Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 105 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4935-H4943]
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 include extraneous material on H.R. 2822.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly take the
chair.

{time} 1855

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 Mr. Hultgren (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Hardy) had been
disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 132, line 24.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

Mr. ELLISON. 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 in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any person whose
disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in
section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States Code, in the
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act'' and such
disposition is listed as ``willful'' or ``repeated''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, before I discuss my amendment, which is to
prevent wage theft from violators who commit acts that are repeated and
willful and to stop such actors from partaking of Federal procurement
in this bill, I would like to set the table just a little bit.
In 1980, Mr. Chair, CEO-to-worker pay ratio for Fortune 500 companies
was 20 to 1. Today it is 204 to 1, according to Bloomberg. At the same
time, the buying power of the minimum wage is now less than it was in
the 1960s.
The Economic Policy Institute found that, in total, the average low-
wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages,
representing about 15 percent of their earned income. It is
particularly egregious in the fast-food sector. A recent study by Hart
Research of fast-food workers found that about 89 percent reported some
form of wage theft.
Lastly, in this case, I would like to point out, Mr. Chair, that the
recent report by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the U.S. Senate revealed that 32 percent of the largest
Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against
Federal contractors.
As I bring this amendment before the body today, Mr. Chairman, it is
simply to recognize that the hard work and the work that workers do who
work for Federal contractors must be recognized. We are not debating
today over increasing or decreasing the minimum wage. We are just
saying the people who work hard ought to get the money that they
earned.
I would hope that everyone in this body would be willing to say wage
theft is not okay. No hard-working American should ever have to worry
that her employer will refuse to pay her when she works overtime or
take money out of her paycheck, especially if she works for a Federal
contractor.

[[Page H4936]]

This practice, as I mentioned already, is called wage theft. Right
now, Federal contractors who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act are
still allowed to apply for Federal contracts.

{time} 1900

This amendment seeks to ensure that funds may not be used to enter
into a contract with a government contractor that willfully or
repeatedly violates the Fair Labor Standards Act--willfully or
repeatedly.
It is important, Mr. Chairman, to point out that it is not easy to
get a violation. You have got to work at it.
There is a database called the FAPISS database, to begin with, in
which contractors have to report all their violations. Just because a
wage and hour complaint comes to your door, it doesn't necessarily mean
you get a violation. In order to get a violation in the database, you
have to have a criminal conviction, a civil proceeding with a finding
of fault, or an administrative proceeding with a finding of fault or a
penalty of $5,000 or more or damages of $100,000 or more. You have got
to really work at it. In other words, if you are found to owe back
wages and you agree to pay them, there is not going to be a case for
you to have to report.
This amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get
taxpayer support. And we should reward good actors.
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. The amendment doesn't recognize the suspension and
debarment process that is already in place for Federal contractors. It
does not provide exceptions for critical, urgent, or compelling needs
or allow for the consideration of mitigating factors.
I am concerned that this amendment would impose strict legal triggers
and take away the ability for Federal agencies to investigate and
determine appropriate remedies. I am also concerned that it would deny
the due process that the current suspension and debarment system
provides. And finally, this is an issue that should be thoroughly
vetted through the authorization process, not through the appropriation
process.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment from the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Every worker is entitled to receive pay for the hours they work;
however, there are employers that refuse to pay for overtime, make
their employees work off the clock, or refuse to pay minimum wage. At
the very least, we should take steps to ensure that these employers
don't receive new Federal contracts.
This amendment would ensure that lawbreaking contractors don't get
rewarded for stealing from their employees.
I support this amendment, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. CALVERT. I would just, again, oppose this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Members, this has nothing to do with debarment.
Debarment is a quasi-judicial process in which evidence is gathered and
findings are made. This is saying that, after somebody has been found
to engage in repeated and willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, such persons are not the kind of people we want to
reward through our procurement system. This is totally different from
debarment.
What it is really saying is it reflects our values as a body and
reflects our value of the dignity of work and that a dollar earned is a
dollar that must be paid. And we should never be the kind of body that
says: ``Commit willful violations all you want; take workers' money
away; you can still get another contract if you please.'' That is not
the kind of body that we are, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Buck

