rules put in place. And we are
talking about making sure that, on Federal leases, on Federal lands,
that we have a national standard.
The BLM continues to offer millions of public lands up for renewable
energy production, and that is why it is absolutely critical that they
have the confidence and the transparency and the safety and
environmental protections that are put in place on these Federal lands.
Prior to the issuance of a hydraulic fracturing rule, the BLM rules
on oil and gas operation were updated over 30 years ago, 30 years ago.
They had not kept pace with the significant technology advancements in
hydraulic fracturing techniques and the tremendous increase of its use.
As part of this implementation rule, the BLM office is in the process
of meeting with their State counterparts--they are working with them--
undertaking a State-by-State comparison of regulatory requirements in
order to identify opportunities for variances and to establish
memorandums of understanding between the States that will realize
efficiencies and allow for successful implementation of the rule. So we
should be allowing BLM to coordinate with the States and ensure that
hydraulic fracturing activities are being carried out safely and
effectively when Federal leases are involved.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
{time} 1645
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, my State of Wyoming is the largest onshore
producer of oil and gas from Federal land. The reason our Wyoming court
stayed the Federal BLM's rules is because Wyoming has been regulating
fracking through its oil and gas commission from the beginning. There
has never been one documented case of drinking water being
contaminated. Furthermore, the way that BLM land lays with private land
and State land is they are all interspersed; yet, underground, because
of horizontal drilling, the drilling transcends from State land to
private land to Federal land, and back and forth. Those wells are
unitized so the production can be allocated among the various owners of
private, State, and Federal land. You can't have two layers of surfaces
State ownership regulation when the drilling is occurring going back
and forth among State, private, and Federal lands.
Wyoming has handled its fracking regulations responsibly. It was the
first in the Nation to do so. I strongly urge you leave it in the hands
of States who do it best.
Mr. CALVERT. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Flores).
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, in response to some of the comments that
were never made, I would like to offer five points.
Number one is BLM doesn't have the statutory authority to do the
actions that they tried to. The Federal Court was right in granting an
injunction. The EPA and the Department of Energy have both said that
hydraulic fracturing is safe, and that is evidenced by the safe and
efficient production of much more oil and gas on private and State
lands while Federal production is going down.
Again, this is a solution in search of a problem. So I would urge all
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say congratulations to the
State of Wyoming. That is exactly why we need this amendment. We want
those same regulations on a national level. Mr. Chairman, 16 to 17
States have no regulation. Wyoming has gotten it right.
This amendment will ensure that the BLM rule is fully implemented so
that
[[Page H4803]]
fracking for oil and gas continues, but with full regard to the public
health and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. 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 Michigan
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
spending reduction account
Sec. 440. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
limitation on use of funds to implement the revised comprehensive
conservation plan for the arctic national wildlife refuge, alaska
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement the Revised Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska
published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2015 (80 Fed
Reg. 4303).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alaska?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Alaska and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment.
I want to thank Mr. Calvert and his committee for the work they have
done on this legislation, and I support the underlying bill. The
administration has left no alternative to the people of Alaska and to
those with an interest in our national energy policy.
This spring, under this President, the Department of the Interior
published the management plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to recommend the entirety of the area be designated as wilderness. This
would include the 1002 area that was set aside by Congress for
potential development in the future, an area that holds 10 billion
barrels of oil, at the minimum, and probably 37 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas.
My amendment would ensure that no funding can be spent implementing
this recommendation. The impact of this recommendation should not be
overlooked, as the recommendation requires immediate management of the
entire area as wilderness--unilaterally undermining the role of
Congress through a de facto wilderness designation.
This action violates the Statehood Compact, which was founded on
ensuring the development of subsurface resources for the economic well-
being of this Nation. This action also violates the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act, which established more than 100
million acres of conservation areas. And in recognition of the enormity
of the acreage being locked up, the act drew a line guaranteeing that
no more conservation areas can be created without an act of Congress--
our role.
There is no need for additional wilderness areas in ANWR, given 92
percent of the refuge is already closed to development.
Mr. Chairman, Alaska holds 53 percent of Federal wilderness areas in
the Nation, and that is not enough for this administration. You think
about that a moment. The administration's plan immediately raises
another administrative, bureaucratic wall to oil and gas development.
This is a betrayal to the Alaskan people and, I believe, to this Nation
and to this Congress. This plan by the administration handcuffs my
State from providing for itself and pushes us to be more dependent on
Federal funds.
This is not just an assault on Alaska. This is another example of
executive overreach by this administration undermining the role of
Congress. This is our role, not this administration's. I don't care
whose administration it is; when the President oversteps his bounds, we
should take and accept our responsibility. And this is the law he
cannot do, but he says ``I can do it.''
By the way, Mr. Chairman, this was an example, I think, of this whole
Department of the Interior. Between EPA and the Department of the
Interior, they are trying to cripple this Nation, trying to cripple my
State, against the law. This is very specific in ANILCA. If you don't
believe me, go back and read it.
Mr. Chairman, 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 offered by my friend from
Alaska would prohibit any Federal funds from being used to implement
the administration's revised comprehensive conservation plan to better
sustain and manage the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Chairman, attaching this rider to the Interior Appropriations
bill would be a mistake. The coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is one
of the few remaining places in our Nation that remains pristine and
undisturbed. It provides critical protection for thousands of species--
caribou, polar bear, and gray wolves, just to name a few--and they
desperately need this important habitat. Roughly 20 million acres
managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are some of the best and last
undisturbed natural areas in this Nation.
I understand that the gentleman from Alaska feels strongly about this
issue, and he has been a great advocate for his State for decades; but
on this important issue, we deeply disagree.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Interior Department released an
updated conservation plan to better manage the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, and the President took that opportunity to call on Congress to
pass legislation designating the coastal plain as a wilderness, an even
greater level of protection for this incredible area. The protected
area encompasses a wide range of Arctic and subarctic ecosystems. There
are unadulterated landforms, and there are native flora and fauna. The
refuge has an incredible biological integrity, natural diversity, and
environmental health.
I understand that there are differences of opinion how to manage this
land and that legislation designated in this area as wilderness may not
get very far in this Congress. But I want to commend the President for
his leadership on this issue, and I would hope that the legislative
process could play out and that we not adopt this rider onto this bill
because this issue is just far too important.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not point out one
more obvious truth: the President will not sign a bill loaded up with
antienvironmental riders just like this one. So we only make the path
for the bill harder by including it.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing it, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I appreciate the comments from the gentlewoman.
I would suggest, respectfully, we should follow the law. We have
given up the responsibility in this Congress to the President--not just
this President, other Presidents. It is clear in the law nothing more
than 5,000 acres can be withdrawn and put in the wilderness, without
the okay of the Congress, in Alaska. No more clause. It stands for no
more.
Now, we have a President that says ``up yours'' to the Congress. That
is not the way to run this business. We have a responsibility as
Congressmen to do our job. And when he goes against the law through
executive order, that is against this Constitution of America.
[[Page H4804]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly would urge the adoption of the gentleman's
amendment, and I support his amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of Executive Order 13007, entitled
``Indian Sacred Sites''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that cultural
and sacred sites of Indian and Alaska Native tribes are protected by
mandating that none of the funds in this bill can be used in
contravention of Executive Order 13007.
