Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 112 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 112 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4790-H4812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

{time} 2321

In the Committee of the Whole

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

[[Page H4791]]

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

Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Brat

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

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

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

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Buck

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

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

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

[[Page H4792]]

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

{time} 2330

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

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

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

[[Page H4793]]

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

Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Byrne

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

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

{time} 2340

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

[[Page H4794]]

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

Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Byrne

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

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

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

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

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

{time} 2350

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

[[Page H4795]]

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

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Cramer

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

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

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

[[Page H4796]]

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

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Crawford

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

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

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

{time} 0000

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

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Crawford

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

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

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

[[Page H4797]]

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

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

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

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

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

{time} 0010

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

[[Page H4798]]

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

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

Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

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

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

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

[[Page H4799]]

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

{time} 0020

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

Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

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

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

[[Page H4800]]

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

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

{time} 0030

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

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

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

[[Page H4801]]

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

Amendment No. 63 Offered by Ms. Graham

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

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

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

{time} 0040

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

Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

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

[[Page H4802]]

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

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

[[Page H4803]]

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

{time} 0050

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

Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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

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

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

[[Page H4804]]

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

{time} 0100

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

Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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

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

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

[[Page H4805]]

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

{time} 0110

Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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

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

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

[[Page H4806]]

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

Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Loudermilk

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

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

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

{time} 0120

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

Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

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

[[Page H4807]]

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

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

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

{time} 0130

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

Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Westerman

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

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

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

[[Page H4808]]

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

Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida

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

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

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

[[Page H4809]]

{time} 0140

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

Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

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

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

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

[[Page H4810]]

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

{time} 0150

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

Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

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

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

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

[[Page H4811]]

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

{time} 0200

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

Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

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

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

[[Page H4812]]

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

____________________