Mr. BUCK. 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:

study

Sec. __. Of the amounts made available by this Act to pay
retention bonuses to Senior Executive Service personnel at
the Environmental Protection Agency, not more than $50,000
shall be made available to be used by the Department of the
Interior to conduct a study on whether Agricola Americus
should be classified as an endangered species.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
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. BUCK. Mr. Chair, my amendment appropriates up to $50,000 from the
retention bonuses of Senior Executive Service personnel at the EPA to
conduct a study of whether Agricola Americus, the American farmer,
should be classified as an endangered species.
This money should be used to determine whether there is crucial
habitat that is essential for the conservation of the species and
acting in accordance with 16 U.S.C. chapter 35 if such a finding is
made.
The Federal Government is no stranger to using its regulatory powers
to interfere in important national issues, so it came as a surprise
when I discovered that the Federal Government had overlooked the most
endangered species in America.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been so thorough in designating
animals as endangered all around farms, but for some reason hasn't seen
the plight of the American farmer.
Paul Harvey recognized, in 1978, that God made Agricola Americus with
a unique set of characteristics essential to our Nation, so I am
troubled that the number of farmers in America has steadily declined
over the last six decades.
Not only has the number of American farmers shrunk, but so has the
number of farms. Those lost have mainly been family farms, passed down
through generations of hard work and built up with years of sweat
equity. They have faced numerous manmade obstacles that interfere with
their environment and encroach on their natural territory. They have
been subject to the ravages of wolves released by the very agency that
should be tasked with protecting this essential American species.
Yet the Department of the Interior does not have a monopoly on
society's invasion of the American farmer and the habitat. Family farms
have been destroyed by the death tax, regulated out of business by FDA
and EPA mandates, and forced to dump crops by outdated government
programs that even now are being struck down by the Supreme Court.
How much more of this regulatory onslaught can the Agricola Americus
take before we recognize the harm of our actions and work to make sure
that we are not complicit in its disappearance? We cannot leave the
farmer alone in the eye of this regulatory storm.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule
XXI states in pertinent part:
``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an
expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

[[Page H4937]]

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds. The
amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Colorado?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Buck

Mr. BUCK. 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 in this Act may
be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel or any
other entity to negotiate or conclude a settlement with the
Federal Government that includes terms requiring the
defendant to donate or contribute funds to an organization or
individual.

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. BUCK. Mr. Chair, my amendment bars the EPA and the Department of
the Interior and any of its agencies from requiring mandatory donations
to third-party groups as part of any settlement agreements the agencies
enter into.
In agencies across the government, settlement funds are being
funneled to third-party groups, contravening congressional budget
authority. A recent investigation by the House Judiciary and Financial
Services Committees found as much as half a billion dollars had been
diverted by the Department of Justice to third parties as a result of
these settlements in the past year. This is inexcusable, and it is not
unique to the Department of Justice.
The Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service routinely sue and then enter
into settlements with businesses and individuals who are then forced to
make donations to third-party groups.
This is all made possible because community service is expressly
allowed as a condition of probation by the United States Criminal Code.
In addition, the United States sentencing guidelines allow community
service where it is reasonably designed to repair the harm caused by
the offense. This results in settlement funds being directed to
supposed ``community service'' groups. This is a practice that must be
brought to an end.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the
propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is
sinful and tyrannical.

In this case, businesses and individuals are being sued by the
government for violating environmental regulations, and then as part of
the settlement, they have to make payments to the environmental
organizations that engage in advocacy supporting the regulations. This
power grab is abhorrent.
Please support my amendment and stop these agencies from funneling
court settlement funds to radical environmentalists.
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. The fact is that this is a very broadly written
amendment that would prevent the Federal Government from requiring
polluters to pay for cleanup costs. Specifically, I would point out
that the EPA is involved in numerous consent decree negotiations that
result in payments to the Federal Government by responsible parties.
The ability of the Federal Government to recoup these funds from
polluters is an essential part of maintaining good environmental policy
and protecting public health and protecting taxpayers, not polluters.
For example, some Superfund sites that the EPA may spend Superfund
trust moneys up front to initiate the cleanup of a potential
responsible party are not yet identified or the cleanup order or
settlement agreement with the identified parties is not yet finalized.
In the event that the EPA does expend Superfund moneys at a site with
veritable parties, reimbursements may be included in the terms of any
settlement agreement that may be entered into with the parties.
However, this amendment would prevent the EPA from receiving such
reimbursements from the responsible parties in such an instance.
There are also times when defendants in settlement negotiations seek
payments to third parties rather than the Federal Government. One such
example is the settlement negotiations that followed the catastrophe at
the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
As part of the criminal settlements that BP and Transocean reached
with the Federal Government, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
a congressionally chartered nonprofit, received the funds to undertake
the projects to help remedy the harm that occurred in the Gulf of
Mexico--something I would agree all needed to happen--yet under this
amendment, those payments would have been prohibited. It would be
completely irresponsible.
This amendment is bad for the taxpayer, bad for public policy, and
very bad for the environment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, once again, voting for this amendment and
having it move forward would be completely irresponsible. This
amendment is bad public policy, bad for environment, and it is bad for
the taxpayer. I urge defeat of 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 Colorado (Mr. Buck).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Buck

Mr. BUCK. 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 pay a Federal employee for any period of time
during which such employee is using official time under
section 7131 of title 5, United States Code.