Executive Order 13007, issued by President Clinton in 1996, requires
Federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian
sacred sites and, more importantly, to avoid adversely affecting the
physical integrity of such sacred sites.
Far too often, Indian sacred sites are an afterthought during the
Federal Government land management process. When negotiating land swaps
and when constructing other management decisions, the voice of Indian
Country with regard to sacred sites is ignored. But this is not just
land to the Native people. These are cultural and spiritual areas that
are part of the tribe's history and its living legacy. These are places
where their ancestors lived, prayed, hunted, gathered, fought, and
died. They are part and parcel of tribal identity, and it is our duty
to ensure they are preserved and protected.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the gentleman's
amendment.
The Department of the Interior tells me they are already in
compliance with the executive order. There is no question that
providing Indian tribes with access to their sacred sites is the right
thing to do, so I would be more than happy to accept the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The
gentleman's amendment will ensure that this important executive order
is respected in such a way that it has my wholehearted support in
protecting the liberty and religious rights of Native American Indians.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Poliquin
Mr. POLIQUIN. 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 section 63.7570(b)(2) of
title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the
date of enactment of this Act).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Maine and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chairman, Maine is home to the most skilled paper
makers in the world. Our hardworking men and women manufacture paper
products that we use every day. Our paper makers are also some of the
best stewards of the environment. They know that we need healthy
forests to make the high quality wood products sold around the globe.
{time} 1700
When trees are harvested to make paper, the branches and the bark can
be left behind to be decomposed; or they can be burned to generate
energy to run the machinery to make paper.
Either way, the carbon from this biomass is returned to the
environment as part of the natural carbon cycle. What a great idea--
instead of ending up in a landfill, this green, renewable energy fuels
our economy and creates jobs.
Now, our Sappi paper mill in Skowhegan, Maine, burns biomass to make
some of the finest quality paper in the world. In doing so, it directly
employs 800 hard-working Mainers. In addition, loggers and truckers who
produce and transport this biomass also earn paychecks for their
families.
Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency is attacking this
renewable method to power our businesses and to create jobs. All of us
who have sat around a campfire have seen that wet wood, branches, and
grass emit a darker smoke. However, the same carbon is being recycled
through the environment. It is just a slightly different color.
The EPA wants to impose stricter emission standards on companies that
burn wet wood, branches, and bark instead of dumping them into a
landfill. That just doesn't make sense.
Mr. Chairman, the EPA is trying to force our Skowhegan mill to spend
millions of additional dollars on special smokestack equipment because
wet biomass burns darker. The mill owners have worked diligently with
the regional EPA office in Boston and the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection to put in place a commonsense emissions
monitoring system that reflects the burning of biomass. Sadly, the EPA
headquarters right here in Washington rejected their sensible solution.
Mr. Chairman, this is not fair, and this is not right. Those 800
hard-working paper makers at the Sappi mill deserve an EPA that works
for them, not against them.
Now, our paper mill in Maine could very well be a different mill in
Michigan, Minnesota, or Georgia that also uses green American biomass
energy.
America should keep her energy dollars and jobs here at home and not
ship them to the Middle East. Our businesses need that energy to keep
our manufacturing jobs right here in America and not send them to
China. This is a national security issue, as well as a jobs issue, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my House Republicans and Democrats today to
support my simple, commonsense bill. Passing it will stop the EPA from
unfairly penalizing employers who use green, renewable American biomass
energy.
My amendment prohibits the EPA from reaching beyond some of the
biomass emission rules already being enforced by the regional EPA
offices and the State environmental authorities.
Let's show the American people today that Congress supports a
domestic energy source that is good for the environment, creates jobs,
and keeps us safer here at home
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIQUIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. I suspect this issue is not just limited to your State,
and I hope this language will help bring EPA to the table so that
everyone can find a path forward for this issue that is important for
the country.
Certainly, I have no objection to this amendment. In fact, I support
it.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, 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.
[[Page H4805]]
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, it is a blanket block to the EPA from
fully implementing and enforcing air toxic standards for boilers and
incinerators.
Among other things, there are boilers that burn natural gas, coal,
wood, oil, and other fuel to produce steam, and the steam does produce
electricity or provide heat, and incinerators burn waste to dispose of
it. These boilers and incinerators have the potential of releasing very
toxic pollutants such as mercury, lead, dioxin, and other pollutants
that are linked to health effects.
In 2011, after a robust public process, including three public
hearings and responding to thousands of public comments, the EPA
finalized standards to reduce toxic emissions for existing new boilers
and commercial industrial solid waste incinerators and sewage sludge
incinerators.
Now, among other things, the rule requires emissions to just meet
certain standards. It is a measurement of air pollution based on the
degree of which light is blocked by the pollutant from the smokestack.
The rule also allows the EPA to approve alternative opacity limits
under certain circumstances, so there is flexibility within the rule.
Now, the local paper mills in the representative State are exceeding
or they are expected to exceed the standard in the EPA's final rule, so
to better fit their circumstances, they want an alternate opinion. That
is the issue that the EPA is looking at right now. The EPA is looking
at this right now. They heard the concerns; they are looking at it.
Strangely, this amendment would not really address that issue.
Instead, it would block the EPA from ever approving an alternative
limit or implementing or enforcing an alternative limit that had
already been improved.
I rise because this amendment, unfortunately, just does not make any
sense to me that we would not keep the dialogue moving forward. The EPA
has the responsibility of making sure that standards of emissions with
mercury and lead and other toxic pollutants are not dangerous to public
health, especially to children. We know statistically now that up to
8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks, and 52 asthma attacks are
all worked into reducing the emissions, to lower those numbers.
We need to stand with the EPA air toxic standards and allow them to
achieve their intended benefits and to work with industry where it
makes sense, and we can have industry move forward but still protect
the public health, just not scrap the parts that industry dislikes.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it would keep
the EPA from doing what it is doing right now, and that is to work with
industry, oddly enough, to create a win-win for industry and a win-win
for public health.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly disagree with my
colleague on the other side of the aisle.
Those of us or those who have visited our great State know that we
have a pristine natural environment. It is part of our brand, Mr.
Chairman. It is something that we protect and will continue to protect
at all costs.
However, as a freshman legislator, I have been here for 6 months, and
what I have learned in those 6 months is that we have almost a fourth
branch of government, and that is these regulators that regulate every
part of our life, whether we are trying to make paper or what have you
and trying to provide work for our families.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. 441. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 102(a)(1) of Public Law
94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(1)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, with this amendment, this body has the
opportunity to say loudly and clearly: Let's keep our public lands
public.
Public lands are a massive economic generator and are important to
our health and welfare as Americans. They are beautiful, and they are
healing. I recently got to hear from a veteran in Eagle County, and
part of his recovery process is the time he spends outdoors on our
public lands. They are also practical. They help ensure for water
quality and maintain the critical aspects of rural life like farming,
ranching, grazing, and logging.
Public lands are where our hunters and fishermen go to enjoy the
outdoors. They are where skiers, hikers, bikers, and motorists
experience activities that are impossible in other places and are
invaluable to their quality of life.
Outdoor enthusiasts utilize those areas. It is a vast economic driver
as well. In fact, over $646 billion is generated economically through
our public lands, and visiting our public lands supports over 6 million
jobs, including many in my district and many in our great State of
Colorado.