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. BUCK. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit paying any Federal
employee for the time spent not working for the taxpayers but working
for a third party, a labor union. This practice is known as ``official
time.''

{time} 1915

Unlike any other type of third-party organization, labor unions have
been granted the privilege of being able to have taxpayer-funded
employees do their business on duty time, instead of doing the
taxpayers' work.
Like any other type of private entity, labor unions should pay for
their own employees to work for them. The taxpayers should not be
picking up the tab for this practice.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, this practice
costs taxpayers approximately $156 million per year. That is assuming
that the agencies are correctly reporting the amounts spent, and there
have been indications that this number actually underreports the total
cost.
In some instances, we are not talking about just a few minutes here
and there for an agency employee who is a union official to confer with
management about a workplace issue. Sometimes, the agency employee is
actually working full time for the labor union, all the while being
paid by the taxpayers for this union work.
For instance, the IRS has more than 200 employees working full time
for labor unions; the VA has over 250 employees working full time for
labor unions--this at a time when there is a significant backlog of
cases to be processed.
One of these employees doesn't even work in a VA facility but,
instead, works remotely from a private office in D.C.

[[Page H4938]]

The EPA, while not having as many personnel on full-time official
time as some agencies, still pays over $1.6 million just for those
personnel who are working full time for their union.
Some agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, have
numerous employees making over $170,000 per year, while working full
time for the union. This is more than almost all Federal employees
make, higher than the salaries of many Senate-confirmed Assistant
Secretaries.
My amendment would not prohibit this practice, but would make certain
that the right party pays for this work, the labor union. It is not
right to force our taxpayers to pay the bill to subsidize these private
organizations any more than it would be right to force them to
subsidize other private organizations such as the National Rifle
Association or the Sierra Club.
Like any business, labor unions should pay the cost for their own
employees, not taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly would serve no
purpose but to erode collective bargaining rights for civil service
employees and may violate collective bargaining agreements negotiated
between workers and these agencies.
Federal unions are legally required to provide representation to all
members of bargaining units, whether or not those workers elect to pay
voluntary union dues. Representation for employees working their way
through the administrative procedures is a cost-effective process for
administrating and adjudicating agency policies.
The alternative for official time is for the government agencies to
pay for costly third-party attorney and arbitration fees. Eliminating
official time would increase costs, and it would increase more time and
effort for agencies to work out any conflicts with employees. That
drives up the cost for taxpayers.
Official time is essential to maintaining workplace safety. Union
representation uses official time to set procedures to protect
employees from on-the-job hazards. Official time is used to allow
employees to participate in work groups with management teams to
improve the process and improve performance outcomes.
Under current law, official time may not be used to solicit
membership, may not be used to conduct internal union meetings, may not
be used to elect union officers, may not be used to engage in any
partisan activities, and the notion that official time is used for any
of these purposes is false.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, once again, this amendment would serve no
purpose but to erode the collective bargaining rights of civil service
Federal employees, hard-working Americans.
For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from American
Samoa (Mrs. Radewagen) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Mr. Chair, I would like to commend Chairman Calvert,
Ranking Member McCollum, and the Appropriations Committee staff for
their efforts in bringing this important bill to the floor.
I would also like to congratulate Chairman Calvert on his leadership
in overseeing this measure and his continued success as chairman of the
subcommittee.
I want to take this opportunity to highlight just a small portion of
the needs and shortfalls that the territories are facing. In
particular, I want to bring to your attention some of the funding
issues facing American Samoa.
Each year, the Office of Insular Affairs provides grant funds to
American Samoa for the operation of local government, including the
judiciary, Department of Education, and the local hospital. The purpose
of this program is to fund the difference between budget needs and
local revenues.
Mr. Chairman, the world has changed much since the inception of this
program to assist American Samoa government operations, and additional
needs have arisen.
Local revenues have remained relatively constant; the infrastructure
has become dated and in disrepair, and outside influences, particularly
China, have begun to make inroads into the region with the development
of a port in the neighboring independent Samoa and future plans for a
naval base in the same area.
We have also seen a dramatic spike in world conflict since the
inception of the program. This increased military activity by both
friendly and hostile nations has simultaneously created the need for
increased border security, an element severely lacking in American
Samoa and one not funded under the current parameters of the program.
American Samoa is also facing severe infrastructure deficiency, which
has caused undue hardship to both our people and businesses that rely
upon our roads, airport, and port.
In fact, the recent decision by the NOAA National Weather Service to
terminate weather observation service in American Samoa, which our
local airport relies upon for flight operations, has prompted the need
for the construction of a tower at Pago Pago International Airport.
This facility would serve as a standard control tower and would also
contain the weather monitoring service after NOAA ceases operations in
American Samoa.
Mr. Chairman, my home district was devastated by a tsunami on
September 29, 2009, that killed many of our people. I was there at the
time. If it hadn't been for the fact that I had a scheduled meeting at
that very time and was already awake, I could have been killed by the
wave. We lost our tuna cannery the day after the tsunami, which was
half of our private sector employment.
We also are suffering from the prolonged recession here in the States
and suffered another setback with the recent longshoremen's strike that
exposed just how dependent we are on outside resources.
Chairman Calvert, I encourage the committee that, when considering
funding levels for the territories, to keep in mind our economic and
geographic isolation and the extreme disparity in opportunities for
growth between these regions and the States.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the committee to
increase funding for the territories which will help alleviate the many
issues we are facing.
Mr. CALVERT. As someone who has always had the utmost respect for our
fellow countrymen from the territories, I look forward to working with
the gentlewoman from American Samoa, and I want to thank her for her
efforts to inform the committee on the issues of the insular areas.
I am well aware of just how dedicated to our country the people of
American Samoa are, as displayed by their extremely high rate of
enlistment in our Nation's Armed Forces.
Your membership in this body is highly valued, and the appointment as
vice chairman of the Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs
Subcommittee as a first-term member is a testament to the perspective
and leadership you bring to Congress.
Through your leadership, your people are well respected and have
found themselves a champion for their cause.
Mrs. RADEWAGEN. At a time when we are faced with the need to reduce
funding in many areas of government, I thank the committee for
preserving the budgetary assistance to American Samoa.
I want to thank the chairman for his kind words and continued
leadership,