When recently polled across six western States, the American people
said with 96 percent support--with unheard of levels of support--that
protecting public lands for future generations is one of their top
priorities and that, above and apart from any other, they see the
maintenance for access of outdoor activities on our public lands as a
critical focus of our Federal Government.
States don't have the resources or expertise to suddenly take on the
responsibilities for our Federal lands, nor do State governments even
want that authority, Mr. Chairman.
Selling these lands outright to private owners or purveyors would
undoubtedly lead to loss of access to these majestic, treasured spaces
and, at the same time, would destroy jobs across the West and other
areas that are blessed to have public lands; yet there has been attempt
after attempt to transfer our most precious public spaces to the States
or to private ownership or to sell them at wholesale.
Mr. Chairman, the sportsmen don't want this. The hikers, bikers,
campers, skiers, and motorized activists that make up the areas
surrounding those held by the Federal Government do not want their land
taken away--our land taken away.
Those concerned with environmental well-being, water quality, and
public health that depends on the stewardship of our public lands do
not want our public lands taken away.
It is lost to me, Mr. Chairman--and perhaps my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle can speak to this--exactly who is impacted by
and who does touch and enjoy and rely on our public lands and actually
does want to see them taken away.
I would pose this inquiry, and 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. Mr. Chairman, this would just make it difficult and
impossible for Federal agencies to dispose or willingly or equitably
exchange or convey lands to States, local governments, private
landowners, and others.
I just may point out the Federal Government currently can't manage
its existing land, which is over 640 million acres or approximately 3
out of every 10 acres in the United States.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, all my amendment does is ensure that none of
the funds made available to this act can be used in contravention to
the law of the land. My amendment wouldn't do anything to undermine
current authority of congressionally and administratively driven land
exchanges. In fact, I brought several before this body and have seen
several signed into law.
My district is 62 percent Federal land, and we always have various
exchanges, purchases, and sales. Of course, those are consistent with
the law, which allows the funds to be used under this bill.
[[Page H4806]]
I am a strong believer in the ability of our Federal Government and
Congress to make choices wisely in a thorough public and transparent
process, which we do in this body.
What my amendment would do instead is prohibit the use of funds in
this bill to pursue any additional extra legal ways to turn our Federal
land over to private owners. It would prohibit Federal dollars from
being used to support, for instance, a commission around finding
avenues to turn all Federal lands over to private ownership.
These kinds of ventures are fiscally wasteful and counterproductive
and wholly unwanted by the American people who rely and derive
spiritual support, health, and jobs from our public lands.
I urge my colleagues to reflect upon who exactly we are working for
and what our goal is with regard to our public lands.
I strongly support ensuring that all the provisions of this
appropriations bill are limited to the full pursuit of section
102(a)(1) of Public Law 94-579 with regard to our public lands and that
none of this money, which is what this amendment will do, can be
diverted to privatize our public lands.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1715
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
limitation on use of funds to treat the sonoran desert tortoise as an
endangered species or threatened species
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to
treat the Sonoran desert tortoise as an endangered species or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment to
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
My amendment will protect education, grazing, agriculture, energy,
housing interests, as well as assist with preventing dangerous
wildfires by blocking the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the
Sonoran desert tortoise as an endangered or threatened species. A
listing decision for the Sonoran desert tortoise is expected this
fiscal year.
Of the potential 26.8 million acres that will likely be designated
for critical habitat due to such a listing, 15 million acres are
located in the United States, and nearly 4.5 million acres are State
trust land.
State trust land revenues, which are currently enjoyed by 13
beneficiaries, of which K-12 education is the largest proportional
share of those moneys, will be severely impacted.
If the Sonoran desert tortoise is listed, these acres of trust land
will become less valuable for investment as they are burdened with a
federal regulatory nexus. Without this amendment, schools that have
already undergone significant budget cuts will see even less money
flowing into their educational coffers.
The Sonoran desert tortoise is also of substantial concern to many
different types of industry, as its habitat falls within urban
development corridors as well as on rural and agricultural landscapes.
Listing the species as threatened or endangered will negatively
impact commercial, housing and energy developers as well as the
agriculture and grazing industries.
Specifically, a listing would be detrimental for 273 different
grazing allotments and would jeopardize nearly 6 million acres used for
livestock grazing.
Mining will also suffer, as the BLM listed 9,675 new mining claims
from 1990 to 2002, 36 percent of which fall within the Sonoran desert
tortoise's habitat.
Any ground and vegetation-disturbing activities, including fire
suppression activities and restorative treatments, would also be
negatively impacted by a listing decision for the species.
Solar energy would also likely be harmed, as large solar projects on
desert floors are considered a potential threat to the Sonoran desert
tortoise.
My amendment will also encourage significant voluntary efforts and
financial contributions for the Sonoran desert tortoise to continue,
many of which are already underway at the local level.
Important local conservation efforts began for the species in 2010,
and a Candidate Conservation Agreement was recently signed by 15
different agencies in February.
Should the Sonoran desert tortoise become listed, these voluntary
efforts and moneys will dissipate as local property owners, ranchers,
and developers will no longer have any incentive to work with the
Federal and State wildlife management agencies on conservation efforts
for the species.
My amendment is supported by the Public Lands Council, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, Americans for Limited Government, the
Arizona Cattlemen's Association, the Arizona Farm Bureau, the Arizona
Mining Association, the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona,
and numerous other organizations that are strongly opposed to this
listing.
I thank the chair and the ranking member for their tireless efforts
to produce this bill.
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, this amendment would do two things.
First, it would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from treating
the Sonoran desert tortoise as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act. Secondly, it would restrict the Service from
offering any of the critical protections to preserve the species.
The Sonoran desert tortoise is an iconic species. It has been part of
the Sonoran Desert ecosystem for over 150,000 years. In 2010, the Fish
and Wildlife Service found that the listing for the Sonoran desert
tortoise was warranted, but it was precluded because it needed to
address other higher priorities.
So last December the Service announced that it was working on a
proposed listing determination that is expected to be published within
the year.
This amendment, if it were to pass, would stop the Fish and Wildlife
Service's efforts and block the Service from meeting a court-ordered
deadline to make this listing determination. In other words, they would
put the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at odds with what the court has
requested them to do. This amendment has no place in the appropriations
process, nor does it have any place in this legislative process.
Let's just think about the Endangered Species Act for a minute. It
has been one of our most effective and important environmental laws,
and it is supported by over 85 percent of Americans.
There has been no law that has been more important in preventing the
extinction of wildlife, but some Members of this body seem determined
to undermine the law by placing harmful policy riders on this bill.
From my count, as of right now, there are at least 10 species that
are at risk of losing the Endangered Species Act protections in this
bill.
What type of conservation legacy are we leaving for future
generations? That is why I oppose the amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose it as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the Sonoran desert tortoise is part of a
[[Page H4807]]
growing problem involving large settlements with the environmental
groups who sue the Fish and Wildlife Service's regulatory protections
with regard to a large number of different wildlife and plant species.
These multi-district litigation settlements, commonly known as ``sue
and settle tactics,'' force the Fish and Wildlife Service to make
listing decisions on several hundred species, often with little or no
scientific data supporting these listings and without public input to
this process.
This possible listing is a result of a lawsuit filed by a few special
interest groups aimed at stifling development and has nothing to do
with the tortoise.