[[Page H4939]]

and I look forward to working with him to ensure that the territories
are given the same opportunity as the States.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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 regulate the location of the placement of a
monitor of pollutants under the clean air act in any county
provided such county has at least one monitor.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, right now, the Environmental Protection
Agency makes the determination whether a county is what they call a
nonattainment zone based on readings, the amount of ozone that various
monitors come up with. If you are a nonattainment zone, it results in
problems for both individuals and business.
Individuals in counties in my area have two problems. First of all,
if you are nonattainment, you might have to have gasoline that is
probably a little bit inferior in quality, as well as more expensive.
I always think the price of gasoline is an important thing because it
doesn't matter; either wealthy or poor, it is something you have to be
able to afford. If you are knocking up your price of gasoline by 5 or
10 cents a year, that can be a very damaging thing for someone who
doesn't have that great a salary.
Secondly, if you are a nonattainment zone, every car has to be
checked for emissions. Maybe there are some wealthy environmentalists
that it is no big deal--if their car fails the emissions test, they can
afford to spend another $900 on a catalytic converter or something
wildly more expensive. For somebody not well off, it maybe puts you in
a position which you have to buy a whole new car.
It is another problem for businesses. Manufacturing is very important
to this country. If you crack down on a business and say that you have
to do different things to affect the amount of ozone that may be
emitted from your factory, it can be very cost prohibitive and put
American business at a competitive disadvantage.
These determinations are made by air monitors. In every county, the
amount of ozone that is detected by these monitors may vary greatly
from one part of the county to another part of the county.
It is our opinion that sometimes in the past, in my district, if you
put an air monitor right on Lake Michigan, due to the effect the sun
has on the water, you might get disproportionately high readings and
wind up having to put your individuals and businesses in a situation
which they are in nonattainment.
This is particularly onerous because, sometimes, whether or not you
have a high ozone rating or not has nothing whatsoever to do with
anything that is going on within your county.
My district, for example, is maybe 70 miles from Chicago, where most
of the pollutants come from; so here you are, stuck trying to make your
air cleaner and cleaner, and there is very little you can do to affect
it anyway.
In any event, it seems fair that you should be able to put an air
monitor anywhere within that county. You shouldn't have a situation in
which, in the past, an air monitor was placed at an area where you got
a disproportionately high reading.
The purpose of this amendment is to say that the Environmental
Protection Agency, that I am sure has a budget tight as a drum, should
not have to waste any time worrying about where that air monitor is and
where we are determining whether or not we have an ozone problem in a
county.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1930

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin would prohibit funds for regulating the location of air
monitors in counties.
The Clean Air Act requires every State to establish a network of air
monitoring stations for criteria pollutants, using criteria set by the
EPA for their location and operation.
EPA's ambient air monitoring network assessment guidance provides
States and counties with information about the assessment of technical
aspects of ambient air monitoring networks. The guidance is designed to
be flexible and expandable. It does not dictate specific locations for
placement for air monitors.
The amendment would block EPA oversight of air quality monitoring,
making possible a scenario in which counties could game the system by
locating monitors in places that show the lowest amount of pollution
rather than where they get the best representative data.
Let us look no further than today's paper to understand why we need
to ensure the proper collection of air quality data.
A headline in the Wisconsin Ag Connection reads: Canadian Wildfires
Prompt State to Issue Air Quality Notice.
The article reports that the Department of Natural Resources has
issued an air quality notice for all 72 Wisconsin counties this week.
State air quality monitors are recording elevated concentrations of
fine particles at several locations around the State, particularly
across northern and western Wisconsin.
And some sites are recording values in the ``unhealthy for
sensitive'' category, which includes children, elderly people,
individuals with respiratory and cardiac problems, and people engaged
in strenuous activities for prolonged periods of time.
This amendment would stop a transparent, science-based process to
locate monitors where they will provide the most useful information
about air quality.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is appropriate to dictate a nationwide
moratorium on air quality monitoring in response to what appears to be
a local issue perhaps in the gentleman's State of Wisconsin.
This amendment is harmful to local governments that depend on EPA's
technical expertise when determining the best location for an air
monitor placement. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, first of all, the gentlewoman from Maine
makes a point not about this amendment specifically, but about the
overall program.
And that is you have a situation right now in which, apparently, the
Department of Natural Resources is making a determination that we have
unsafe air based upon fires that are hundreds of miles away that the
local people can't do anything about.
Secondly, the gentlewoman says it is tying the hands of local units
of government. That is not true. Under this amendment, the local units
of government have more flexibility.
The question is can the Federal Government tie the hands of local
units of government, which they shouldn't be able to do.
So it is a good amendment. I think it is something that is going to,
in the long term, benefit American business and, even more, benefit
American individuals, particularly poor people, who don't have a lot of
extra money, are stuck spending a lot more money on their cars because
of determinations made by Federal bureaucrats in far-away cities who
probably have enough money to be able to afford to deal with these
problems anyway.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I will just reiterate the points I made
before and urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H4940]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

Mr. SANFORD. 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 for oil and gas lease sale 260 in leasing
program