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.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Tsongas
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
limitation on use of funds to implement or enforce specific sections
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce section 117, 121, or 122 of
this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which I offer with Mr. Beyer
of Virginia, would strike three policy riders related to the Endangered
Species Act from the underlying bill, those concerning the greater
sage-grouse, the northern long-eared bat, and the gray wolf. I want to
focus my remarks on the greater sage-grouse.
The language in this bill that seeks to block an Endangered Species
Act listing of the bird is unnecessary and is completely inappropriate,
putting both the species and the historic quintessentially American
sagebrush steppe landscape at risk.
In 1901, Mark Twain described the sagebrush steppe as a ``forest in
exquisite miniature.'' At one point, as many as 16 million greater
sage-grouse called the sagebrush sea home. Settlers traveling west said
that flocks of sage-grouse ``blackened the sky.'' Today the population
has been reduced to as few as 200,000 birds.
Right now there are unprecedented and proactive partnerships
throughout the West which are working to conserve sagebrush habitat, to
encourage predictability for economic development, and to prevent the
listing of the greater sage-grouse as endangered or threatened under
the Endangered Species Act.
Federal agencies, States, sportsmen, ranchers, farmers, and
conservationists have all come together in this effort. In fact, the 10
land management plans released by the Interior Department last month
are based on plans developed by the States, not one size fits all, but
individual plans to suit each State's individual needs. This is all the
result of a concerted collaboration.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the States themselves agree that,
as long as these partnerships continue, it is likely that the greater
sage-grouse will not be listed as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act.
Rather than helping communities, the rider in this bill creates
uncertainty and only undermines the immense coordinated progress
already underway. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I will talk about the three different
provisions to this amendment. Let me first talk about the sage-grouse.
The sage-grouse provision in this bill is meant to give the Fish and
Wildlife Service time to make a determination of whether there ought to
be a listing or not. The court has ordered them to make a determination
by, I think, September 30. We are trying to give them the time
necessary.
This is going to affect 11 Western States. It is not going to affect
Massachusetts, by the way, but it is going to affect 11 Western States
substantially.
They have recently put out their resource management plans to the
States. There is a period in which the States have a chance to interact
with the Federal agency and raise their complaints and so forth about
what the problems are with their resource management plans.
We are trying to give the Fish and Wildlife Service and the States--
the 11 Western States, by the way, not Massachusetts--the time to come
up with a plan so that we don't list this bird.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the States--everybody,
essentially--agree we don't want sage-grouse listed. The States have
made incredible progress and have made incredible sacrifices.
The State of Wyoming has taken, I want to say, millions of acres
which have potential resources off the table in order to protect the
sage-grouse. So we have taken extraordinary efforts to make sure that
we don't list this bird.
As far as the wolves are concerned, the fact is that the Fish and
Wildlife Service delisted the wolves. It was not us. We didn't want to
go against science. We are not going against science. We aren't trying
to make any species become extinct.
It was the Fish and Wildlife Service in their use of science that
delisted the wolves. But guess what. Some people weren't happy with
that; so, they took them to court. And now we are in a court case. The
same thing happened in Idaho and in Montana.
This language doesn't take a species off the endangered species list.
Some people think we are trying to delist species, and we are not. We
are going back to the decision made by the Fish and Wildlife Service to
delist the wolves in the Great Lakes and in the State of Wyoming.
I think, if you want to talk about the cost and if you want to
complain about what is going on here, you really ought to complain to
the plaintiffs who are causing all of this hassle with wolves when the
States have done exactly what they were supposed to do.
The wolf populations in the Great Lakes particularly have exploded.
In Idaho and Montana, they have exploded. In Wyoming, they have
exploded. That is why the Fish and Wildlife Service delisted them.
This amendment is contrary to every bit of science that there is that
deals with endangered species. So I would urge my colleagues to reject
this amendment even though it doesn't affect Massachusetts.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first comment that
Massachusetts, at one time, was home to the Heath Hen, which is the
greater sage-grouse's cousin.
Because at that time we did not have an Endangered Species Act, that
Heath Hen is now, unfortunately, extinct. So we have learned an
important lesson about the great role the Endangered Species Act does
play to protect some of our remarkable species.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my
colleague.
Mr. BEYER. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, despite what you may hear from some Members of
Congress, gray wolves have not recovered. In a test by the Fish and
Wildlife Service to remove them from the Endangered Species Act,
protections for wolves have failed time and again.
Why? It is because scientific experts have shown and the courts have
confirmed that the best available science does not justify the removal
of all ESA protections for gray wolves at this time.
In fact, the only instance in which wolves have been delisted has
been through the unprecedented and unfortunate congressional action in
2011 to remove protections from wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
These wolves are now endlessly persecuted by hunters and ranchers
despite the positive effects they have on the ecosystem and the minimal
toll they take on livestock.
{time} 1730
Wolf-related tourism around Yellowstone generates more than $35
million annually for local economies, and recovery in the Pacific
Northwest is only beginning.
[[Page H4808]]
This amendment would prevent Congress from directing the Fish and
Wildlife Service to reissue the delisting of wolves in the western
Great Lakes and Wyoming. Now is not the time for Congress to declare
open season on one of America's most iconic wild animals. Science, not
politics, should guide these delisting decisions.
By the way, wolves are not in Massachusetts, they are not in
Virginia, and they never will be as long as we do not continue our
efforts to protect wolves and allow them to occupy the old territories
they did a few hundred years ago.
This amendment would also allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to move
forward with steps to protect the northern long-eared bat. Over the
past decade, populations of the bat have declined 98 percent, mostly
because of the deadly effects of white-nose syndrome. As a result, Fish
and Wildlife Service recently listed the bat as a threatened species.
While scientists and wildlife managers work to fight the spread of
white-nose syndrome, it is important to ensure that the remaining bat
populations are safe from other threats.
The interim rule currently in effect governing taking of the bat is
incredibly flexible and was developed in close coordination with
industry stakeholders, particularly the timber industry, to ensure that
economic activity is not negatively impacted.
The final rule is expected to be similarly flexible. The language in
this bill will only serve as a delay tactic, causing additional
uncertainty for businesses and property owners, and this amendment
would effectively strike these unnecessary sections from the bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the
gentleman's comments. I do have some gray wolves in Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, and other places that we will be happy to ship to you if you
like. In fact, we didn't have any in Idaho until Fish and Wildlife
Service decided that they were going to reintroduce them in Idaho.
When you say the minimal take that it has on cattle, wildlife, and
other types of things, there were gray wolves in Idaho that one sheep
rancher lost over 300 head of sheep in one night to some wolves. That
ends his business, essentially. So it is not a minimal take. If you
look at the calf-to-cow ratio of elk and deer in Idaho, the numbers
have been down substantially, particularly with elk because, guess
what, they like elk, even though we were told that they will go after
deer and not elk. Wolves, I guess, like elk better than they do deer.
The gentleman says we need to depend on science, not Congress.
Congress never delisted a species. We didn't delist the gray wolves in
Idaho and Montana. It was the Fish and Wildlife Service using science.
When you say the gray wolves have not recovered, where is your science?
Where do you get that? Where does that statement come from? Fish and
Wildlife Service that has done the investigations said yes, they have.
So do we just not trust them?