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for oil and gas lease sale 260 included in the Draft
Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing
Program for 2017-2022 (DPP), or in any subsequent proposed or
final iteration of such Program.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from South Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I rise in utter respect for my colleague from
California and his colleagues and the Interior bill that they created
and all the good that it does.
This is, in essence, just a very small refining amendment that, as
was described in the reading, would simply prohibit the Department of
the Interior from moving forward on sales within block 260. I think
that this is important for a number of different reasons that I will
enumerate.
But I want to be clear. This is not an amendment about a belief in
there being dangers with regard to technology that is used and employed
offshore. I have been quite impressed in all the studies I have done in
the technological advancements that have taken place.
Nor is it an amendment about the belief that we shouldn't be using
fossil fuels. I think that fossil fuels are very important in the mix
with regard to energy independence in this country.
What this amendment is simply about is the age-old notion that
Washington doesn't always know best, that the Founding Fathers were
really deliberate in their belief in this notion of Federalism; that
they divided power not only laterally, but vertically; that there was a
Federal Government, but there was also a State and a local government;
and those municipalities or those States should have a voice, too.
It is about recognizing that there is a difference between comment
and control. And what municipalities, what people back home in South
Carolina along the coast, are saying is: We want to have more than just
a comment. We want to have control over our destiny in the way that the
coast develops.
For that reason, nine communities in my district alone as well as 65
communities up and down the eastern seaboard have added comments,
saying: We want to push the pause button here.
And, indeed, that is all this amendment does. It says: Let's pause so
that we can do a cost-benefit analysis going forward. I think that this
is important, given the large context.
You know, we are talking about 4 percent of the oil reserves within
the Continental U.S. We are talking about a 5-month supply. These
communities are saying a 5-month supply versus a lifetime impact in a
place like Saint Helena Sound.
If you look at the ACE Basin, it has been nationally recognized as a
treasure. It is about 250,000 acres on the coast of South Carolina. The
Federal Government put a lot of money into preserving it, as did State
and private interests.
And what people are saying is: Given the amount of industrialization
that has to take place to support the offshore rigs, do you bring those
pipes and that supply in through a place like Saint Helena Sound?
Again, what people have said along the coast of South Carolina is:
Let's pause and reflect on that. And that is what this amendment does.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I must rise in reluctant opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the mirror opposite, as
the gentleman knows, of the Hudson amendment that is currently pending
via a rollcall vote.
The Hudson amendment would allow lease 260 to move forward under the
Department of the Interior's next 5-year offshore leasing plan for 2017
through 2022.
The Sanford amendment would prevent lease 260 from moving forward
under the next 5-year plan. And given the competing amendments, I must
oppose this amendment, since we accepted the other amendment last
night.
So I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, again, I respect the Solomon's wisdom that
would be required by the chairman and others on the committee in
dividing the different interests, and that is why I think the Founding
Fathers had it right.
They said that, ultimately, nobody in Washington can have Solomon's
wisdom when you talk about local perspective and local interests, that
there was a real value to local voice, those nine communities.
If you think about Saint Helena Sound as the example that I just
cited, the little town south of there, Beaufort, drew up a resolution,
and the county and the city council moved forward, saying: We don't
want to move forward with this.
The little town to the east, Edisto Beach, moved forward with the
resolution citing the same. The larger town to the north, Charleston,
did the same.
Those local inputs, those local people, have said: We have seen what
might or might not come here. We think it is worthy of a pause. Again,
that is all this amendment does.
It doesn't say: We will forever not have offshore drilling in sale
260.
What it says is: For the next 5 years, why don't we allow for more
public input and more voice, given the fact that there are lifetime
impacts and really long-lasting impacts in certain pristine and/or
developed areas along the coast of South Carolina or other coastal
areas along the block of 260.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I will just restate my opposition to this
amendment. And I would hope that the gentleman could work with his
colleagues in South Carolina and work all this out. But I must oppose
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.
I was here last night and had a chance to speak against the Hudson
amendment for the very reasons that he is articulating.
Coming from Maine and being from a State where people take very
seriously our waterfronts, our fisheries, our livelihood that we make
on the water, there are deep concerns about the challenges that might
come up with oil and gas leases.
And I think everyone in many coastal States wants to just make sure
we go through the most thorough process possible. So I heartily support
the concerns that he is raising, and I support this amendment.
Mr. SANFORD. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANFORD. 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 South
Carolina will be postponed.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, there are many of us here in Congress who
want to build a better America, a stronger America, a healthier
America. And there are many of us here who are willing to work and
fight to move our country in that direction forward,

[[Page H4941]]

which is the direction the American people want to go.
For most Americans, for families and communities all across this
country, protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink is an
essential role of government. The American people expect Congress to
protect the public's health from polluters who are all too willing to
reap larger and larger profits as they pump poison into our air and
water.
We hear all too often the cries of ``burdensome regulation'' from
those who defend the polluters. But rarely do we hear the cries of
``burdensome asthma'' or ``burdensome cancer'' from average Americans
who all too often suffer in silence when they are sick because the air,
water, or land they need has been poisoned.
My Republican colleagues are very content to cut funding and place
riders on the enforcement of environmental standards to make life
easier for the polluters.
But what about the families and the communities put at risk? What
about the children who are at risk because avoiding environmental
regulations to pump up profits is more important than public health?
The role of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the
public, to protect our health, to protect our water, to protect our
air, to protect our land from polluters who are all too willing to cut
corners, enabling them to reap larger profits.
Investing in environmental regulation to protect the American people
is a government function that is not burdensome. It is essential.

{time} 1945

We should all want to protect the public's health and the vital role
that the Environmental Protection Agency plays on behalf of the
American people, but this bill fails to protect the American people. It
fails to protect the public's health, and it fails to provide the tools
necessary to hold polluters accountable for poisoning our air, our
water, and our land. If this bill ever finds its way to the President's
desk, President Obama will veto it.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill, and the investments we make
together in this Interior-Environmental Appropriations bill speak to
our values as a nation. We are the stewards of a bounty of resources,
the inheritors of a nation of natural treasures; and there are 300
million Americans who depend on this Congress to ensure those
resources, including our clean air and clean water, are protected.
Sadly, Mr. Chairman, very sadly, this bill lets them down. So I will
urge my colleagues at the end of the day to vote against final passage,
and I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Palmer

Mr. PALMER. 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. __. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds
made available by this Act may be used for grants under title
VII, subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The aggregate amount
otherwise provided by this Act for ``Environmental Protection
Agency-State and Tribal Assistance Grants'', and the amount
provided under such heading for grants under title VII,
subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, are each hereby
reduced by $50,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 333, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment limits the funding of the EPA's Diesel
Emissions Reduction Program. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Program is
part of the National Clean Diesel Campaign. This grant program was
created in 2005 as a short-term effort to assist States and local
government to meet new diesel emissions standards for older diesel
engines.
According to the Obama administration, the overall impact of the
program has been marginal. Currently, there are 14 grant and loan
programs at the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plus three tax activities
that have as a goal reducing mobile source diesel emissions. In
addition, each of the 14 programs, according to the GAO, overlaps with
at least one other program in the specific activities they fund, the
program goals, or the eligible recipients of funding.
GAO also identified several instances of duplication where more than
one program provided grant funding to the same recipient for the same
type of activities. One example identified by GAO showed a nonprofit
organization received $1.1 million from EPA's Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act program to install emission reduction and idle reduction
technologies on 1,700 trucks, as well as $5.6 million from a State
infrastructure bank established under DOT's program to equip trucks and
truck fleets with emissions control and idle reduction devices--
essentially the same thing.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has become so large, it is
impossible to grasp its true size and scope to pay for its cost. With
the country facing unprecedented levels of debt, taxpayers expect the
Federal Government to run more efficiently, guarding against careless
waste of precious resources. It is essential that Congress, the
administration, and Federal agencies do everything in their power to
cut spending, reduce duplication, and rein in waste, fraud, and abuse.
My amendment does just that, and it would have an annual savings of $50
million.
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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I know a lot about the DERA program, obviously, from
southern California, probably the most controlled air quality area in
the United States, and there are a lot of things in EPA that don't
work. There are a lot of things that EPA does to regulate, to create
paperwork, and to create headaches for small- and large-business
people. We have included a great number of policy provisions to address
this EPA regulatory overreach in this bill. We have cut the EPA budget
dramatically, as the gentlewoman just referred to. However, I believe
this specific amendment targets a program that actually yields great
benefits.
Many counties across the Nation are currently in nonattainment with
EPA's existing standards for the particulate matter and ozone. We are
not talking about the standards that are being talked about. We are
talking about the standards that were put in place in 2008.
In many instances, these counties have been in nonattainment for
years, and those communities need help to improve their air quality.
The Diesel Emission Reduction Program, or DERA, is a proven, cost-
effective program that provides grants to States to retrofit old diesel
engines. So it is a program that supports manufacturing jobs while
reducing pollution.
Another benefit is that these grants are highly leveraged, producing
$13 of economic benefit for every Federal grant dollar. Today's newer
engines produce 90 percent--let me say that again--90 percent less
toxic emissions than the older diesel engines. Remember, I have
experience with trucks, and these independent truck drivers, those who
have those trucks, get a lot of miles out of those trucks, sometimes
well over a million miles off a truck. However, only 30 percent of the
trucks and heavy-duty vehicles have transitioned to cleaner
technologies, typically because especially these small truck companies
just can't afford to get this new technology. We need to follow the
science and accelerate the replacement of older engines with these new,
clean engines, which, by the way, get better mileage and, at the same
time, clean up the air considerably.
This is a program that is actually working. We have seen
significant--I know the Obama administration doesn't like this program.
They don't like programs that actually work. They want to get rid of
the programs that work and have money be put into these esoteric
climate change studies and so forth and so on, and I can tell

[[Page H4942]]

the gentleman, from experience, that this had significant impacts in
the South Coast Air Quality District where I live in, an area that has
probably been impacted with all the problems of air quality more than
any other region in the United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on the
gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from
California for his remarks, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, since 1984, the EPA has lowered the amount of
pollutants from diesel engines by more than 98 percent. Since 1980,
despite the fact that the gross domestic product has grown by over 460
percent, vehicle miles have increased by 94 percent, the population has
grown 38 percent, energy production 32 percent, emissions have gone
down 50 percent. In regard to the impact of these programs, you have 14
programs that the GAO has identified as overlapping. It will do little
harm to the overall effort for air quality to eliminate one program
that is clearly a duplication in several instances identified by the
GAO.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, in regard to air quality, while air
quality has improved dramatically--emissions are down 50 percent since
1980--respiratory illnesses such as asthma have gone up, and that is
largely a byproduct of income. So I would commend to you that we need
to reduce the number of regulations, the cost of regulations, to allow
more economic activity and provide better job opportunities for people,
which will have a direct impact on their overall welfare, including
their health.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a program that has worked,
continues to work, and has had significant improvement in my area in
California and, I know, throughout the United States, where we have a
program that actually does work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my ranking member, who has a couple of
comments.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from
California's opposition to this amendment.