It is you people proposing this amendment that are going against
science. We are just trying to make sure that the science is protected,
and politics doesn't enter. We appreciate the people of Virginia and
the people of Massachusetts trying to make sure that the wolves are
healthy in Idaho. I can guarantee you they are. They are not
persecuted, as you said. Yes, they are hunted, but anybody who believed
we were going to introduce wolves into Idaho or Montana where they
hadn't been for a number of years and you weren't going to have to
maintain population controls of them was living in a fantasyland.
Yes, we do have hunting seasons for wolves, as we do almost all
species, but we have to maintain a certain population, and if that
population isn't maintained, guess what. Fish and Wildlife takes over,
and they go back on the endangered list. So it is not Congress that is
making these decisions. It is Fish and Wildlife Service.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that the riders
in the underlying bill will do nothing to help our native species but,
instead, only serve to cause uncertainty and delay, undermining all the
concerted effort by many stakeholders, all seeking to avoid a listing,
particularly with the sage-grouse.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. TSONGAS. 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 gentlewoman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read 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 for the United Nations Environment Programme.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer one final amendment to the
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
The amendment is simple. It prohibits the EPA from providing funding
to the United Nations Environment Programme. The United Nations
Environment Programme, or UNEP--I would call it inept--has a history of
taking unusual and extreme policy positions, including advocating for
population control.
The United Nations is typically funded in the State Department's
budget under contributions to international organizations, or CIL. The
funds appropriated by this act are meant to be used domestically, not
as a slush fund to give to programs at the United Nations.
I will quickly highlight some of the names of the UNEP initiatives
that the EPA spent millions of dollars on. One is to promote
environmental sound management worldwide. Another one is UNEP Regional
Program, Climate Benefits, Asia Pacific. There is even one called
Russian Federation Support to the National Program of Action for the
Protection of the Arctic. This last one is money that goes specifically
to the Russian cause.
I will read from the EPA's own Web site the description of this
program:
This project centers on protection of the Arctic
environment in Russia.
This work will cover three broad areas:
Number one, implementation of Russia's national plan of
action for protection of the Arctic marine environment from
anthropogenic pollution;
Number two, hazardous chemical management;
And, three, climate change mitigation adaptation and
awareness.
So let me get this straight. In addition to the billions we
contribute to the United Nations through the CIO account, the EPA is
funneling millions of tax dollars to this United Nations program, which
then gives the money to Russia, who then uses it to implement a Russian
national plan and for climate change mitigation, adaptation, and
awareness.
U.S. taxpayers, do I need to say anything further why we need to stop
this? Let's keep the United States Environmental Protection Agency
focused on issues within the United States. Our favorite out-of-control
agency need not be concerned with the Asia-Pacific region or with
Russia.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment that is
endorsed by the Americans for Limited Government, the Eagle Forum, the
Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste, and the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for their tireless efforts in
producing this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4809]]
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit any agency
from using funds for the United Nations Environment Programme. Funds
for the U.N. are primarily provided through the State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee. The EPA administers
about $500,000 of international grants, not the millions or the
billions that were referred to in this particular bill. So I strongly
oppose the amendment.
I understand, as I said earlier, there is a small amount of funding
administered for the U.N. Environment Programme in this bill. The
primary source of funding for the international programs, I want to
stress again, is in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
bill, not this bill.
So this amendment seeks to solve a problem that really doesn't exist
in this bill, but jurisdictional questions aside, we must be an
international partner with respect to the environment. Engagement with
the international community allows us to share and learn best practices
on how to manage toxic substances; international engagement helps set
international standards to help our products compete globally; and,
more importantly, pollution knows no boundaries. It does not respect
international borders.
In the 1970s and 1980s, acid rain was a problem both in the United
States and Canada, and through domestic legislation and international
work with Canada, we have reduced the amount of acid rain that falls
upon the United States and Canada. Now, right now in my home State of
Minnesota, we are under a high pollution warning. The culprit is,
sadly, a series of forest fires that are raging to the north border of
us in Saskatchewan. Now, if we are going to be committed to clean air
and clean water on the Canadian-U.S. border, we must be engaged both
here at home and abroad.
So as a proud Minnesotan and a proud Member of the United States
Congress, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to work
together in partnership.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Let's set the record straight. CRS, hardly a partisan
effort, since 2003 reports they spent over $6 million in foreign
agencies in this very fund. Imagine that. The facts are only convenient
when they help us on our side.
If we are going to have a discussion about this, let's put it in the
State Department budget and let's talk about it, but let's not hide it
in the EPA. Let's keep the EPA's budget and dealings right here in the
United States where they belong. They hardly have a track record of
success here in the States.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress again that, in
this bill, there is $500,000. And I would also like to stress, when it
comes to regulating waters in the Great Lakes, our tributary rivers and
basins on the northern border--and I am sure the same thing, I can't
speak with as much eloquence as to what is happening on our southern
border--we need to have these international interlocutors. I would
appreciate the opportunity for my State and for the Great Lakes States
to be able to continue the strong partnership with our Canadian
partners.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, with an over $18 trillion debt, when is enough
enough? If we are going to talk about foreign expenditures of dollars,
let's put it in the State Department budget and make sure we have an
open and honest conversation, but it does not belong here. We have to
start concentrating on what is important to the United States, not
Russia. I guess that is Putin's kind of game is that we clean up his
messes for him.
I ask everybody to adopt this legislation.
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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
limitation on use of funds with respect to ivory
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce section 120 of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, at the inception of the debate and
discussion regarding this appropriations bill, I indicated I would
offer an amendment to prevent language in the bill from driving the
extinction of the African elephants.
I expect the administration to release its proposed ivory rule this
month, and it deserves the support of every Member of this Chamber.
This rider that is currently in the language of the bill is another
unfounded attack on an endangered species that our Nation's top
scientific experts have concluded will go extinct without the
protection of the Endangered Species Act, under which this rule is
being promulgated.
I mentioned in my previous statement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service recently destroyed a one-ton stockpile of illegal elephant
ivory, most of it seized in Philadelphia from an antique dealer named
Victor Gordon.
Gordon imported and sold ivory from freshly killed African elephants
in violation of U.S. law and the laws of the countries where the
elephants were poached, and the ivory was stolen. The ivory was
doctored so that it looked old enough to pass through a loophole in the
law. All of this ivory is illegal. All of it is nearly impossible to
distinguish from antique ivory, and anyone who bought it from Gordon
and resells it or buys it from a new owner is contributing to the
ongoing slaughter of elephants and the criminal trafficking of ivory
that supports organized crime and terrorism.
The only way to keep U.S. citizens from being involved in this
elephant poaching and trafficking crisis is to eliminate the commercial
import, export, and trade of African elephant ivory in our country.
Ending the commercial ivory trade will set an example for China and
other countries to follow, but they will not act until we do.
{time} 1745
Ending the trade will not take away personal possessions, nor will it
bar the movement of musical instruments or museum pieces; but to save
elephants, we have to eliminate the value of ivory.
Sadly, this rider is just another example of House Republicans
driving the extinction of wildlife one species at a time.
Please join me in voting ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's thoughtful
comments regarding crisis levels of poaching and wildlife trafficking
and the need to do something about it. This is a deadly serious matter
with national security implications. That is why this bill has
increased funding by $15 million since fiscal year 2013 in order to
fight wildlife poachers and traffickers.
Without question, Republicans do not want to see elephants go
extinct; but when the Fish and Wildlife Service made the unilateral
determination to ban the trade and transport of products containing
ivory that have been in the United States legally for years, we heard
from orchestra musicians, art museums, wildlife conservation
organizations, collectors of fine antiques from chess pieces to pool
cues to firearms, and nearly everyone in every organization in between.
They are united in support for elephants, but they are also united in
their opposition to new Federal restrictions on products that contain
ivory legally obtained. The reality is family heirlooms and rare
musical instruments didn't cause the problem, and
[[Page H4810]]
the Fish and Wildlife Service should be acknowledging as much.
This bill keeps the status quo, allowing for continued legal trade
and transport so that collectors, musicians, and others can get on with
their lives until the Fish and Wildlife Service writes a rule that
reflects the legitimate concerns of law-abiding U.S. citizens.
The administration is rumored to be just days away from publishing a
revised rule to address most of these concerns. If that is the case and
if the revised rule solves the problem, then there will be no need for
this provision in the final conference report later in the year.
In any case, I remain fully committed to working with my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to find a reasonable solution moving
forward. In the meantime, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank the
chairman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak in support of Mr. Grijalva's
amendment. The U.S. is the world's second largest market for ivory.
Only China has a greater demand.
In February of last year, President Obama announced a ban on the
commercial trade of elephant ivory. This ban is the best way to ensure
that U.S. markets do not contribute to the further decline of African
elephants in the wild.
The African elephant population has declined by an estimated 50
percent over the last 40 years, with approximately 35,000 elephants
poached every year. That amounts to one elephant poached every 15
minutes.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been undertaking a series of
administrative actions, including a proposed rule in order to implement
the ban. Section 120 would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from
implementing this rule and other policies necessary to crack down on
the domestic illegal ivory market.
I cannot understand why we would not do everything possible to stop
the illegal slaughter of African elephants.
I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Grijalva's amendment, which would
prevent section 120 from being enacted. We must allow the FWS to
continue its efforts to prevent the extinction of the African elephant.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to stop the slaughter of
African elephants, we need to stop the illegal trade in ivory.
This rider has nothing to do with the unprecedented poaching crisis,
and it ignores the impact of the illegal ivory trade within the United
States and the way that it is impacting the African elephants'
survival.
The rider also undermines the United States' ability to push other
countries with significant ivory markets--like China, Vietnam, and
Thailand--to take stronger actions to restrict ivory trade.
In fact, according to a recent Washington Post article, China has
signaled that its actions to further restrict ivory trade were
contingent on what the United States does to regulate our domestic
trade.
It is in the national interest of the United States to combat
wildlife trafficking and to ensure that we don't contribute to the
growing global demand for elephant ivory, which is also funding
terrorism around the world.
We need to come up with a responsible set of regulations that protect
elephants, while making accommodations to allow certain activities to
continue that do not pose a threat to elephants.
I urge my colleagues to support the Grijalva amendment.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
environmental programs and management
Sec. __. Of the funds provided for ``Environmental
Protection Agency--Environmental Programs and Management'',
not more than $1,713,500 may be available for the Immediate
Office of the Administrator and not more than $3,581,500 may
be available for the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations and the aggregate amount
otherwise provided under such heading is reduced by
$2,735,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment together
with my colleagues and fellow committee chairmen, Mr. Conaway from
Texas and Mr. Chaffetz from Utah.
The amendment addresses the Environmental Protection Agency's
continuing pattern of obstruction and delay in response to
congressional oversight.
Since January 2014, the EPA has proposed or finalized new, far-
reaching rules that impact almost every aspect of the American economy.
These rules involve major expansions of Federal authority, massive
costs to the economy, and are based on secret science that the EPA
keeps hidden from external review or scrutiny.
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to perform rigorous
oversight of the executive branch. However, as chairman of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, nearly every request for
information I make to EPA is greeted with repeated delays, partial
responses, or outright refusals to cooperate.
Earlier this year, the committee was forced to issue a subpoena to
obtain information related to Administrator Gina McCarthy's deletion of
almost 6,000 text messages sent and received on her official Agency
mobile device. She claimed that all but one was personal.
Most recently, the committee requested information and documents
related to the EPA's development of the waters of the U.S. rule and the
Agency's inappropriate lobbying of and collaboration with outside
organizations to generate grassroots support.
The EPA again failed to provide the requested documents. The
committee was forced to notice its intention to issue a subpoena.
However, producing documents in bits and pieces after months or years
of delay are not the actions of an open and transparent administration.
They are the actions of an Agency and administration that has something
to hide.
It is clear that the EPA does not see its job as facilitating
transparency and oversight. It seems to believe its mission is to
delay, obstruct, and otherwise attempt to stonewall any attempt by
Congress to fulfill its constitutional oversight obligation on behalf
of the American people.
Congress should not support such an agency. We are taking further
action with this amendment to reduce funding for EPA's offices. The EPA
must refocus its efforts on transparency and cooperation with Congress
and the American people. At that point, we could consider restoring
their funding.
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. This amendment clearly is a Republican attempt to cut
funding from the Environmental Protection Agency. As an agency that
protects the air we all breathe, protects the water we drink, the fish
we eat, it means that the EPA works every day to protect the health of
every American.
[[Page H4811]]
This amendment is clearly an attack against the administration for
work that they have been doing to enforce those protections.
It is entirely counterproductive to complain about a lack of timely
response from the EPA and then turn around and slash the very funding
that allows the EPA Administrator and Agency staff to respond to our
concerns.
Crippling cuts to the office of congressional relations will not only
make it more difficult for Members of Congress to get our questions
answered--and those of our constituents--by slashing the office of
intergovernmental agency affairs, this amendment would make it harder
for State and local officials to gather the information they need to
protect their communities.
I don't really believe we want to tell the EPA that they should cut
back on meeting and getting recommendations from local government
advisory committees or tell our elected officials at a State level that
they are going to have even a harder time getting a hold of someone at
the EPA to help them form agreements to address their priority needs.
Our States have a responsibility with the EPA for protecting public
health and the environment, and this amendment would undermine those
partnerships. This amendment would make it more difficult for the
people's representatives at the Federal, State, and local level to
reach out and get support and answers from the EPA in order to protect
the health of their constituents.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these cuts, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the chairman of the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Smith of Texas and Mr.
Conaway of Texas for their good work on this.
In the year 2015, five letters were sent to the EPA from the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding the waters of the
United States rulemaking. All went unanswered until the Science
Committee threatened to subpoena.
Probably what is the most egregious and most offensive to us is even
when we do bipartisan work--in a bipartisan letter, we asked the EPA to
provide a response to a request concerning collections of use of fees
and fines--and even when we do it in a bipartisan way, those go
unresponded to. They failed to even provide a staff briefing on the
collection and use of fines and penalties, despite repeated requests.
We hear on the floor: Well, you can't take away their money, then
they won't able to respond.
With the money, they don't respond, so they obviously don't need the
money if they are not going to respond--even when we do so in a very
professional, bipartisan way, asking legitimate questions about the use
of these funds and how this Agency works.
In the year 2013, requests were filed for information regarding
actions of a previous Administrator, among other document requests.
Responses were inadequate, and a subpoena was filed.
The EPA only began searching for the documents 6 months after a
subpoena was issued, 6 months after this happened. This is just not
tolerable. There needs to be consequences for this. They obviously
don't need these funds if they are going to be so unresponsive even
when we do so in a bipartisan way.