It has been used in my State and States all over to improve air
quality, and, yes, pollutants have been cut. But as I just pointed out,
Mr. Chairman, we still have a long way to go before we can turn to our
children and say that we did everything we could to make sure that
respiratory illness is decreased and that the air quality in this
country is better.
So I strongly oppose this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from
California for his opposition to it as well.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have one point because asthma has been brought up.
When I was chairman of the Environment Committee a number of years
ago, we had done significant studies on the increase in asthma. The
gentleman is correct on income levels.
The lower income folks are suffering from asthma at greater numbers
primarily because of indoor pollution. One of the reasons, if we can
get into the specifics of why that has occurred, is because we have
carpets now and drapes and we don't use linoleum and so forth that we
used to have, and so we have the growth of indoor air pollution, and
kids don't get outside as much as they used to.
So I think we sometimes blame other factors for asthma, and sometimes
the other factors are more to blame. But this program, DERA, is a
program that works, continues to work; and I know it has in my area,
and I know it has in other areas throughout the United States.
So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to again point out that it was a
study from the University of California, Los Angeles that pointed out
that children from low-income households suffer disproportionately from
asthma, and as we continue to overregulate our economy and reduce the
economic opportunities for people, we are going to continue to see
these high rates of respiratory illnesses.
My final point is that we are not eliminating this clean diesel
program. We are eliminating one program out of 14.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 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 Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Palmer

Mr. PALMER. 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 by the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out
the powers granted under section 3063 of title 18, United
States Code.

{time} 2000

At the same time, as it has been discussed, I think the EPA has gone
way too far. We get to the point where we start regulating smaller and
smaller

[[Page H4943]]

numbers and making it very difficult; for instance, when we start
talking about 70 parts per billion versus 60 parts per billion, we have
gone a long ways.
However, we do know that no matter where the line is ultimately
drawn, there are individuals out there that are willingly and knowingly
trying to find ways around the law. As such, EPA needs to have the
ability to look into criminal activity, whether it is illegal dumping
of waste, which unfortunately happens; negligent dumping of toxics or
oil, which unfortunately happens; and the illegal transportation or
importation of products from other countries by those who would choose
to ignore U.S. law.
We can debate the laws and what is appropriate, but we can't give
criminals a free pass to ignore the law or the laws that are on the
books.
Again, I'm sorry. I must oppose the amendment and strongly urge my
colleagues to do the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my colleague from
California, no one is in favor of allowing criminals to commit crimes
at any level of the Federal Government or any part of the country.
I do think it should be troubling to every Member of this body that
we have gone over the line in regard to becoming what could be viewed
as a police state.
In regard to the raid on the Dothan wastewater treatment facility,
that is a city facility; that is the Federal Government sending armed
agents in full body armor with weapons to a municipal facility. I would
beg the question: What was the threat assessment?
This is going on in other parts of the country as well, and I think
we have a responsibility to draw a line where law enforcement is
involved. If there is a threat assessment that would indicate the need
to have armed officers assist the EPA in an investigation or a raid,
there is ample law enforcement available to do that.
In that regard, I think this is an area where the EPA has overreached
in respect to their responsibilities as regulators of the environment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I recognize
that we have had Federal agencies that have had overreach and have done
things that go beyond their training and possibly should be done by
other agencies. I won't disagree with that; but doing this in an
appropriation bill is not the right place to do this.
The authorizers should have this debate, and we shouldn't be making
these determinations with an appropriations bill which just broadly
states that we are going to get rid of a whole swath of law
enforcement, whether they are good or bad. It doesn't determine that
because we can't do that in this type of legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, if I may inquire how much time is remaining
so I don't consume all the gentleman's time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 45 seconds
remaining.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will just be short and sweet. I support
the gentleman from California's strong objection to this amendment and
would encourage people not to vote for it.
Let me conclude with this: an EPA law enforcement official deserves
the right to come home to their families safe at night, and so they
should have the tools that they need in order to do that.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from
Minnesota's response. I, too, agree that every Federal official
deserves to be able to go home safe and sound to their family.
That, though, does not address the specific issue here in regard to
what is going on with the EPA. If there is a need for armed
intervention with a business or, in this case, with a municipality,
there should be a clear threat assessment. There isn't any. There was
no reason for anyone to think that they needed to go in, in full body
armor, with weapons drawn.
I think that that is part of what is going on here that a lot of
American citizens are concerned about, is the overreach of the
government and particularly in regard to 70 Federal agencies having
armed agents in their employment.
I agree with the gentleman from California; this needs to be a
broader discussion. In that regard, I think we should have that.
In respect to my amendment, I think we need to divert this funding
away from this armed agency that the EPA is deploying, I think, without
proper course.
In that regard, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will
be postponed.
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.
Rodney Davis of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren,
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.

____________________