I would urge the passage of the Smith amendment. I think it is a good
amendment. It is a responsible way to move forward. I appreciate the
good work the Appropriations Committee has done in their support and
their work. I, again, thank Mr. Smith for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1800
Amendment Offered by Mr. Huffman
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read 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 enter into a new contract or agreement or to
administer a portion of an existing contract or agreement
with a concessioner, a cooperating association, or any other
entity that provides for the sale in any facility within a
unit of the National Park System of a non-educational item
that depicts a Confederate flag on it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, that is not the revised amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to
withdraw this amendment?
Mr. HUFFMAN. If it can be substituted with the proper amendment, yes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, you should have the proper amendment now.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Huffman
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read 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 enter into a new contract or agreement or to
administer a portion of an existing contract or agreement
with a concessioner, a cooperating association, or any other
entity that provides for the sale in any facility within a
unit of the National Park System of an item with a
Confederate flag as a stand-alone feature.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the tragic shooting in Charleston, South
Carolina, has forced a national conversation about symbols like the
Confederate battle flag that represent racism, slavery, and division.
Now, like you, I applaud leaders in South Carolina and other Southern
States, both Democrat and Republican, who have called on their States
to end the display of the Confederate flag on government property,
including State houses and license plates. With the consideration of
the Interior Appropriations bill, this House now has an opportunity to
add its voice by ending the promotion of the cruel, racist legacy of
the Confederacy.
The National Park Service has asked its gift shops, bookstores, and
other concessionaires to voluntarily end the sale of standalone items,
such as flags, pins, and belt buckles that contain imagery of the
Confederate flag. While many concessionaires have agreed to do this, I
am dismayed by reports that some will continue to sell items with
Confederate flag imagery. This amendment to the Interior Appropriations
bill would end these sales. It would prevent the National Park Service
from allowing the continued promotion of the Confederacy through these
symbols.
Major American retailers like Walmart, Amazon, and eBay are already
taking their own steps to ban sales of this type of merchandise, and we
now have an obligation to ensure that the Federal agencies that we
oversee act with the same moral clarity.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). Without objection, the
gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CALVERT. The language now in this amendment is consistent with
the National Park Service policy, and I would support this language as
you presently have it drafted. I would urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment.
This amendment, as Chairman Calvert pointed out, is consistent with
[[Page H4812]]
the recent National Park Service actions to further limit the display
of the Confederate flag in units of the National Park system.
Previous National Park Service policy had already provided that the
Confederate flag would not be flown alone for many park flagpoles.
On June 25, Park Director Jon Jarvis further requested that the
Confederate flag sale items be removed from the National Park
bookstores and gift shops. This also follows a decision by several
large national retailers, including Walmart, Amazon, and Sears, to stop
selling items with Confederate flags on them.
I agree with these decisions and commend those involved for their
prompt action.
While in certain and very limited instances it may be appropriate in
national parks to display an image of the Confederate flag in its
historical context, a general display or sale of Confederate flags is
inappropriate and divisive.
I support limiting their use, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request an ``aye'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read 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 reduce or terminate any of the propagation
programs listed in the March, 2013, National Fish Hatchery
System Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment that recognizes and supports the important role of fish
hatcheries nationwide.
Before I get to the amendment, I want to thank you, Mr. Calvert, for
the hard work of the committee and your recognition of the importance
of fish hatcheries already there. I also want to thank my friend from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for cosponsoring this amendment.
My amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to reduce or
terminate any of the existing propagation programs listed in the March
2013 National Fish Hatchery System Strategic Hatchery and Workforce
Planning Report.
This report raised serious concerns that the Fish and Wildlife
Service view hatcheries, and particularly mitigation hatcheries, as a
low priority program. Personally, I believe that stocking the
tailwaters, streams, lakes, and rivers of America should be a higher
priority. Hatcheries provide an important service, including providing
our Nation's anglers with the recreational enjoyment and opportunities
to catch fish; and they can be particularly vital to economic growth in
rural areas, including northeast Georgia.
The importance of our Nation's hatcheries is obvious when you look at
the Chattahoochee National Forest Fish Hatchery. This hatchery is
located back home in Georgia's Ninth Congressional District. It stocks
the tailwaters of multiple projects for the Army Corps of Engineers and
the Tennessee Valley Authority with rainbow trout for the enjoyment of
160,000 anglers per year. Without this facility, the tailwaters would
be barren.
The Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery is a critical economic
driver in the quiet mountain town of Suches, Georgia, and the
surrounding community. This rural town in Fannin County doesn't have
any major stores or banks, but it does have the hatchery. The hatchery
has generated over $30 million in total economic input on just $740,000
in investment. It has a $40 return on investment for every dollar spent
and provides enjoyment to many, many people.
The Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery plays an integral role in
the sustainability of businesses and communities in northeast Georgia.
From providing environmental education and public outreach
opportunities to visitors, school groups, and various other
organizations to facilitating recreational opportunities, northeast
Georgia would not be the same without this facility.
The work at the hatchery in Suches is one example of the importance
of propagation programs at national fish hatcheries nationwide. These
hatcheries are job creators and economic growth engines. They provide
critical services to rural America and play an important educational
role. They support anglers with recreational services and responsibly
stock the rivers to keep the habitats in order. Despite this, however,
the Department of Fish and Wildlife places propagation programs,
including those in the Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery, among the
lowest of their funding priorities.
My amendment simply ensures that funds to the Fish and Wildlife
Service are consistent with the agency's mission and statutory
responsibility.
Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I want the gentleman from Georgia to know
that I support his amendment and would urge its adoption.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
limitation on use of funds in contravention of executive orders
regarding climate change
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be expended in contravention of Executive Order 13514 of
October 5, 2009 or Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The sum of the harmful consequences of global climate change is the
existential crisis of our generation and, perhaps, of our century.
Global temperature changes are already causing prolonged droughts,
extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. Tens of millions of
people, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable among us, are at
risk unless we act to reverse the disastrous effects of climate change.
Our best scientists and our Pope are warning us that unless carbon
emissions are dramatically cut, we will see ever rising sea levels,
ever more extreme weather, and ever worsening public health, poor air
quality, the spread of tropical diseases, lung and heart and heat
stress illnesses, and death.
Several weeks ago, the EPA issued a comprehensive report quantifying
the economic costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the
American economy. Among the findings, the report found that, by 2100,
mitigating greenhouse global gas emissions could avoid 12,000 deaths
per year that are associated with extreme temperatures in just 49 U.S.
cities compared to a future with no emission reductions.
The estimated damages to coastal property from sea level rise and
storm surge in the contiguous U.S. are $5 trillion through the year
2100 in a future without carbon emissions.
The Department of the Interior also recently released a report
revealing that over $40 billion of National Park infrastructure and
historic and cultural resources could be at risk due to sea level rise
caused by climate change.
Taking acts to address climate change is particularly crucial in
urban districts that border waterways, like
[[Page H4813]]
mine, where we are already seeing environmental effects. Now is the
time when the U.S. should be deepening its commitment to reducing
climate change pollution.
Federal agency actions, including those of the agencies named in this
bill, have major impacts on our contributions and reactions to global
warning. It is imperative, then, that these agencies maintain
mindfulness of those impacts and that they seek to avoid actions that
add significant amounts of carbon pollution to the atmosphere or
actions that put people and property in the vulnerable position with
respect to climate change.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to ensure
that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with
the President's 2009 executive order on greenhouse gas emissions and
energy efficiency and the 2013 executive order on climate change
adaptation.
These orders require agencies to take global warming into account
when making decisions and will save taxpayer dollars while making our
communities safer and cleaner.
Our agencies need to be climate smart, because making our Federal
investments and actions climate smart reduces our fiscal exposure to
the impacts of climate change.
It is the right thing to do to run an efficient and effective
government. It is the right thing to do to return the highest value to
the American taxpayer.
It is simple: smarter investments up front mean we can reduce future
costs. Communities across the Nation are thinking this way. We need to
ensure that the same is true for the Federal Government.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to ensure that Federal
agencies are operating in the manner that accounts for climate change.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, earlier, we debated whether or not to
continue a bipartisan reporting requirement in the bill on climate
change expenditures. My colleague on the other side of the aisle wanted
to remove the requirements, which would have reduced transparency. Now
he wants to ensure that funds are being expended on climate and
efficiency executive orders issued by the President. So I am left to
wonder whether my colleagues would prefer to know if funds are spent on
these programs or not.
Regardless, this amendment is simply unnecessary. The President did
not consult Congress on these executive orders, so, if anything, we
should defund the programs until Congress can have an appropriate
policy debate.
I see no reason to include this language, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no.''
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment which will ensure
that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with
the President's executive order on greenhouse gas emissions and energy
efficiency and the 2013 executive order on climate change adaptation.
These orders require agencies to simply take global warming into
account when making decisions. This will save taxpayers lots of money
while making our communities safer and cleaner.
Fighting climate change has to be regarded as the biggest imperative
of our time.
{time} 1815
My State of California has stepped up to this issue and taken
important bold steps to confront it, including passing Assembly Bill
32, the world's most aggressive greenhouse gas reduction policy. At the
Federal level, President Obama's efforts, through these orders, are
critical steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing
climate change.
Ensuring compliance with these measures is the least we can do on
this critical issue; and, frankly, we should be doing much more. So I
urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Beyer)
amendment and continue this effort to combat climate change.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I ask 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 Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. 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. 6 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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:
across-the-board reduction
Sec. __. Each amount made available by this Act is hereby
reduced by 1 percent.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the
committee for the excellent job that they have done under Chairman
Calvert's leadership with bringing this appropriations bill in under
budget. It is $3 billion below the President's request. There is still
$30.17 billion in proposed funding in this bill.
I come before you today to offer an amendment that I regularly offer
to these appropriations bills, which is a 1 percent across-the-board
spending cut. Let's go in and let's take one more penny out of every
dollar and use that to bolster the good work that our committee has
done.
You know, one of the things that I like about this bill is there is a
9 percent reduction in the EPA budget compared to last year. We all
know we need to rein in the EPA. We are all for clean air, clean water,
clean environment. We have different ways of getting there.
The burdensome regulations that are out there negatively impact--they
negatively impact our communities. But we know there is more work that
we have to do on this $30 billion budget.
My amendment would reduce the discretionary budget authority by $292
million and would reduce outlays by $193 million.
Now, I know that this is not a popular amendment with a lot of those
who feel like we have cut, cut, cut and we can't cut any more.
I disagree with that. I think that you can look at the GAO reports
and the inspector general reports and see there is plenty of room to
cut. We just recently went into the last 4 years of inspector general
reports. Guess what. We found $165 million of identified waste in the
Department of the Interior.
It is time to engage our rank-and-file employees in our Federal
Government, to make them a team and a partner with us as we work on
this issue of getting our budget right-sized.
With that, Mr. Chairman, 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. While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to
protect taxpayer dollars, this is not an approach I can support.
While the President may have proposed a budget that exceeds this
bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that
would never be enacted. This bill makes tough choices within an
allocation that adheres to current law.
[[Page H4814]]
While difficult trade-offs had to be made, the bill in its current
form balances our needs. These trade-offs were carefully weighed for
their respective impacts and are responsible.
We prioritize funding for fire suppression, PILT, and meeting our
moral obligations in Indian Country, yet the gentlewoman's amendment
proposes an across-the-board cut on every one of those programs.
This amendment makes no distinction between where we need to be
spending to invest in energy independence and where we need to limit
spending to meet our deficit reduction goals.
And, I may point out, the spending problem is not within these
discretionary appropriation bills, which we are debating at the present
time. It exists primarily in entitlement spending.
So I hope we can spend as much energy on the entitlement side of the
budget as we are on the discretionary side of the budget. If so, we
would fix our budget problems.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chair, this amendment I strongly oppose. It institutes a 1
percent across-the-board cut.
A few interesting things about the Interior bill. This bill before us
today is $2 billion, $2 billion below 2010-enacted levels. And when you
adjust this bill for inflation, it is at 2005 levels.
This amendment indiscriminately cuts programs without any thought to
the merit of the program that is contained in this bill.
For instance, this would result in fewer patients being able to be
seen at the Indian Health Service; fewer safety inspectors ensuring
accidents do not occur; deferred maintenance on our Nation's drinking
water and sanitation infrastructure, which is already underfunded in
this bill.
More generally, investments in our environmental infrastructure and
public lands will just be halted, and associated jobs would be lost
with it.
As I said earlier, this bill is already underfunded, underfunded.
When adjusted for inflation, it is at 2005 levels. This amendment would
not encourage agencies to do more with less. It would simply force
agencies and our constituents to do less with less.
So I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments.
Underfunded? No. We are overspent in this town. We have $18 trillion
worth of debt, and it is time to get a handle on that.
Moral obligations? How about the moral obligation to our children and
grandchildren?
Admiral Mullen has said the greatest threat to our Nation's security
is our Nation's debt.
Let's put the focus on our priorities: keeping our sovereignty and
keeping our Nation safe and secure.
This is something we do for our children. It is something we can do
for our national security. A penny on a dollar to get this spending
under control.
Our approach? Guess what. State and local government use this all the
time. They can't go print money and run up debt.
When I was in the State Senate in Tennessee, what did we do? We
didn't go home until we balanced the budget because we had an
obligation to get it done right the first time, before we walked out
the door.
And I do hope that we will put attention on our entitlements. But
that is no excuse for not addressing what is in front of us today. To
not address what is in front of us today is to kick the can down the
road.
I have a lot of constituents who aren't making and taking home as
much as they were in 2005. They think we should reduce Federal spending
even more, reduce the Federal workforce even more, because government
is getting too expensive to afford.
Let's engage Federal employees in this process. It has worked for the
States. It will work for the Federal Government. Let's get our fiscal
house in order. A good place to start is right here with this amendment
that would save another $193 million in outlays and $292 million in
discretionary budget authority.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the last point. I appreciate the
gentlewoman's concern about the deficit that we have.
When I came here 24 years ago, 40 percent of our expenditures were on
the entitlement side of the budget. Today it is over 60 percent, over
60 percent. So we need to attack that side of the budget line.
If we placed as much energy on entitlement spending as we have on
discretionary, not only would the budget be balanced, but we would be
moving toward paying off our national debt.
With that, I reluctantly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 Tennessee
will be postponed.
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.
Heck of Nevada) having assumed the chair, Mr. Carter 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. 2822) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior,
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2016, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________